Intel Woodcrest, AMD's Opteron and Sun's UltraSparc T1: Server CPU Shoot-out
by Johan De Gelas on June 7, 2006 12:00 PM EST- Posted in
- IT Computing
Database Performance Analysis
To make sense out of all these numbers, we summarized our findings below.
As the Xeon 5160 is not yet released, and it is unclear what AMD will do in response, we were curious how a 3 GHz Opteron would compare to our 3 GHz Woodcrest. Both architectures have similar pipeline lengths and will probably attain more or less the same clockspeeds under the same process technology, though of course Intel is ahead when it comes to process technology. It is interesting to see how the Opteron compares clock for clock with the new Xeon.
The Xeon's advantage in Open source databases is significant but not as spectacular as the Spec 2000 Integer numbers. The fact that Woodcrest scales better, or should we say "less bad", is most likely a result of the massive 4 MB L2 cache. As said before, increasing the cache of the previous Xeon generation from 1 to 2 MB results in about 7-8% higher performance. While we cannot be sure that those number are also applicable to Opteron or Woodcrest, it is pretty clear that the 4 MB cache does give the newest Xeon a performance boost.
Despite the fact that Woodcrest is a behemoth when it comes to integer performance, it does not outperform the Opteron by a large margin in MySQL on clock for clock basis. The problem seems to be the FB-DIMM latency. A quick test with higher latency RAM on the Opteron showed that increasing the latency of the RAM subsystem by 20% resulted in a 20 to 25% decrease of MySQL performance. Although this doesn't allow us to get a precise idea of how memory latency influences Woodcrest's MySQL performance, it shows us clearly that memory latency has a big impact on MySQL's performance in our tests.
Web Server Performance Analysis
Below is our summary of web server performance. While we averaged the database numbers, we took the peak numbers of our web server tests. The reason is that at lower request rates, all systems perform the same. "Jsp" gives you the Java Server Page performance, AMP stands for Apache/MySQL/PHP.
Extrapolating the performance of our 2.4 GHz Opteron 280 to 3 GHz again makes it for an interesting comparison.
When it comes to web server performance, the newest Xeon is unbeatable and crushes the competition. A 3 GHz Opteron is not going to help.
Power
As our Woodcrest test system did not have DBS enabled, we decided to test only under full load. Again, take the results with a grain salt, as it is impossible to make everything equal. We tested all machines with only one power supply powered on, and we also tried to have a similar amount and type of fans (excluding the CPU fan, where the T1 doesn't have one). There are still differences between the motherboards, and the Sun uses 2.5 inch disks.
Simply looking at the power numbers, the T2000 server beats the rest. We were informed that the current T2000 Servers now ship with high efficiency 450W Power supplies (our T2000 uses a 550 Watt one), which will further reduce power consumption 10 Watts or more. From a performance/Watt point of view, the new Woodcrest CPU is the winner in most workloads.
To make sense out of all these numbers, we summarized our findings below.
| Database Performance (Linux) | |||||
| MSI K2-102A2M Opteron 275 | MSI K2-102A2M Opteron 280 | Opteron 280 vs. Opteron 275 |
Extrapolated Opteron 3 GHz | Xeon 5160 3 GHz |
|
| MySQL - Dual-core | 749 | 805 | 7% | 946 | 996 |
| MySQL - Quad-core | 590 | 622 | 5% | 703 | 904 |
| PostgreSQL | 490 | 524 | 7% | 616 | 673 |
As the Xeon 5160 is not yet released, and it is unclear what AMD will do in response, we were curious how a 3 GHz Opteron would compare to our 3 GHz Woodcrest. Both architectures have similar pipeline lengths and will probably attain more or less the same clockspeeds under the same process technology, though of course Intel is ahead when it comes to process technology. It is interesting to see how the Opteron compares clock for clock with the new Xeon.
| Database Scaling (Extrapolated) | ||
| Xeon 5160 vs. Opteron 280 |
Xeon 5160 vs. Extrapolated Opteron 3 GHz |
|
| MySQL - Dual-core | 24% | 5% |
| MySQL - Quad-core | 45% | 29% |
| PostgreSQL | 28% | 9% |
The Xeon's advantage in Open source databases is significant but not as spectacular as the Spec 2000 Integer numbers. The fact that Woodcrest scales better, or should we say "less bad", is most likely a result of the massive 4 MB L2 cache. As said before, increasing the cache of the previous Xeon generation from 1 to 2 MB results in about 7-8% higher performance. While we cannot be sure that those number are also applicable to Opteron or Woodcrest, it is pretty clear that the 4 MB cache does give the newest Xeon a performance boost.
