A blurb at the inquirer takes you to this:
http://www.tecchannel.de/server/hardware/432957/

"Dempsey" = 3.2 GHz dual-core, with 533 MHz DDR2 ECC FB-DIMMs
Opty 280 = 2.2 GHz dual-core, with PC3200 DDR ECC Reg
Paxville = 2.8 GHz dual-core, with PC3200 DDR ECC Reg

The article is in German, but as usual the charts don't need
interpretation.

Dempsey wins about 60% benchmarks, some narrowly and some by
significant margins. Opty 280 wins about 40% of the benchmarks -
most narrowly but by a big margin in CineBench rendering.

The difference, of course, is that Dempsey is 6+ months away from
going retail but you can get an Opty 275 box today and you might
have to wait a week for Opty 280. Even being an AMD fanboy I
find it hard not to be eager to see what Dempsey can do when it
is actually released. Sure, AMD won't be standing still in the
meantime - but neither will Intel.

It is also especially interesting to see that in this review
Paxville performed fairly well against the Opty 280 compared to
what we saw in the GamePC review from about 2 weeks ago. Opty
280 beat Paxville 2.8 GHz in just about everything, but they are
more closely matched than GamePC would lead us to believe.



I would have been very interested to read about Dempsey
power/heat issues, but if the author said anything about this it
is in German - no charts.

Rob Stow wrote:
> A blurb at the inquirer takes you to this:
> http://www.tecchannel.de/server/hardware/432957/
>
> "Dempsey" = 3.2 GHz dual-core, with 533 MHz DDR2 ECC FB-DIMMs
> Opty 280 = 2.2 GHz dual-core, with PC3200 DDR ECC Reg

Oops ... that should be 2.4 GHz, not 2.2 GHz

> Paxville = 2.8 GHz dual-core, with PC3200 DDR ECC Reg
>

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 18:35:27 +0100, Rob Stow <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> It is also especially interesting to see that in this review Paxville
> performed fairly well against the Opty 280 compared to what we saw in
> the GamePC review from about 2 weeks ago. Opty 280 beat Paxville 2.8
> GHz in just about everything, but they are more closely matched than
> GamePC would lead us to believe.

someone is clearly lying

--
I really have no idea what this means. And since I can't install linux on
it, I'm gonna go back to surfing pr0n.
the penguins are psychotic / just smile and wave

hackbox.info wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 18:35:27 +0100, Rob Stow <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> It is also especially interesting to see that in this review Paxville
>> performed fairly well against the Opty 280 compared to what we saw in
>> the GamePC review from about 2 weeks ago. Opty 280 beat Paxville 2.8
>> GHz in just about everything, but they are more closely matched than
>> GamePC would lead us to believe.
>
>
> someone is clearly lying
>
http://www.aceshardware.com/forums/r...5326&forumid=1
--
Derek

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 21:35:03 +0100, Derek Baker
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> hackbox.info wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 18:35:27 +0100, Rob Stow <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It is also especially interesting to see that in this review Paxville
>>> performed fairly well against the Opty 280 compared to what we saw in
>>> the GamePC review from about 2 weeks ago. Opty 280 beat Paxville 2.8
>>> GHz in just about everything, but they are more closely matched than
>>> GamePC would lead us to believe.
>> someone is clearly lying
>>
> http://www.aceshardware.com/forums/r...5326&forumid=1

hahahaha, that is a good one

--
I really have no idea what this means. And since I can't install linux on
it, I'm gonna go back to surfing pr0n.
the penguins are psychotic / just smile and wave

