Dual Core Linux Performance: Two Penguins are Better than One
by Kristopher Kubicki on July 1, 2005 5:55 AM EST- Posted in
- Linux
Final Thoughts
You'll notice we didn't spend a lot of time on discussing the outcome of some of our benchmarks in retrospect to their Windows counterparts. The Windows tests are not quite the same as our Linux ones in all cases, making it hard to draw accurate conclusions between operating systems. On the other hand, we have left a lot of not-so-subtle hints as to our feelings concerning performance between the two. Benchmarks like the DVD transcoding performed poorer on Linux but we noticed tighter disparity between the single core and dual core chips.
The distinctions between the AMD and Intel hardware in these benchmarks should be very apparent. At the time of this publication the prices of each processor (from RTPE) tested were as follows:
- Pentium D 840 - $558.00
- Pentium D 820 - $251.50
- Pentium 4 660 - $613.00
- Pentium 4 640 - $272.00
- Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Manchester - $540.00
- Athlon 64 3800+ Venice - $367.00
- Athlon 64 3500+ Venice - $267.00
Some benchmarks, like the Doom3 analysis, proved excessively in AMD's favor. This also happens to be true in single core and Windows benchmarks, so it's hard to really call this a design win for AMD on just Linux. There were other instances where AMD had a running start and never looked back, like the last Neverwinter Nights benchmark on the previous page. Intel came out ahead in all three of our first benchmarks; which was certainly an interesting refresh as well.
At $540 you pay through the nose for the additional performance of the Athlon 64 X2 4200+ (paying $558 for a Pentium D 840 isn't exactly a bargain either). In our opinion, the Pentium D 820 is really an underdog in this roundup, but don't let the $252 price tag fool you; at the time we were obtaining the hardware for this analysis we had to spend an extra $50 over the cost of the OCZ memory used in the AMD system for the Corsair DDR2. Furthermore, the poor performance on Doom3 hints at something most of us already know; Athlon 64 beats the pants off Intel in games, even on Linux. If you don't plan on gaming much on Linux, the Pentium D 820 becomes a real tempting option.
Once again, we owe special thanks to Monarch Computer for rushing us the Intel motherboard used in this analysis.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
69 Comments
View All Comments
juhl - Friday, July 1, 2005 - link
I see that "Norton AntiVirus 2004" is listed with "No Suggestions yet" in the "Linux Application" column. I'd like to make a suggestion : ClamAV - ClamAV is a very capable free virus scanner that runs on Linux - check it out at http://www.clamav.net/Hacp - Friday, July 1, 2005 - link
He clearly stated that this test was based on the best bang for the buck. For all of you who wanted to see tests with higher end processors, you should have stopped reading the article and waited for one that met your needs. Don't complain and ask for stuff that the article was not designed to inform us about.fishbits - Friday, July 1, 2005 - link
Why bother to test the 840 D and draw no conclusions about it? And can you at least fix the price you quote in the one-sided swipe at the X2? I've given up on your explaining why the price of the 840 isn't also "paying through the nose," but at least fix the obvious error either in the text or the price list above it."we have left a lot of not-so-subtle hints as to our feelings concerning performance between the two"
Ah, you were talking about Windows and Linux there. Fits for CPUs too in this case.
semo - Friday, July 1, 2005 - link
listen upeveryone who needs the anandtech next gen console articles just email me. i printed them out to read in the bus/train and i can make some scans.
semo.pz@gmail.com
Avalon - Friday, July 1, 2005 - link
You guys need to remember that this is Linux, so for everyone out there hollering that this article contradicts all the others out there that you read, all the others out there that you did read were most likely Windows based.DrMrLordX - Friday, July 1, 2005 - link
I agree that including only the X2 4200+ is a mistake. For ages, we saw benchmarks of new AMD cpus vs every Intel proc in the field, regardless of price. Kubicki shows up and insists on culling all AMD cpus from the lineup except one priced similarly(or even priced lower than) the Intel offerings in the test. I remember his initial, and rather controversial, article in which he did Linux benchmarks with a 3.6 ghz P4 vs a A64 3500+ Newcastle. Stupid! Where's the 4400+ and 4800+? If you don't have the hardware, DON'T DO THE REVIEW. If AMD has superior processors out at a much higher price, that's because AMD has better chips right now, and they damn well ought to be included in the review as well. Throw in an 840EE if you're so inclined.FURTHERMORE, where are the single-app tests and dual-app tests? All we have are contrived multitasking tests. This is about 1/3rd of the entire content of Anandtech's initial X2 review in a Windows environment. The Pentium Ds don't look so great when you put them into a scenario in which it's running one or two apps alone. Funny how Kubicki neglected to run any such tests in this article.
This article has too little hardware, and too few tests. Thumbs down.
KristopherKubicki - Friday, July 1, 2005 - link
Where do you see that? It should be 3.3.4Kristopher
allanw - Friday, July 1, 2005 - link
gcc3.4.5? That doesn't even exist! :)xtknight - Friday, July 1, 2005 - link
#39 - I meant why?KristopherKubicki - Friday, July 1, 2005 - link
xtknight: Yes.Kristopher