Intelia, this is for you...

[Jeff7181]

You wanted to determine which was better at x86-64 code... Intel or AMD. So I used the results from this web page (I only used the 640x480 game test results, not higher resolutions).

I have entirely too much time on my hands... I made it so you should be able to follow my work if you know how to use Excel. If I've made an error, please someone let me know... I don't claim to be perfect.

Here's a graph.

Here's the spreadsheet I used to create the graph.

Cliff Notes:

On average, Intel's processors see no increase in performance by switching to 64-bit under Linux. In some tests they do, in some tests they're worse. But it averages out to almost a 0% change.

On average, AMD's processors see a 10% increase in performance by switching to 64-bit under Linux. In some tests they do better, in some worse. But it averages out to almost a 10% increase in performance.

 

[Rock Hydra]

Just wondering. Is this a comparison between Intel's 64 bit and 32 bit CPUs? Or is this the 64 bit CPUs running 32 bit...and 64 bit for comparison?

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Rock Hydra
Just wondering. Is this a comparison between Intel's 64 bit and 32 bit CPUs? Or is this the 64 bit CPUs running 32 bit...and 64 bit for comparison?

The way I understand it, the 32-bit tests were run with a 32-bit Linux OS and 32-bit apps. The 64-bit tests were run with a 64-bit OS and 64-bit apps. Remember, these test results are not my own... I just took their results, converted them to percentages, and averaged them.

*EDIT* And made a not very pretty graph.

**EDIT** Sorry, I misunderstood your question. All processors in the test are 64-bit processors. (the latter of the two possibilities you gave)

 

[Rock Hydra]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: Rock Hydra
Just wondering. Is this a comparison between Intel's 64 bit and 32 bit CPUs? Or is this the 64 bit CPUs running 32 bit...and 64 bit for comparison?

The way I understand it, the 32-bit tests were run with a 32-bit Linux OS and 32-bit apps. The 64-bit tests were run with a 64-bit OS and 64-bit apps. Remember, these test results are not my own... I just took their results, converted them to percentages, and averaged them.

*EDIT* And made a not very pretty graph.

**EDIT** Sorry, I misunderstood your question. All processors in the test are 64-bit processors. (the latter of the two possibilities you gave)

Alright, cool. Nice.

 

[Intelia]

Thanks ever so much you dear man your a true the gentleman

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
You wanted to determine which was better at x86-64 code... Intel or AMD. So I used the results from this web page (I only used the 640x480 game test results, not higher resolutions).

I have entirely too much time on my hands... I made it so you should be able to follow my work if you know how to use Excel. If I've made an error, please someone let me know... I don't claim to be perfect.

Here's a graph.

Here's the spreadsheet I used to create the graph.

Cliff Notes:

On average, Intel's processors see no increase in performance by switching to 64-bit under Linux. In some tests they do, in some tests they don't. But it averages out to almost a 0% change.

On average, AMD's processors see a 10% increase in performance by switching to 64-bit under Linux. In some tests they do better, in some worse. But it averages out to almost a 10% increase in performance.

Nice work Jeff. I'da prolly put a % faster between 55 and EE @ 64 and 32 in there for fun

IE 64 bit POV ray is 41.1% faster on 55 than EE etc etc etc.

 

[Zap]

I agree, nice work. Now, each bar is for each CPU difference between 64 and 32 bit, right? Then Zebo's suggestion would indeed be fun - fun pouring gas on the flames!!! Using the Intel chip as zero, show percentages faster/slower of the competing AMD chip in each mode.

 

[RichUK]

Good work Jeff7181 .. :thumbsup:

we should see more graphs like this produced around the OCing forums, but only by non bias members, like yourself

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
You wanted to determine which was better at x86-64 code... Intel or AMD. So I used the results from this web page (I only used the 640x480 game test results, not higher resolutions).

I have entirely too much time on my hands... I made it so you should be able to follow my work if you know how to use Excel. If I've made an error, please someone let me know... I don't claim to be perfect.

Here's a graph.

Here's the spreadsheet I used to create the graph.

Cliff Notes:

On average, Intel's processors see no increase in performance by switching to 64-bit under Linux. In some tests they do, in some tests they don't. But it averages out to almost a 0% change.

On average, AMD's processors see a 10% increase in performance by switching to 64-bit under Linux. In some tests they do better, in some worse. But it averages out to almost a 10% increase in performance.

Nice work Jeff. I'da prolly put a % faster between 55 and EE @ 64 and 32 in there for fun

IE 64 bit POV ray is 41.1% faster on 55 than EE etc etc etc.

I could have, but the point of the test was to answer a question Intelia had in another thread. She wanted to know if Intel or AMD's implimentation of x86-64 instructions were better. I think this answered her question.

 

[theMan]

wow...

nice.

 

[mamisano]

Also, according to the latest Roadmaps I was reading on Overclockers, it looks like AMD will be extending AMD64 with some new instructions in the near future. So, what will Intel call their version, EEMT-64 (Extended Extended Memory Technology-64)?

