Error
  • JUser::_load: Unable to load user with id: 67

Featured Articles

Apple announces its Apple Watch

Apple announces its Apple Watch

Apple has finally unveiled its eagerly awaited smartwatch and surprisingly it has dropped the "i" from the brand, calling it simply…

More...
Skylake 14nm announced

Skylake 14nm announced

Kirk B. Skaugen, Senior Vice President General Manager, PC Client Group has showcased Skylake, Intel’s second generation 14nm architecture.

More...
Apple officially announces 4.7-inch iPhone 6 and 5.5-inch iPhone 6 Plus

Apple officially announces 4.7-inch iPhone 6 and 5.5-inch iPhone 6 Plus

The day has finally come and it appears that most rumors were actually spot on as Apple has now officially unveiled…

More...
CEO: Intel on target for 40m tablets

CEO: Intel on target for 40m tablets

Intel CEO Brian Krzanich just kicked off the IDF 2014 keynote and it started with a phone avatar, some Katy Perry…

More...
Aerocool Dead Silence reviewed

Aerocool Dead Silence reviewed

Aerocool is well known for its gamer cases with aggressive styling. However, the Dead Silence chassis offers consumers a new choice,…

More...
Frontpage Slideshow | Copyright © 2006-2010 orks, a business unit of Nuevvo Webware Ltd.
Tuesday, 22 November 2011 12:26

Bulldozer server benchmarks fail to impress

Written by

amd logon

Intel has little to fear but itself

 A few weeks ago AMD introduced its latest FX-series desktop processors, based on the new Bulldozer architecture. The new series offered underwhelming performance and failed to impress AMD enthusiasts, although they tend to offer pretty good value for money.

Now it is time for Bulldozer server parts and sadly it turns out they are not much better than their desktop siblings. Punters had expected the server parts to be a tad more competitive, thanks to their emphasis on hyperthreading. However, this does not seem to be the case.

Ars Technica compiled test results from several sources and went out of their way to compare the cost of new Opteron-based server systems and Intel Xeon systems. Although Opterons did manage to offer superior performance against comparable Xeons in a TPC-C scenario, they end up costing about 50 percent more, yet deliver an 18 percent improvement in performance.

In SPEC JBB2005 Java emulation Opterons also fared well against Xeon parts, but they appear to offer little to no improvement over previous generation Opterons. In virtualization and HPC tests conducted by Anandtech, the Opteron 6276 failed to beat Intel’s Xeon X5670 and pretty much continued the underwhelming streak.

The biggest issue is the lack of a clear performance advantage over existing Opteron 6100 parts, so the new architecture doesn’t appear to offer much incentive to upgrade from the previous generation. Worse, the new Opterons struggle to compete with Intel Westmere EP parts, despite the fact that they have been on sale for a year and a half.


More here.

 

E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
blog comments powered by Disqus

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments