AMD Opteron vs. Intel Xeon: Database Performance Shootout
by Anand Lal Shimpi, Jason Clark & Ross Whitehead on March 2, 2004 2:11 AM EST- Posted in
- IT Computing
Final Words
The 533MHz FSB 2MB L3 Prestonia based Xeon manages to help Intel tremendously in keeping competitive with the Opteron. In fact, under heavy enough workloads there is virtually no performance difference between a 3.2GHz Xeon and a 2.2GHz Opteron (x48). It isn't until you move to 4-way configurations that AMD's platform architecture begins to flex its muscle. That being said, Intel has done an incredible job of keeping up performance wise in 2-way configurations; we have a much better showing here than we did in the web server test.
Interestingly enough, while the new Gallatin Xeon MPs have a massive 4MB L3 cache, most of that cache will end up being used to keep traffic off of the bandwidth starved 400MHz FSB. The performance gap between the Opteron 848 and the Xeon MP is amplified significantly once you move to a 4-way setup; the Xeon's shared bus just can't cut it anymore, not at 400MHz. AMD's point-to-point Hyper Transport implementation helps extend their performance advantage significantly. An 8-way Opteron vs. Xeon comparison would not be pretty.
In a matter of months, Intel will begin transitioning their Xeon line to 90nm cores - more specifically Nocona (the replacement for the current Prestonia Xeon). The 90nm Xeons will be Prescott derived, which means they get all of the bittersweet changes that went into Prescott. At the same time, this next generation of Xeon processors will enable Intel's 64-bit IA-32e instruction set (read: x86-64). From a performance perspective we would expect the 90nm cores to perform noticeably worse than the current Xeons on a clock for clock basis, but it seems that Intel is avoiding an embarrassing launch by releasing the first Nocona based Xeons at 3.6GHz. With Nocona, Intel will also introduce the 800MHz FSB to the Xeon family - definitely a much needed step in the right direction. For 4-way servers, Intel will have to wait a bit longer; it won't be until the first quarter of 2005 before 64-bit extensions make their way into the Xeon MP processors using the 90nm Potomac core.
The comparison we've made here is a very important one; it identifies Intel's strengths and their weaknesses with Xeon, and it crowns Opteron a clear multiprocessor winner. An area that we didn't touch on is cost, which is where AMD truly shines. The Opteron 848 processors we tested are around 1/2 the price of Intel's 2MB L3 Xeon MPs and we have not seen retail data on how expensive the 4MB parts will be.
In a 4-way configuration AMD's Opteron cannot be beat, and thus it is our choice for the basis for our new Forums database server. We'll be documenting that upgrade in a separate article so stay tuned.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
58 Comments
View All Comments
Jason Clark - Wednesday, March 3, 2004 - link
Pumpkin not really..my point is that we used a standard shipping opteron system. I'm not questioning that Opterons support DDR400 or that if you wanted to "tweak" out a server (which is rarely done) that you could. My point is that currently quad opterons are shipping with DDR333 (what we tested). I'm sure (as I said) that down the road ddr400 will be a reality for the boxed/packaged systems but obviously right now it is not. All 4 systems that were shipped to us all came with ddr33 not ddr400.L8r
Jeff7181 - Wednesday, March 3, 2004 - link
I'm surprised nobody has speculated about who the corporation was that helped do the testing.I'll speculate that it was newegg.com =)
Jeff7181 - Wednesday, March 3, 2004 - link
I 2nd #15 motion for pics =)DBBoy - Wednesday, March 3, 2004 - link
Taken from an artilce on the new 4MB L3 products.The new 3-GHz Xeon MP with 4 Mbytes of cache is listed by Intel as available for $3,692 each in quantities of 1,000.
Tessel8 - Wednesday, March 3, 2004 - link
Why do all of the benchmark results page refer to "Potomac" as the 2-way Xeon 3.2GHz processor. This is absolutely not correct (maybe you are refering to Prestonia?).Ex. The results are split up into two categories: 2-way and 4-way setups. Remember that the 3.2GHz Potomac based Xeon is only available in 2-way configurations and is thus absent from the 4-way graphs.
I believe only the last paragraph on the last page is the only one refering to the correct Potomac processor.
Pumpkinierre - Wednesday, March 3, 2004 - link
#30 Jason, Your statement would be in conflict with your previous server comparison article(http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1935&am..."Just recently, the x48 parts were launched, and with them, the Opteron gained support for DDR400 memory. Support for DDR400 has trickled down to all members of the Opteron family, but only certain revisions of the CPUs support DDR400"
I certainly thought they released 4 new DDR400 opterons late last year, covering all configs. At any rate it is the 2way that is in question and you had 2way 533MHz Xeons so, by rights, you should have used opteron 248s as this would be what an customer interested in this configuration would buy. The price of these is half again of the 848 making them even more attractive:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoo...
You had two 248s in that last server article but again used DDR333. The photo on Pg 2 showed one of the opterons as an "AM" revision which, you state in the article, qualifies for DDR400 support. Of course, if these cpus, DDR400 Reg. modules or enabled Mobo were not on hand then it cant be helped and as you say the DDR333 setup still shows the Xeon memory structural problem.
Sante
TrogdorJW - Tuesday, March 2, 2004 - link
Wow... given that the 533 FSB on the 2-way Xeons easily makes up for the difference in cache size, I'm amazed that Intel hasn't actually validated an 800 FSB Xeon solution. Then again, Intel is *SO* cautious with introducing advancements in technology, especially in the server/enterprise markets. Not only would they have to validate the faster CPU, but the motherboard and chipset validation would probably take them a year at least. (Who knows... they might be working on this as we speak.) Too bad the P4EE aren't dual-CPU capable (I think) - that would be interesting to see benchmarks. Not that any real corporation would dare to go that route, but still, interesting.It will be interesting to see what happens with the Nocoma cores (and later Potomac). The 1 MB L2 cache can help out in desktop applications and more or less overcome the longer pipeline, but on Xeons where you're already running 2 MB L3 cache, I don't know that it will be as useful. Then again, the 800 FSB will probably more than make up for the deeper pipeline.
Needless to say, Intel definitely has some work to do. I'm waiting for them to migrate the Pentium M (P6 core with improvements) back to the desktop. Heheheh....
lneves - Tuesday, March 2, 2004 - link
Can you guys share the "SQL Loader" benchmark tool and the scripts used?Thanks.
Jason Clark - Tuesday, March 2, 2004 - link
Grayswan, each proc had 1 gb as that is how it has to be configured.More thoughts on DDR400. After doing a bit more reading I've confirmed that most all quad opterons ship with ddr333 so our tests conformed to what was available at the time of testing. Testing something that isn't a standard shipping configuration doesn't help people making a buying decision now. Most all quad opterons won't be hand built by an organization, they will be ordered as complete systems. Maybe later on this year we'll see a shift to ddr 400 and we can run some numbers.
Examples:
http://www.swt.com/qo.html
http://www.appro.com/product/server_4144h_2.asp
Grayswan - Tuesday, March 2, 2004 - link
What was the memory organization on the opterons? All memory on 1 proc? 2 modules on each proc? Also the 4-way opteron diagrom on P.3 shows each proc only using 2 interconnects. I believe all 3 are used so the diagram should be "crossbar"ish.