Intel Xeon 3.6 2MB vs AMD Opteron 252 Database Test
by Jason Clark & Ross Whitehead on February 14, 2005 8:00 AM EST- Posted in
- IT Computing
SQL Stress Results
The SQL Stress results have changed somewhat from some of our earlier articles using this tool. We did a revamp of the tool itself, which is more performant on high volume queries. Also, we lengthened the test time to 20 minutes and changed the queries around some to reflect our current FuseTalk version. The new 2MB L2 Xeon part did quite well here, churning out a 7% gain over its 1MB counterpart. The Opteron 252 gained its usual 7% for its clock increase of 200MHz. There was no gain from the 1GHz HT link support as we discussed in our Test Hardware configuration on Page 2. Overall, the new Xeon 2MB part was the "hands down" winner for this test with a 13% lead over the Opteron 252, thanks to its 1MB cache boost.
Total queries executed
The number of queries that were executed throughout the duration of the test.
Queries per second
An average of how many queries per second were executed throughout the duration of the test.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
97 Comments
View All Comments
Zan Lynx - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
I see Viditor explained what he really wanted. That was my first comment and by the time I'd filled out all the forms and received the email with my password he had already explained. Sorry. Please ignore me.Zan Lynx - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
Viditor, the test hardware used 8GB RAM for both the Xeon and Opteron systems according to page 2.Viditor - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
Jason - Let me expand on my request...Because there is still no hardware IOMMU on Xeon chipsets, I believe they must use PAE for 64bit addressing over 4GB, however Opteron doesn't have this problem and can address directly up to 128GB.
I would very much like to see the results of a comparison on the same testbed you used for this article (8GB Ram) to compare and see how much this effects performance as this seems a very typical model to me.
Cheers!
Viditor - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
Jason - Very well done test and article!I too would be very interested in a 64bit Linux (or even Windows Beta) test with that configuration...
One of the things I am anxious to see is Xeons reaction to >4GB of ram on its performance. There are still NO results (that I have seen) with that configuration.
Cheers, and thanks for the article.
sri2000 - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
Someone mentioned adding other database functions to provide different kind of stresses. How about using SQL Server Data Transfromation Services (DTS) to perform a variety of mass imports/exports from the test database?You could also perform some Full-Text searches mixed in with the regular queries on appropriately indexed tables - though those are really disk intensive rather than CPU-intensive (though the CPU usage does spike significantly when these queries are run).
I also wonder if adding queries which hit Views in addition to regular tables would affect anything, the result being that you're essentially running nested queries (though this doesn't likely reflect the type of usage seen in your forums, which was the basis of this test).
By the same token, having queries that use wildcards, user functions, sub-queries, etc (rather than just simple selects & inserts) will also add complexity to the searches & might affect the results.
Marlin1975 - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
Like someone else pointed out, when will you do some test to see what the SSE3 did for AMD.Also what were the temps on both of the NEW Cpus. Haveing hundreds of them in a server room can cost a arm and a leg to keep cool, so I think temps do matter here.
fitten - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
#39, we don't need to point out that 64-bit Intel P4 Xeons have been out and available for a while even though WindowsXP64 isn't available yet. You can run the RC WindowsXP64 on those and on Opterons/Athlon64s.rgb - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
I don't think the BIOS of the test machine was adapted to Revision E Opterons.I adapted LinuxBIOS to the Rev E stepping last week and the 1 GHz support is really the easiest thing (was already present in revision D processors). Changing the HT speed while the operating system is running is _very_ difficult. It requires a reset or LDTSTOP on both CPUs for the new frequency to be effective, so this is normally done a boot time in the BIOS. I guess ntune does not really change the HT frequency.
In addition Revision E has a number of errata fixed which result in improved performance (for example Errata 94).
The most important point is the new memory controller mode that reduces the DRAM bank conflicts. It improves STREAM benchmarks scores around 30%. This modes has to be automatically enabled by the BIOS, so please rerun the benchmark on a mainboard that supports Rev E processors.
Quanticles - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
I'd really want to see tests run on Linux, even if it is 32-bit. There are too many Windows programs that are tailored to Intel processors.I dont need to point out that Microsoft is delaying the 64 bit version of Windows until Intel has their 64 bit processor come out. If they're going to delay like that then I wonder how well the Opteron will preform on it.
Phiro - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
Jason: Ignore all the 64-bit idiots. Please keep supplying 32-bit sql benchmarks for a LONG time - in the real world 99.5% of production dbs are running on 32-bit sql servers and that number will remain quite high for a long, long time no matter how fast 64-bit takes off.