Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Opteron's still perform better than Xeon's multi-CPU wise?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 13, 2006 2:39:43 PM

http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2872

Well, I meant for the topic name to say more, but it limited me =(

Still seems that Opteron's scale better than Intel's offering and are still at the top performance per watt wise.

Quote:
In a nutshell, the new Xeon MP will have a hard time convincing people who are leaning towards an Opteron server or want the best performance/watt. But on the other hand, the decent performance and superior RAS features will keep the customers who desire high availability in the Intel camp, while the previous Xeon MP was such a poor performer that many people had no other choice than the AMD Opteron in the quad socket market.


But it also seems that Intel really did take a big step in the right direction, at least the server market isin't one-sided anymore.

Any other thoughts on this?
November 13, 2006 7:33:22 PM

Yeah, i found that interesting too. Intel certainly got their act together with their latest design. The performance has increased substantially, but still lag in power consumption, which is as important if not more important. It'll be interesting to see how well it will be adopted. I wonder if the window of opportunity will be large enough to make an impact, if indeed k8L is as much of an improvement as is expected. It will give Intel 1 year to try and capture market share.


On the supercomputing front, my common sense tells me that it has to take a fair amount of time to investigate an architecture, to learn if it will be feasible, and then design it. The opteron's appear to be a classic architecture for this. I wonder how units sold for this type of application compares in percentage to the server market.
November 13, 2006 7:48:38 PM

I wonder why no one wants to comment on this... shrug...
November 13, 2006 8:38:55 PM

IIRC Opterons perform better in a 4P or higher configuration, they lose the 2P configuration. Specifically I am talking about the newer Xeons and not the netburst.
November 13, 2006 9:39:48 PM

Quote:
IIRC Opterons perform better in a 4P or higher configuration, they lose the 2P configuration. Specifically I am talking about the newer Xeons and not the netburst.

Woodcrests are only available at 2S. Tusla at 4S are quite competitive, usually faster in key enterprise benchmarks. Past 4S, Tulsa has better chipsets and scale better to 8S. Tulsa can be used in systems up to 32S in size, Opterons cannot go above 8S.
November 14, 2006 11:48:27 AM

Check this site out for Comparisons of architectures.
The Latest benchmark is the new 4 core.

http://www50.sap.com/benchmarkdata/sd2tier.asp

Note a 4 Socket dual core P4 based Xeon is faster than this system as is a 4 socket dual core opteron.
November 14, 2006 11:54:45 AM

Hmmmmm, I wonder how that will turn out as well. One thing the article also stressed was testing out whole systems compared to just the processors, wondering if Intel would ever get off requiring ECC memory... could they make a chipset that would take either ECC or non-ECC, or is that architectually impossible?

Also, looking at the top supercomputers list, I realized most of them were all IBM... what does the PowerPC have that allows it to perform better at such huge numbers, or is IBM just so beastly of a company it lands all the lucrative jobs...
November 23, 2006 4:56:20 PM

AMD Fanboy blog. But at least better than Sharikou's.
November 23, 2006 5:31:48 PM

Quote:
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2872

Well, I meant for the topic name to say more, but it limited me =(

Still seems that Opteron's scale better than Intel's offering and are still at the top performance per watt wise.

In a nutshell, the new Xeon MP will have a hard time convincing people who are leaning towards an Opteron server or want the best performance/watt. But on the other hand, the decent performance and superior RAS features will keep the customers who desire high availability in the Intel camp, while the previous Xeon MP was such a poor performer that many people had no other choice than the AMD Opteron in the quad socket market.


But it also seems that Intel really did take a big step in the right direction, at least the server market isin't one-sided anymore.

Any other thoughts on this?

Tulsa is definitely better than Paxville, but 8xxx still owns the 4Way space in transactions (DBs). That is the main reason why AMD lost their desktop title. They are devoting their resources to release server chips first and then desktop.

That's why Barcelona will appear first as a server followed by FX and then X4(?). HT gives them an adavntage over everyone right now for servers. Of course, Opteron is no slouch. Dell just released their AMD server and it has taken the number two spot in TPC-H for 300GB DBs right behind DL585 (www.tpc.org - nonclustered TPC-H).

The addition of 667 DDR2 seems to have pushed 940 out. It seems more and more like Intel won't get the server title back because before CSI there will be HT3 and Barcelona. I believe that combo will be a BEAST, especially with Torrenza.

AMD has taken the number two super computer now with a Cray system and has gained in numbers in the Top 500. Only Power 5 is close.

http://scientiasblog.blogspot.com

Just remember I keep telling people AMD is concentrating on server perf and the trickle down does help the desktop. It's interesting though that they aren't doing an Opteron shrink.