Despite the fact that Woodcrest is a behemoth when it comes to integer performance, it does not outperform the Opteron by a large margin in MySQL on clock for clock basis. The problem seems to be the FB-DIMM latency. A quick test with higher latency RAM on the Opteron showed that increasing the latency of the RAM subsystem by 20% resulted in a 20 to 25% decrease of MySQL performance. Although this doesn't allow us to get a precise idea of how memory latency influences Woodcrest's MySQL performance, it shows us clearly that memory latency has a big impact on MySQL's performance in our tests.
Web Server Performance Analysis
Below is our summary of web server performance. While we averaged the database numbers, we took the peak numbers of our web server tests. The reason is that at lower request rates, all systems perform the same. "Jsp" gives you the Java Server Page performance, AMP stands for Apache/MySQL/PHP.
| Webserver Performance | |||||
| MSI K2-102A2M Opteron 275 | MSI K2-102A2M Opteron 280 | Opteron 280 vs. Opteron 275 |
Extrapolated Opteron 3 GHz | Xeon 5160 3 GHz |
|
| Jsp - Peak | 144 | 154 | 7% | 182 | 230 |
| AMP - Peak | 984 | 1042 | 6% | 1178 | 1828 |
Extrapolating the performance of our 2.4 GHz Opteron 280 to 3 GHz again makes it for an interesting comparison.
| Webserver Scaling (Extrapolated) | ||
| Xeon 5160 vs. Opteron 280 |
Xeon 5160 vs. Extrapolated Opteron 3 GHz |
|
| Jsp - Peak | 49% | 26% |
| AMP - Peak | 75% | 55% |
When it comes to web server performance, the newest Xeon is unbeatable and crushes the competition. A 3 GHz Opteron is not going to help.
Power
As our Woodcrest test system did not have DBS enabled, we decided to test only under full load. Again, take the results with a grain salt, as it is impossible to make everything equal. We tested all machines with only one power supply powered on, and we also tried to have a similar amount and type of fans (excluding the CPU fan, where the T1 doesn't have one). There are still differences between the motherboards, and the Sun uses 2.5 inch disks.
| Max Power usage (100% CPU load - Watts) | ||
| Configuration | Power | |
| Sun T2000 | 1CPU / 8 Cores - 8 GB RAM | 188 |
| Dual Opteron 275 HE | 2CPU's (275HE) - 4 GB RAM | 192 |
| Dual Opteron 275 | 2CPU's - 4 GB RAM | 239 |
| Dual Xeon 5160 3 GHz | 2 CPU's - 4 GB RAM | 245 |
| Dual Xeon "Irwindale" 3.6 GHz | 2CPU's - 8 GB RAM | 374 |
Simply looking at the power numbers, the T2000 server beats the rest. We were informed that the current T2000 Servers now ship with high efficiency 450W Power supplies (our T2000 uses a 550 Watt one), which will further reduce power consumption 10 Watts or more. From a performance/Watt point of view, the new Woodcrest CPU is the winner in most workloads.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
91 Comments
View All Comments
JohanAnandtech - Saturday, June 10, 2006 - link
The test you link is running apachebench while testing how fast STATIC html can be sent. Our LAMP test has to run PHP, access the MYSQL database, make calculations on that data ... this called DYNAMIC content.If you do not understand why a static HTML page can be served many times faster than a complex one with dynamic content, well...
You are basically saying that a test is wrong because it doesn't give the same results as another test which tests with different software, different dataset. Duh.
BasMSI - Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - link
I noticed Johan.But still, it's stupid to use and publish benchmark results from a test that can't handle/test the systems at their max.
Come on, get real, it's like testing a Lada and a Ferrari on a track that can't do more then 100KM/H and then state, look how well the Lada keeps up with the Ferrari.
