Originally posted by: lxie123
"Although the Athlon 64 3500+ and the Xeon 3.6GHz EM64T processors were not necessarily designed to compete against each other, we found that comparing the two CPUs was more appropriate than anticipated, particularly in the light of Intel's newest move to bring EM64T to the Pentium 4 line."
He's using the Xeon Nocona 3.6 because they don't have the P4 3.6 with EMT64 right now.
In this review, the author is trying to compare 64 bit desktop performance and subsituted a nocona for p4 3.6 with emt64 due to lack of availability. I don't think his intent was to do workstation/server review and then subsituted athlon 64 3500+ for the opteron 150/ 250 like everyone is accusing him of.
Originally posted by: fifi
I think some of the complaints about about the methodology used in the review. For example, he imported the results for A64 3500+ from a previous review, but in at least one place he used the 32-bit result instead of the 64-bit result (see MySQL-Test select). And he is not very clear on exactly which benchmarks are 32-bit apps and which are 64-bit apps. Also lack of direct comparison between 32-bit and 64-bit performance makes this review somewhat meaningless. Use of unfamiliar benchmarks without more explanation is also causing a bit of issue.
Originally posted by: fifi
And I guess the comment that really agitated some readers is "Without a doubt, the 3.6GHz Xeon trounces over the Athlon 64 in math-intensive benchmarks." Since he made this comment knowing that he only tested a mid-range A64 (with somewhat dubious methods) when there are several more A64s higher up (FX51, 3700+, 3800+, FX53).
Originally posted by: lxie123
Originally posted by: fifi
I think some of the complaints about about the methodology used in the review. For example, he imported the results for A64 3500+ from a previous review, but in at least one place he used the 32-bit result instead of the 64-bit result (see MySQL-Test select). And he is not very clear on exactly which benchmarks are 32-bit apps and which are 64-bit apps. Also lack of direct comparison between 32-bit and 64-bit performance makes this review somewhat meaningless. Use of unfamiliar benchmarks without more explanation is also causing a bit of issue.
well considering that the wrong numbers used meant that, instead of showing A64 trouncing Xeon 3.6, it shows Xeon 3.6 beating A64. The conclusions would have to be re-drawn.
As for comparing the two CPUs, well, neither P4F 3.6 nor Xeon 3.6 are out on the market so why bother doing such a rushed job? Is a job QUICKLY done better than a job WELL DONE?
I agree some people are jumping at shadows here, but surely they know what their readers reactions are going to be? so (let me jump at my own shadows) this AT's way to get more visits? because the article is already being mentioned on slashdot's front page, I am sure AT is going to get a lot more clicks than usual.
it just seems that there's not much point at all to this article, except as a flame bait, which it is indeed working extremely well. A couple misplaced numbers, a few not mentioned details, voila, instead flame war.
I would have preferred reading a more comprehensive test, even just against a 3500+, since the PR numbers really SHOULD mean SOMETHING. Heck, even testing against a 2 GHz K8 would have been okay, as long as it was done properly. But instead of getting an appetite for more, I just have this bad taste in my mouth.
Nah, they truly screwed this one up. I mean, AT articles used to be the ones you quote when you want to settle arguments. But now, you read an AT article, you have to think "did they f*ck up this one as well?"
All I can say is they should fix up the errors and address the inadequacies. And THAT should be done quickly.
The logic in this is still lost on me though Why pick the 3500+ for any reason??? It simply isn't the right CPU to match up even if attempting to look at AMD vs Intel in 64bit desktop performance. If attempting to compare what would be Intel's best 64bit desktop CPU against AMD, then use AMD's best Desktop 64bit CPU, and it most certainly is not the 3500+.He's using the Xeon Nocona 3.6 because they don't have the P4 3.6 with EMT64 right now.
In this review, the author is trying to compare 64 bit desktop performance and subsituted a nocona for p4 3.6 with emt64 due to lack of availability. I don't think his intent was to do workstation/server review and then subsituted athlon 64 3500+ for the opteron 150/ 250 like everyone is accusing him of.