As far as I can tell, the Athlon 64 3400 and the Opteron 148 are quite
similar. They both run at 2.2 GHz, and both have a 1 MB L2 cache.

The two (minor) differences are:

Registered vs Unbuffered RAM
Dual-Channel vs Single-Channel memory controller

I have access to a Mobile Athlon 64 3400:

processor : 0
vendor_id : AuthenticAMD
cpu family : 15
model : 4
model name : AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3400+
stepping : 8
cpu MHz : 2200.137
cache size : 1024 KB
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 1
wp : yes
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge
mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 syscall nx mmxext lm
3dnowext 3dnow
bogomips : 4336.64
TLB size : 1088 4K pages
clflush size : 64
address sizes : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management: ts fid vid ttp


SPEC CINT2000 Result for AMD's Opteron 148:
http://www.specbench.org/osg/cpu2000...117-02631.html

So far, I have only run mcf.

http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/CINT2000...s/181.mcf.html

I am disappointed because my results are worse than AMD's. On the
Opteron, mcf base took 250 seconds to complete. On the Athlon 64, mcf
base took 316 seconds (26.4% slower) to complete.

I used gcc version 3.2.3 20030502 (Red Hat Linux 3.2.3-24) while AMD
used SuSE gcc 3.3.1 compiler (from SuSE Linux 9.0).

What could explain the large difference? Did gcc improve that much
between 3.2 and 3.3? I've read that registered RAM is actually slower
than unbuffered RAM. Would the dual-channel help?

SPEC's mcf run requires 190 MB of memory.

http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/analysis/memory/

--
Regards, Grumble

Hi,

gcc for x86_64 is a quickly evolving system, see

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-04/msg00840.html

for recent benchmarks.

regards,
lajos


On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Grumble wrote:

> As far as I can tell, the Athlon 64 3400 and the Opteron 148 are quite
> similar. They both run at 2.2 GHz, and both have a 1 MB L2 cache.
>
> The two (minor) differences are:
>
> Registered vs Unbuffered RAM
> Dual-Channel vs Single-Channel memory controller
>
> I have access to a Mobile Athlon 64 3400:
>
> processor : 0
> vendor_id : AuthenticAMD
> cpu family : 15
> model : 4
> model name : AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3400+
> stepping : 8
> cpu MHz : 2200.137
> cache size : 1024 KB
> fpu : yes
> fpu_exception : yes
> cpuid level : 1
> wp : yes
> flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge
> mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 syscall nx mmxext lm
> 3dnowext 3dnow
> bogomips : 4336.64
> TLB size : 1088 4K pages
> clflush size : 64
> address sizes : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
> power management: ts fid vid ttp
>
>
> SPEC CINT2000 Result for AMD's Opteron 148:
> http://www.specbench.org/osg/cpu2000...117-02631.html
>
> So far, I have only run mcf.
>
> http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/CINT2000...s/181.mcf.html
>
> I am disappointed because my results are worse than AMD's. On the
> Opteron, mcf base took 250 seconds to complete. On the Athlon 64, mcf
> base took 316 seconds (26.4% slower) to complete.
>
> I used gcc version 3.2.3 20030502 (Red Hat Linux 3.2.3-24) while AMD
> used SuSE gcc 3.3.1 compiler (from SuSE Linux 9.0).
>
> What could explain the large difference? Did gcc improve that much
> between 3.2 and 3.3? I've read that registered RAM is actually slower
> than unbuffered RAM. Would the dual-channel help?
>
> SPEC's mcf run requires 190 MB of memory.
>
> http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/analysis/memory/
>
> --
> Regards, Grumble
>
>

Grumble <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
> As far as I can tell, the Athlon 64 3400 and the Opteron 148 are quite
> similar. They both run at 2.2 GHz, and both have a 1 MB L2 cache.

In fact, they are the same die with fuses blown differently and
mounted on a different package that also controls some internal
functionality.

Mitch