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
blackbrrd - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link
Finally Intel can give AMD some real competition in the two socket server market. This shows why Dell only wanted to go with AMD for 4S and not 2S server systems...245w vs 374w and a huge performance lead over the previous Intel generation is a huge leap for Intel.
It will be interesting to see how much these systems are going to cost:
1) is the fb-dimm's gonna be expensive?
2) is the cpu's gonna be expensive?
3) is the motherboards gonna be expensive?
For AMD neither the ram nor the motherboards are expensive, so I am curious how this goes..
If anybody thinks I am an Intel fanboy, I have bought in this sequence: intel amd intel intel, and I would have gotten and amd instead of an intel for the last computer, except I wanted a laptop ;)
JarredWalton - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link
For enterprise servers, price isn't usually a critical concern. You often buy what runs your company best, though of course there are plenty of corporations that basically say "Buy the fastest Dell" and leave it at that.FB-DIMMs should cost slightly more than registered DDR2, but not a huge difference. The CPUs should actually be pretty reasonably priced, at least for the standard models. (There will certainly be models with lots of L3 cache that will cost an arm and a leg, but that's a different target market.)
Motherboards for 2S/4S are always pretty expensive - especially 4S. I would guess Intel's boards will be a bit more expensive than equivalent AMD boards on average, but nothing critical. (Note the "equivalent" - comparing boards with integrated SCSI and 16 DIMM slots to boards that have 6 DIMM slots is not fair, right?)
Most companies will just get complete systems anyway, so the individual component costs are only a factor for small businesses that want to take the time to build and support their own hardware.
blackbrrd - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link
Registered DDR2 is dirt cheap, so if FB-DIMMs are only slightly more expensive thats really good.About compareing 6 DIMM slot and 16 DIMM slot motherboards, I agree, you can't do it. The number of banks is also important, we have a motherboard at work with 8 ranks and 6 DIMM slots, so only two of the slots can be filled with the cheapest 2gb dual rank memory. Currently 2gb single ranks modules are 50% more expensive than dual rank modules.
Which brings another question.. Does FB-DIMM have the same "problem" with rank limit in addition to slot limit? Or does the FB part take care of that?
BaronMatrix - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link
why are we running servers with only 4GB RAM. I have that in my desktop. Not ot nitpick but I think you shuld load up 16GB and rerun the tests. If not this is a low end test, not HPC. I saw the last Apache comparison and it seems like the benchmark is different. Opteron was winning by 200-400% in those tests. What happened?JohanAnandtech - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link
Feel free to send me 12 GB of FBDIMMs. And it sure isn't a HPC test, it is a server test."I saw the last Apache comparison and it seems like the benchmark is different. Opteron was winning by 200-400% in those tests. What happened? "
A new Intel architecture called "Core" was introduced :-)
BaronMatrix - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link
I didn't say the scores, I said the units in the benchmark. I'm not attacking you. It just stuck out in my head that the units didn't seem to be the same as the last test with Paxville. By saying HPC, I mean apps that use 16GB RAM, like Apache/Linux/Solaris. I'm not saying you purposely couldn't get 12 more GB of RAM but all things being equal 16GB would be a better config for both systems.I've been looking for that article but couldn't find it.
JohanAnandtech - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link
No problem. Point is your feedback is rather unclear. AFAIK, I haven't tested with Paxville. Maybe you are referring to my T2000 review, where we used a different LAMP test, as I explained in this article. In this article the LAMP server has a lot more PHP and MySQL work.http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2772&am...">http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2772&am...
See the first paragraph
And the 4 GB was simply a matter of the fact that Woodcrest had 4 GB of FB DIMM.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link
Most HPC usage models don't depend on massive amounts of RAM, but rather on data that can be broken down into massively parallel chunks. IBM's BlueGene for example only has 256MB (maybe 512MB?) of RAM per node. When I think of HPC, that's what comes to mind, not 4-way to 16-way servers.The amount of memory used in these benchmarks is reasonable, since more RAM only really matters if you have data sets that are too large to fit with the memory. Since our server data sets are (I believe) around 1-2GB, having more than 4GB of RAM won't help matters. Database servers are generally designed to having enough RAM to fit the vast majority of the database into memory, at least where possible.
If we had 10-14GB databases, we would likely get lower results (more RAM = higher latency among other things), but the fundamental differences between platforms shouldn't change by more than 10%, and probably closer to 5%. Running larger databases with less memory would alter the benchmarks to the point where they would largely be stressing the I/O of the system - meaning the HDD array. Since HDDs are so much slower than RAM (even 15K SCSI models), enterprise servers try to keep as much of the regularly accessed data in memory as possible.
As for the Paxville article, click on the "IT Computing" link at the top of the website. Paxville is the second article in that list (and it was also linked once or twice within this article). Or http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2745">here's the direct link.
BaronMatrix - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link
Thx for the link, but the test I was looking at was Apache and showed concurrency tests. At any rate, just don't think I was attacking you. I was curious as to the change in units I noticed.MrKaz - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link
How much will it cost?If Conroe XE 2.9Ghz is 1000$.
Then I assume that this will cost more.
I think looks good, but it will depends a lot of the final price.
Also does that FBdimm have a premium price over the regular ones?