Rob Stow wrote:
> A blurb at the inquirer takes you to this:
> http://www.tecchannel.de/server/hardware/432957/
>
> "Dempsey" = 3.2 GHz dual-core, with 533 MHz DDR2 ECC FB-DIMMs
> Opty 280 = 2.2 GHz dual-core, with PC3200 DDR ECC Reg
> Paxville = 2.8 GHz dual-core, with PC3200 DDR ECC Reg
>
> The article is in German, but as usual the charts don't need
> interpretation.
>
> Dempsey wins about 60% benchmarks, some narrowly and some by
> significant margins. Opty 280 wins about 40% of the benchmarks -
> most narrowly but by a big margin in CineBench rendering.
>
> The difference, of course, is that Dempsey is 6+ months away from
> going retail but you can get an Opty 275 box today and you might
> have to wait a week for Opty 280. Even being an AMD fanboy I
> find it hard not to be eager to see what Dempsey can do when it
> is actually released. Sure, AMD won't be standing still in the
> meantime - but neither will Intel.
>
> It is also especially interesting to see that in this review
> Paxville performed fairly well against the Opty 280 compared to
> what we saw in the GamePC review from about 2 weeks ago. Opty
> 280 beat Paxville 2.8 GHz in just about everything, but they are
> more closely matched than GamePC would lead us to believe.

If you are interested in reading an english article that describes the
architecture of the Dempsey system, check out:

http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cf...WT110805135916

I also included Intel's performance estimates, which are of course,
best case. I will be releasing my own measurements in the future.

DK

http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cf...WT110805135916

hackbox.info wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 18:35:27 +0100, Rob Stow <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> It is also especially interesting to see that in this review Paxville
>> performed fairly well against the Opty 280 compared to what we saw in
>> the GamePC review from about 2 weeks ago. Opty 280 beat Paxville 2.8
>> GHz in just about everything, but they are more closely matched than
>> GamePC would lead us to believe.
>
> someone is clearly lying
>

Not necessarily. It was suggested by someone else here
(George M ?) that the guys at GamePC must have set things up
wrong because they were reporting memory bandwidth numbers that
were half of what he expected. Hence, GamePC might have been
honestly reporting inaccurate or invalid results.

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 20:44:34 +0100, "hackbox.info"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 18:35:27 +0100, Rob Stow <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> It is also especially interesting to see that in this review Paxville
>> performed fairly well against the Opty 280 compared to what we saw in
>> the GamePC review from about 2 weeks ago. Opty 280 beat Paxville 2.8
>> GHz in just about everything, but they are more closely matched than
>> GamePC would lead us to believe.
>
>someone is clearly lying

Yup, it's the benchmarks! :>

Seriously though, the choice in benchmarks will have a BIG impact on
how the two systems perform relative to one another. Even within the
same application a different datafile can easily skew results somewhat
one way or the other.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 21:58:27 +0100, "hackbox.info"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 21:35:03 +0100, Derek Baker
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> hackbox.info wrote:
>>> On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 18:35:27 +0100, Rob Stow <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is also especially interesting to see that in this review Paxville
>>>> performed fairly well against the Opty 280 compared to what we saw in
>>>> the GamePC review from about 2 weeks ago. Opty 280 beat Paxville 2.8
>>>> GHz in just about everything, but they are more closely matched than
>>>> GamePC would lead us to believe.
>>> someone is clearly lying
>>>
>> http://www.aceshardware.com/forums/r...5326&forumid=1
>
>hahahaha, that is a good one

It's worth noting that a number of the repeatable scores listed in
this test are rather umm, terrible. For example, in the article they
list a pair of Opteron 280 chips as having a SPEC CFP2000 rate_base
score of 42.4, but if you look here:

http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/...919-04711.html

AMD managed a score of 62.6 using the same processors, same OS and
same compiler (vs. 68.7 in Linux with the Pathscale compiler).

Similarly a pair of Intel Xeon 2.8GHz (Paxville) chips are reported at
35.9 in this test while HP was able to manage 39.4 in the same setup
(Intel doesn't have any published results themselves). While this
~10% difference might be excusable due to differences in configuration
and optimization, the 48% difference in results for the Opterons is a
bit much and suggests to me that they screwed up that benchmark pretty
bad.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 04:04:50 +0100, Tony Hill <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> suggests to me that they screwed up that benchmark pretty
> bad.

or made the entire article up, they allready confessed to the Dempsey part
(scores from Intel). I'l stick to GamePC benchmarks for now.

--
I really have no idea what this means. And since I can't install linux on
it, I'm gonna go back to surfing pr0n.
the penguins are psychotic / just smile and wave