I find it sad for Intel that another company has taken the reigns of x86 and now THEY are left to follow. My, how things have changed.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: mamisano
Also, according to the latest Roadmaps I was reading on Overclockers, it looks like AMD will be extending AMD64 with some new instructions in the near future. So, what will Intel call their version, EEMT-64 (Extended Extended Memory Technology-64)?

I find it sad for Intel that another company has taken the reigns of x86 and now THEY are left to follow. My, how things have changed.

I don't think Intel is following because they have to. If they decided to switch to something different, and made the switch, all they would need is Microsoft's support, then pretty much everyone else would be forced to. Then AMD would either have to follow them, or go out of business because AMD can't afford to lose marketshare, and they would if Intel created a new standard and AMD didn't follow.

 

[Zebo]

You don't mind if I play with your sheet and post results do ya?

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Zebo
You don't mind if I play with your sheet and post results do ya?

Anything for you, Zebo. :lips: LOL... anyone is welcome to mess with it.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
I don't think Intel is following because they have to. If they decided to switch to something different, and made the switch, all they would need is Microsoft's support, then pretty much everyone else would be forced to. Then AMD would either have to follow them, or go out of business because AMD can't afford to lose marketshare, and they would if Intel created a new standard and AMD didn't follow.

Yup, yup. Think MMX, 3DNev^H^H^H ahem, I mean 3DNow and the various SSE. Wherever software support goes is where the other (either one) chip manufacturer follows.

 

[Intelia]

Originally posted by: mamisano
Also, according to the latest Roadmaps I was reading on Overclockers, it looks like AMD will be extending AMD64 with some new instructions in the near future. So, what will Intel call their version, EEMT-64 (Extended Extended Memory Technology-64)?

I find it sad for Intel that another company has taken the reigns of x86 and now THEY are left to follow. My, how things have changed.

Iam not going to debate you on this issue but until both sets of extensions are equally optimized for the apps. there running. This is still nothing but conjectors. I also feel Apple is going to give Intel a big boost in the software department. time well tell all.
There is evidence out there that Amd got 64 extension with microsofts help. From Intel this really doesn't matter since they share this stuff anyway. You got to remeber this. Intel stopped work on X86 64extensions. When they went to the Itanic true 64 bit tech.
Than microsoft told Intel they would not create an 64bit O/S for the desktop because 64 bit O/S wasn't needed on the desktop.
Now Intel has Steve Jobs and Apple in there corner. We may see true 64 bit tech. Very soon (1 1/2 to 2 years) I can see it now Apple in the server market. (maybe Ihaven't a clue) But it really is exciting as drama builds.
My own personnal opion is Steve Jobs is way smarter than Billy Bob Gates.
Steve's biggest hold up is he has higher morals than Billy Bob.
You watch MSN well probably ban me. LOL

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Intelia

Originally posted by: mamisano
Also, according to the latest Roadmaps I was reading on Overclockers, it looks like AMD will be extending AMD64 with some new instructions in the near future. So, what will Intel call their version, EEMT-64 (Extended Extended Memory Technology-64)?

I find it sad for Intel that another company has taken the reigns of x86 and now THEY are left to follow. My, how things have changed.

Iam not going to debate you on this issue but until both sets of extensions are equally optimized for the apps. there running. This is still nothing but conjectors. I also feel Apple is going to give Intel a big boost in the software department. time well tell all.
There is evidence out there that Amd got 64 extension with microsofts help. From Intel this really doesn't matter since they share this stuff anyway. You got to remeber this. Intel stopped work on X86 64extensions. When they went to the Itanic true 64 bit tech.
Than microsoft told Intel they would not create an 64bit O/S for the desktop because 64 bit O/S wasn't needed on the desktop.
Now Intel has Steve Jobs and Apple in there corner. We may see true 64 bit tech. Very soon (1 1/2 to 2 years) I can see it now Apple in the server market. (maybe Ihaven't a clue) But it really is exciting as drama builds.
My own personnal opion is Steve Jobs is way smarter than Billy Bob Gates.
Steve's biggest hold up is he has higher morals than Billy Bob.
You watch MSN well probably ban me. LOL

Do you have, or can you find links to something supporting your claim that Intel was developing 64-bit extensions to x86? I'm interested in reading about that because I was always under the impression that Microsoft gave Intel the thumbs down on 64-bit CPU's because Intel wanted IA-64, which would mean not a single 32-bit app could run native in the 64-bit OS. No backwards compatability, except by emulation, and we've all heard how poor the Itanium is at emulating 32-bit x86 hardware. Microsoft definately worked with AMD on laying out the specifications for x86-64 because, as far as I know, AMD was the first to bring a solution that was natively backward compatable with 32-bit x86 software, and it was in Microsoft's best interest to have backward compatability..

Also when you say "Itanic true 64 bit tech," do you mean to say that x86-64 implimentations are NOT "true 64 bit tech?"