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
Java Webserving
As promised, we are also introducing a real world web server based on Java Server Pages (JSP). The next benchmark is based on the production Ace's Hardware message board, written by Brian Neal and Chris Rijk. This highly optimized jsp real world application uses a 2 GB object cache to minimize database access. As optimized as it may be, building up the message tree or index of the message boards and compressing it with gzip requires quite a bit of CPU power.
The benchmarked software includes:
Although this should be Sun's favored benchmark, the new Xeon Woodcrest is a real party pooper for Sun. A single 80 Watt Woodcrest 3 GHz delivers almost the performance of one T1 at 1 GHz. Luckily for Sun, it is only fair to compare the top model of Intel to Sun's own top model at 1.2 GHz, and Sun should still have a decent advantage when it comes to performance/Watt: the T1 1.2 GHz is about 20% faster than the fastest Woodcrest. However, the days where one 72 W T1 could outperform four Xeon cores while consuming about 4 times less power are over.
The new Xeon 5160, a.k.a. Woodcrest, is making it very hard for Sun to compete on price/performance: four Woodcrest cores are about twice as fast as the 8 core T1. It is interesting to note that the simple T1 core is almost doing as much work per cycle as the massive Opteron. It has twice as many cores, but they are running at half the clockspeed of the Opteron and offering - on average - only 13% lower performance. If we compare the fastest Opteron (2.6 GHz Dual core) with the fastest T1 (1.2 GHz), this proportion shouldn't change much. So a simple 1-way core with 4 threads can do as much work as pretty complex 3-way core with one thread. However, the Woodcrest CPU does not only perform better per clock, it also reaches a 3 GHz clock. Intel beats Sun here in their home territory.
AMD is also in quite a bit of trouble too. If we extrapolate our 2.4 and 2.2 GHz numbers, an Opteron at 3 GHz would still be about 25% slower than our Woodcrest at 3 GHz. Impressive!
As promised, we are also introducing a real world web server based on Java Server Pages (JSP). The next benchmark is based on the production Ace's Hardware message board, written by Brian Neal and Chris Rijk. This highly optimized jsp real world application uses a 2 GB object cache to minimize database access. As optimized as it may be, building up the message tree or index of the message boards and compressing it with gzip requires quite a bit of CPU power.
The benchmarked software includes:
- Caucho Technology's Resin 2.1.17
- Java Virtual Machine: Java HotSpot(TM) Server VM (build 1.5.0_04-b05)
- Sybase ASE 15.0 for Solaris / Linux
Although this should be Sun's favored benchmark, the new Xeon Woodcrest is a real party pooper for Sun. A single 80 Watt Woodcrest 3 GHz delivers almost the performance of one T1 at 1 GHz. Luckily for Sun, it is only fair to compare the top model of Intel to Sun's own top model at 1.2 GHz, and Sun should still have a decent advantage when it comes to performance/Watt: the T1 1.2 GHz is about 20% faster than the fastest Woodcrest. However, the days where one 72 W T1 could outperform four Xeon cores while consuming about 4 times less power are over.
The new Xeon 5160, a.k.a. Woodcrest, is making it very hard for Sun to compete on price/performance: four Woodcrest cores are about twice as fast as the 8 core T1. It is interesting to note that the simple T1 core is almost doing as much work per cycle as the massive Opteron. It has twice as many cores, but they are running at half the clockspeed of the Opteron and offering - on average - only 13% lower performance. If we compare the fastest Opteron (2.6 GHz Dual core) with the fastest T1 (1.2 GHz), this proportion shouldn't change much. So a simple 1-way core with 4 threads can do as much work as pretty complex 3-way core with one thread. However, the Woodcrest CPU does not only perform better per clock, it also reaches a 3 GHz clock. Intel beats Sun here in their home territory.
AMD is also in quite a bit of trouble too. If we extrapolate our 2.4 and 2.2 GHz numbers, an Opteron at 3 GHz would still be about 25% slower than our Woodcrest at 3 GHz. Impressive!
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?