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
snorre - Thursday, June 8, 2006 - link
Anandtech is going down the drain, there are no doubts left about it IMHO."Woodcrest" may be a nice improvement for Intel, but comparing it to clearly crippled (both software and hardware wise) Opteron systems is pretty lame by any standard.
Remember: Fool us once shame on us, fool us twice shame on YOU!
This is your third strike in my book, so now your officially out in THG hell.
I hope you wake up and smell the coffee soon...
Slappi - Thursday, June 8, 2006 - link
Exactly.I just can't believe what I am seeing here.
This site was once THE HARDWARE SITE for me and I always recommended it to others.
If Intel has a better chip hey that's great! But.... what is with the OBVIOUS underhanded reporting against AMD and for INTEL that has been going on here for the past few months?
It is so blatant here that I am starting to wonder of Intel's new chips are a lot of smoke and mirrors. If it is such a great chip it should speak for itself, not with all this closed testing and crippled AMD machines. Makes me wonder.
You would think after reading all the Anand Intel press that the new CPUs could cure cancer and cook dinner.
duploxxx - Thursday, June 8, 2006 - link
i can give 2 pages full of rather strange figures and compares about this review. but i hope you'll bring the readers the windows benches fast and compare with other published benches so everybody can see that the linux optimization can shift wherever you want.you use workstaion/budget motherboard against the intel server board. use a sun galaxy or hp proliant.
the specint and specfp are not correct, even intel gives way other numbers
some benches are done with one socket others with 2 socket. why?
mysql benches are optimized for two cores thats very clear.. the perfromance drop on opteron is much more the the one on woodcrest. knowing the architecture of the opteron this should be the other way round. the opteron is lacking here due to the motherboard
you can extrapolate it in a different way showing different results, again you use 2 different opterons and use thsi difference to calculate 3.0, both setups are workstation and therefore performance is wrong. some benches you even talk and calculate 2 systems but not showing on the graphs.
your conclusion: is rather funny. you state that the wooodcrest is the best performing server on a platform that has maybe 2% worlwide support with benches that can not be compared to other publication. no linnear powerconsuption with other servers because no exual hardware setup and most systems use 2gb/cpu thats a +28w consumption for the woodcrest.
as stated from line 1 give some real world benches where people can compare with other posted results.
zsdersw - Thursday, June 8, 2006 - link
The MSI K8N Master2-FAR board is a server motherboard. So are the boards in the other two Opteron servers.
MrKaz - Thursday, June 8, 2006 - link
I don’t know if you all already have realized but that is what it will look like the 4x4 boards.And that’s NOT a server board, ONLY ONE of the processors is accessing directly to the memory and that must IMPACT the performance.
http://www.msi.com.tw/images/product_img/mbd_img/9...">http://www.msi.com.tw/images/product_img/mbd_img/9...
AnandThenMan - Thursday, June 8, 2006 - link
Anyone that calls that MSI mobo a "server board" is a freakin retard.As for this "review" it has to be the worst on Anandtech in at least 6 months.
zsdersw - Thursday, June 8, 2006 - link
I guess MSI themselves must be retards then. Look where it's listed: http://www.msi.com.tw/program/products/server/svr/...">http://www.msi.com.tw/program/products/server/svr/...
ashyanbhog - Thursday, June 8, 2006 - link
for those who think MSI board must be good because they list it on their server pages,Just look at the memeory banks
MSI has a single bank, forcing the 2nd CPU to share the memory channel, reducing memory bandwidth to both CPUs, and increasing memory latencies. They are discarding NUMA capabailities to keep the price at around 250$
http://www.msi.com.tw/program/products/server/svr/...">http://www.msi.com.tw/program/products/server/svr/...
Now check Tyan k8we and Supermicro h8dci boards linked below. Notice that they all carry two seperate memory banks, giving each processor its own dedicated bank. This doubles the available memory bandwidth and keeps lantencies low.
http://www.tyan.com/products/html/thunderk8we.html">http://www.tyan.com/products/html/thunderk8we.html
http://www.supermicro.com/Aplus/motherboard/Optero...">http://www.supermicro.com/Aplus/motherboard/Optero...
Iwill D8kn is another similar board that I can recall. They all recommend that you put atleast on card in each bank in a two processor setup to utilize the extra bandwidth.
But adding this extra bank comes at a cost, all the above boards are priced around $500 mark. Its common knowledge in the AMD community that one needs get the boards with seperate memory banks if on is looking for a high performance machine.
If you still have doubt, check the review on GamePC, linked below. Notice that the Tyan TIGER k8we, (with single memory channel to both CPUs like the MSI board) is beaten in every benchmark by Tyan THUNDER k8we (which has dedicated memory channels for both CPUs)
BasMSI - Friday, June 9, 2006 - link
MSI lists them as Workstation boards, not server boards.http://www.msi.com.tw/program/products/server/svr/...">>>See link<<
They should have used the K8D-Master series, those are server boards and do have NUMA.
zsdersw - Friday, June 9, 2006 - link
It's under the "Server and Rackmount" section of their website.