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
Apache/PHP/MySQL Performance
In our first review of the T2000, we took a look at the T2000 as a heavy Apache, MySQL and PHP web server (or SAMP web server) using a pretty complex weather report system. The PHP test script retrieves hourly-stored weather information out of a MySQL database, that can be overviewed by month. An 'opening page' displays all months that are stored in the database, and if you open a 'detail page', the month you have selected is submitted by query string parameters. Additional details about this test application are available if you would like to know more.
The problem with our first test was that with the caching file we are taking MySQL and PHP out of the equation most of the time, and emphasizing TCP/IP handling and Apache too much. As we want to get also an idea of the PHP/MySQL speed of the different CPUs, we decided to test with an uncached version, simulating the worst case of the application.
However, running the uncached version only means that we regenerate the PHP page with each request. We did enable the query cache in MySQL. A good webmaster knows that too many accesses to the database can completely wreck web server performance, thus, it is important to "shield" the database backend from too many concurrent accesses. The mod_deflate module was enabled to make gzip compression happen.
For benchmarking, httperf was used in conjunction with autobench, a Perl script written by Julian T. J. Midgley, designed to run httperf against a server several times, with the number of requests per second increasing with each iteration. The output from the program enables us to see exactly how well the system being tested performs as the workload is gradually increased until it becomes saturated. In each case, the server was benchmarked with 5 requests per connection. The client was connected via a gigabit connection to the server.
To interpret the graphs below precisely, you must know that the X-axis gives you the number of demanded requests and the Y-axis gives you the actual reply rate of the server. The first points all show the same performance for each server, as each server is capable of responding fast enough. Only one CPU with 2 (Opteron, Xeon) or 8 cores (Sun UltraSparc T1) was present in each server.
Intel's new Xeon wipes the floor here with the competition. Up to 75% faster than the 2.4 GHz Opteron, the new Xeon won't have any trouble with a 3 GHz Opteron. We have to investigate this further, but it seems that this is the result of massive 4 MB L2 cache and intrinsically better integer performance of Woodcrest. Additional tuning might push the T1 higher, but we are pretty sure it is not going to be a screamer in this benchmark.
In our first review of the T2000, we took a look at the T2000 as a heavy Apache, MySQL and PHP web server (or SAMP web server) using a pretty complex weather report system. The PHP test script retrieves hourly-stored weather information out of a MySQL database, that can be overviewed by month. An 'opening page' displays all months that are stored in the database, and if you open a 'detail page', the month you have selected is submitted by query string parameters. Additional details about this test application are available if you would like to know more.
The problem with our first test was that with the caching file we are taking MySQL and PHP out of the equation most of the time, and emphasizing TCP/IP handling and Apache too much. As we want to get also an idea of the PHP/MySQL speed of the different CPUs, we decided to test with an uncached version, simulating the worst case of the application.
However, running the uncached version only means that we regenerate the PHP page with each request. We did enable the query cache in MySQL. A good webmaster knows that too many accesses to the database can completely wreck web server performance, thus, it is important to "shield" the database backend from too many concurrent accesses. The mod_deflate module was enabled to make gzip compression happen.
For benchmarking, httperf was used in conjunction with autobench, a Perl script written by Julian T. J. Midgley, designed to run httperf against a server several times, with the number of requests per second increasing with each iteration. The output from the program enables us to see exactly how well the system being tested performs as the workload is gradually increased until it becomes saturated. In each case, the server was benchmarked with 5 requests per connection. The client was connected via a gigabit connection to the server.
To interpret the graphs below precisely, you must know that the X-axis gives you the number of demanded requests and the Y-axis gives you the actual reply rate of the server. The first points all show the same performance for each server, as each server is capable of responding fast enough. Only one CPU with 2 (Opteron, Xeon) or 8 cores (Sun UltraSparc T1) was present in each server.
Intel's new Xeon wipes the floor here with the competition. Up to 75% faster than the 2.4 GHz Opteron, the new Xeon won't have any trouble with a 3 GHz Opteron. We have to investigate this further, but it seems that this is the result of massive 4 MB L2 cache and intrinsically better integer performance of Woodcrest. Additional tuning might push the T1 higher, but we are pretty sure it is not going to be a screamer in this benchmark.
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.