Also, what's wrong with static HTML tests?
I see no harm in those, many websites are still static.
And you used them before to show how fast the Opterons where, so why not again?
Now we have absolutly nothing to compare or verify....so bogus test-results.
BrechtKets - Saturday, June 10, 2006 - link
Maybe you should check the author of the aces hardware article.
Also not that those tests were done with apachebench en the tests now have been done with httperf and and autobench...
FreakyD - Friday, June 9, 2006 - link
Dell has released some new servers with the new Intel Woodcrest platform. The pricing is less than for the older Netburst architecture servers... It looks like we'll have a price war on our hands, and of course AMD will end up losing that battle since Intel has lower production costs with higher volume.Also interesting to note, the 3.0Ghz Woodcrest Intel processor that was quite competitive in this review is the lowest end processor on the new Dell servers. Their highest end one is a 3.73 Ghz part. AMD's highest end dual core server processor is currently 2.6 Ghz. So there's additional performance gains for Intel vs AMD in a highest end server processor shootout.
I'm disappointed that AMD hasn't done more since they released the K8 architecture. AMD has also been slow to release their new server platform with Pacifica enhancements.
It's too bad that Dell has taken so long to begin using AMD in servers. They've held the performance lead for quite some time. With technology and market leaders changing so fast, they should have been faster to adjust their product lineup.
duploxxx - Friday, June 9, 2006 - link
duh my dear friend.... the dell servers you are pointing to can be checked where? link?you are mixing woodcrest that is at max 3000mhz and the dempsey 3.73 both on the same platform. dempsey is still no match for the woodcrest and opterons, so thats normal that the price tag is that low...... and its already dead before it is even launched
check this review, the dempsey is still wiped out on 90% of all the benches by an old architecture and certainly if you would check the power consumption/performance chart.
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=xeo...">http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=xeo...
the proc cost of intel is certainly not lower than the amd ones... looking at the die size the woodcrest and conroe are bigger
@anand, those type of benches would be nice on a woodcrest, if you fail to give them now by "any reason" they will be available in the near future by other reviewers. so its always better to be the first :)
FreakyD - Friday, June 9, 2006 - link
Ahh, my mistake, thanks for the correction so nobody else gets the wrong idea. Once again I'm confused by Intel's naming and numbering scheme to not know exactly what's being sold.Aileur - Thursday, June 8, 2006 - link
This is a sad sad display. And i dont mean the review, i mean everybody bashing this article and each other like their lives depended on it.Its a cpu review on a hardware site, try to put it into perspective.
You read it, you draw your own conclusions if you want to, you go on with your life.
ashyanbhog - Friday, June 9, 2006 - link
Sure our lives dont depend on it,but Anandtech was a site you could rely onto get unbiased reviews. I have configured specs for atleast 25 machines based on Anandtech reports. Whenever somebody asked which CPU or someother part was better, I would suggest that they search for its review on Anandtech.
Even in the IDF conroe demo, Anandtech failed to identify some parts of the Intel setup that could have impacted performance, it was only after readers expressed their displeasure that Anandtech did a second review with the updates that should have actually been part of the Intel setup preview
If this new found low of Anandtech continues, I'll have to choose a different site to base my decisions on.
Also remember, Intel has previously used and continues to use Anandtech review of its processors in its analysts meet and at other places. As somebody pointed out, even a $0.15 swing in Intel share prices alters its valuation by one billion dollar!!! Intel could buy a handful of review reports by favoring advertising budgets for a fraction of that money.
Anandtech made my life a little easier by giving unbiased reviews, looks like I'll have to get back to comparing results from a few reviews as I used to do before I discovered Anandtech
Slappi - Thursday, June 8, 2006 - link
The Message is Clear...........Anand is getting paid by the big Intel.
Seriously.... you guys should at least TRY to hide your bias.
I mean months of setting up and you miss a known error that falsely reports extremely low dual OP. numbers?!?
Woodcrest ROCKS?~?~?
Something tells me that is gonna come back to bite you one day in the near future.
AnandThenMan - Thursday, June 8, 2006 - link
well ya gotta love this statement:That's two words LOL