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
zsdersw - Thursday, June 8, 2006 - link
I'm not saying the board is particularly stellar.. I'm saying that it's referred to by MSI as a "server" product.ashyanbhog - Thursday, June 8, 2006 - link
Irespective of what MSI says,fact is there were better mainstream boards for Anandtech to choose from if a honest, independent review was their intention
zsdersw - Thursday, June 8, 2006 - link
I.E., your comment belongs under someone else's.. not mine.zsdersw - Thursday, June 8, 2006 - link
And that's completely irrelevant to what I was saying.ashyanbhog - Thursday, June 8, 2006 - link
all I was saying is, its nice to see Intel finally making a comebackbut Anandtech seems have conducted a skewed benchmark that favours Intel, that unfairly increases the performance gap between Opteron and Woodcrest
In the final summary of the review he says
"In one word: Woodcrest rocks!"
There are quite a few holes in the review, the motherboard is just on of them,
I quoted MySQL number errors in my posts above,
just search for "ashyanbhog" in the page and read my earlier comments if you are interested.
AnandThenMan - Thursday, June 8, 2006 - link
What you're saying in general is irrelevant. Intel calls their integrated graphics "high performance" but that doesn't make it so.
MSI calling that a server board is just marketing, it does not represent what a true, high performance server class mobo is all about. Not that it's a bad piece of hardware, it is good for the price to be sure. But it is NOT a server class product.
zsdersw - Thursday, June 8, 2006 - link
At a certain price point, it could certainly be a nice entry-level server board.Performance alone isn't what makes a server-class motherboard a server-class motherboard.
ashyanbhog - Thursday, June 8, 2006 - link
One of the motherboards used in this review is a cheap piece that trades performance to keep price low.
Why was that motherboard selected over mainstream server/workstation boards that are proven to offer slightly better performance? Why pick a 250$ MSI board for opteron over $500 boards from Tyan, Iwill, Supermicro or others. The Intel Xeon "Inderwale" gets a $500 board, so price could not have been the issue.
So what's the point in using a Single Channel board for this benchmark, when price was not a limitation?
Single memory channel boards like the one from MSI, are known to offer lower performance than dual / dedicated memory channel boards when used in 2P Opteron configurations. Dual Channel boards are the mainstream boards for 2P Opteron systems. There are plently Server boards available in Dual / dedicated memory lane configuration. There are enough reviews on the net to show the performance diff b/w single memory channel boards and dual memory channel boards
The issue is not about the MSI or its class, the issue is why did Anandtech pick a Single memeory channel board instead of a more mainstream dual memory channel board.
Hope that clears up "zsdersw"'s query
zsdersw - Thursday, June 8, 2006 - link
I'm not making excuses for the choices that were made regarding this comparison test. I'm talking about what constitutes a "server-class" motherboard.ashyanbhog - Thursday, June 8, 2006 - link
Game PC review link for the above commenthttp://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=tig...">http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=tig...