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
The Official SPEC Numbers
SPEC FP and Int 2000 are the standard benchmarks to evaluate CPU performance. However, the benchmark numbers are highly dependant on the compiler. SPEC fp and Integer show the best case performance as the CPU runs on the aggressively compiled and highly optimized code. In the real world, code is compiled in a more conservative/less optimized way.
In practice this means that Intel's SPEC numbers - thanks to it's highly capable compiler team - are (slightly) higher than in real applications. Nevertheless, SPEC CPU 2000 is a good starting point to understand what a CPU is capable off. As mentioned earlier, the Xeon 5100 is the Xeon Woodcrest, based on the new core architecture.
The new Woodcrest is about 20-25% faster than the fastest dual-core Opteron. The 7% clockspeed advantage is most likely a result of the fact that the Woodcrest was baked with a newer 65nm process. If AMD manages to keep up with Intel when it comes to clockspeed, the advantage of their newest CPU might shrink to 15% or less. However, Intel's Woodcrest will have a much bigger advantage in all applications that make heavy use of 64 and 128-bit SSE.
When it comes to integer performance, the Woodcrest numbers are simply stunning and vastly superior to any other architecture. Let us find out if this vastly superior integer performance in SPEC Int 2000 pays off in server applications.
Latencies...
LMBench is a set of micro-benchmarks which can be helpful for determining memory latency and instruction latencies. We tested with LMBench 3.0a-5. It must be said that LMBench is usually right, but not always. If the benchmark is not aware of some of the particularities of a certain architecture, it can measure wrong values. So we have to double check if the values measured make sense.
The massive 4 MB L2 cache has an amazingly low latency of 14 cycles. This seems to be the worst case, as we have measured 12 cycles with other benchmarking tools such as ScienceMark. Nevertheless, even 14 cycles at 3 GHz is pretty amazing. The Core Duo, a.k.a. Yonah, accesses a shared cache that's half as large in 14 cycles at a substantially lower 2.33 GHz.
On the other hand, the memory latency very high; luckily the 4 MB L2 cache will minimize that effect. The problem seems to be the FB-DIMMs. The Advanced Memory Buffer introduces extra latency, and of course the registered DDR-2 533 chips with a CAS latency of 4 have a higher latency by themselves. This results in a memory subsystem with pretty high 115 ns latency, while the Opteron has access to the RAM in only 73 ns
ScienceMark didn't agree completely and reported about 65-70 ns latency on the Opteron system and 70-76 ns (230 cycles) on the Woodcrest system. We have reason to believe that Woodcrest's latency is closer to what LMBench reports: the excellent prefetchers are hiding the true latency numbers from Sciencemark. It must also be said that the measurements for the Opteron on the Opteron are only for the local memory, not the remote memory.
SPEC FP and Int 2000 are the standard benchmarks to evaluate CPU performance. However, the benchmark numbers are highly dependant on the compiler. SPEC fp and Integer show the best case performance as the CPU runs on the aggressively compiled and highly optimized code. In the real world, code is compiled in a more conservative/less optimized way.
In practice this means that Intel's SPEC numbers - thanks to it's highly capable compiler team - are (slightly) higher than in real applications. Nevertheless, SPEC CPU 2000 is a good starting point to understand what a CPU is capable off. As mentioned earlier, the Xeon 5100 is the Xeon Woodcrest, based on the new core architecture.
| SPECfp | ||
| Clockspeed | SPEC fp 2000 | |
| POWER5+ | 2200 | 3271 |
| Itanium 2 | 1666 | 2851 |
| Xeon 5160 | 3000 | 2783 |
| Opteron | 2800 | 2256 |
| Pentium 4 E | 3733 | 2232 |
The new Woodcrest is about 20-25% faster than the fastest dual-core Opteron. The 7% clockspeed advantage is most likely a result of the fact that the Woodcrest was baked with a newer 65nm process. If AMD manages to keep up with Intel when it comes to clockspeed, the advantage of their newest CPU might shrink to 15% or less. However, Intel's Woodcrest will have a much bigger advantage in all applications that make heavy use of 64 and 128-bit SSE.
| SPECint | ||
| Clockspeed | SPEC Int 2000 | |
| Xeon 5160 | 3000 | 3057 |
| Pentium 4 E | 3733 | 1870 |
| Opteron | 2800 | 1837 |
| Pentium 4 Xeon | 3733 | 1813 |
| POWER5+ | 2200 | 1705 |
| Itanium 2 | 1666 | 1502 |
When it comes to integer performance, the Woodcrest numbers are simply stunning and vastly superior to any other architecture. Let us find out if this vastly superior integer performance in SPEC Int 2000 pays off in server applications.
Latencies...
LMBench is a set of micro-benchmarks which can be helpful for determining memory latency and instruction latencies. We tested with LMBench 3.0a-5. It must be said that LMBench is usually right, but not always. If the benchmark is not aware of some of the particularities of a certain architecture, it can measure wrong values. So we have to double check if the values measured make sense.
| LMBench | |||||||
| Clockspeed | L1 (ns) | L1 (cycles) | L2 (ns) | L2 (cycles) | RAM (ns) | RAM (cycles) | |
| Xeon 5160 3 GHz | 3000 | 1.01 | 3 | 4.7 | 14 | 117.3 | 345 |
| Pentium- M 1.6 GHz | 1593 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 10 | 92.1 | 147 |
| Sun T1 1 GHz | 980 | 3 | 3 | 22.1 | 22 | 107.5 | 105 |
| Opteron 275 | 2209 | 1 | 3 | 5.5 | 12 | 73 | 161 |
| Xeon Irwindale 3.6 GHz | 3594 | 1 | 4 | 8 | 28 | 48.8 | 175 |
The massive 4 MB L2 cache has an amazingly low latency of 14 cycles. This seems to be the worst case, as we have measured 12 cycles with other benchmarking tools such as ScienceMark. Nevertheless, even 14 cycles at 3 GHz is pretty amazing. The Core Duo, a.k.a. Yonah, accesses a shared cache that's half as large in 14 cycles at a substantially lower 2.33 GHz.
On the other hand, the memory latency very high; luckily the 4 MB L2 cache will minimize that effect. The problem seems to be the FB-DIMMs. The Advanced Memory Buffer introduces extra latency, and of course the registered DDR-2 533 chips with a CAS latency of 4 have a higher latency by themselves. This results in a memory subsystem with pretty high 115 ns latency, while the Opteron has access to the RAM in only 73 ns
ScienceMark didn't agree completely and reported about 65-70 ns latency on the Opteron system and 70-76 ns (230 cycles) on the Woodcrest system. We have reason to believe that Woodcrest's latency is closer to what LMBench reports: the excellent prefetchers are hiding the true latency numbers from Sciencemark. It must also be said that the measurements for the Opteron on the Opteron are only for the local memory, not the remote memory.
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