But then Barcelona is due to be demoed next month around the same time as Brisbane launches so I guess they realize that they can stay ahead until Q307.
November 23, 2006 5:39:54 PM

Quote:
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2872

Well, I meant for the topic name to say more, but it limited me =(

Still seems that Opteron's scale better than Intel's offering and are still at the top performance per watt wise.

In a nutshell, the new Xeon MP will have a hard time convincing people who are leaning towards an Opteron server or want the best performance/watt. But on the other hand, the decent performance and superior RAS features will keep the customers who desire high availability in the Intel camp, while the previous Xeon MP was such a poor performer that many people had no other choice than the AMD Opteron in the quad socket market.


But it also seems that Intel really did take a big step in the right direction, at least the server market isin't one-sided anymore.

Any other thoughts on this?

Tulsa is definitely better than Paxville, but 8xxx still owns the 4Way space in transactions (DBs). That is the main reason why AMD lost their desktop title. They are devoting their resources to release server chips first and then desktop.

That's why Barcelona will appear first as a server followed by FX and then X4(?). HT gives them an adavntage over everyone right now for servers. Of course, Opteron is no slouch. Dell just released their AMD server and it has taken the number two spot in TPC-H for 300GB DBs right behind DL585 (www.tpc.org - nonclustered TPC-H).

The addition of 667 DDR2 seems to have pushed 940 out. It seems more and more like Intel won't get the server title back because before CSI there will be HT3 and Barcelona. I believe that combo will be a BEAST, especially with Torrenza.

AMD has taken the number two super computer now with a Cray system and has gained in numbers in the Top 500. Only Power 5 is close.

http://scientiasblog.blogspot.com

Just remember I keep telling people AMD is concentrating on server perf and the trickle down does help the desktop. It's interesting though that they aren't doing an Opteron shrink.

But then Barcelona is due to be demoed next month around the same time as Brisbane launches so I guess they realize that they can stay ahead until Q307.True...much in the same way as Racing teams(NASCAR/NHRA) helps fuel improvements for everyday street cars. :) 
November 23, 2006 6:19:08 PM

Going in circles eh? Le Mans and GT for me.
November 23, 2006 6:32:41 PM

Quote:
Going in circles eh? Le Mans and GT for me.
Actually i hate NASCAR(boring going in circles)...but love NHRA(Drag-Racing). :D 
November 24, 2006 12:07:53 AM

Quote:
Going in circles eh? Le Mans and GT for me.


Le Mans & GT for me too... nothing against dizzyness... er... circles, though.


Cheers!
November 24, 2006 12:23:58 AM

Any one can turn left, it takes a man to turn right [/unkind to NASCAR]
November 24, 2006 12:31:56 AM

Quote:
Any one can turn left, it takes a man to turn right [/unkind to NASCAR]


Now, if you live in the UK... :wink:


Cheers!
November 30, 2006 12:57:22 AM

This is favoring Wood crest...
http://tweakers.net/reviews/646/14

Who got edge in these benches...
http://www50.sap.com/benchmarkdata/sd2tier.asp

Seems to be not an exhaustive server like benchies ???
http://www.techworld.com/opsys/reviews/index.cfm?review...
or
http://www.digitmag.co.uk/reviews/index.cfm?ReviewID=66...

Independent organization announced their results
------------------
some what configurable...
http://www.spec.org/cgi-bin/osgresults?conf=cpu2006

4th Quarter recently announced
http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2006q4/

All results **** very hard to understand ****
http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/

but comparing against Itanium may not be fair.....

Sun claimed their victory based on spec results
http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/x4100/benchmarks.jsp#q...



Here comes my problem....above links suggests woodcrest i feel....

Usage area
web servers,database servers,Application server(all are multi threaded)
SAP or other ERP applications....
For testing or training not into production...

Key comparison factors
Cost,performance,power consumption...


Home build server using almost identical configuration, inferior to the same line of products like (HP Proliant,Dell PowerEdge or sun fire series) ????

Guru's throw some thoughts.........
November 30, 2006 9:34:48 AM

Nah, I'm more of a Lemans/F1 kinda guy. Gotta love Audi and Ferrari...

But it's true, the new 4P Xeons are still Netburst-based. Woodcrest still doesn't have anything that's 4P but I'm sure it would be fast...
November 30, 2006 10:31:49 AM

Quote:
Nah, I'm more of a Lemans/F1 kinda guy. Gotta love Audi and Ferrari...

But it's true, the new 4P Xeons are still Netburst-based. Woodcrest still doesn't have anything that's 4P but I'm sure it would be fast...


Tulsa (4P + Intel CPU) is netburst based, but still is hell of a chip. In the high end server market that 16MB cache makes up much more ground then having Core2 based internals would.
November 30, 2006 10:42:30 AM

Quote:
Intel CPU's perform better at every level up to 8 sockets, so how do you come to the conclusion that AMD is better?

look here - 8 way Intel is close to DOUBLE the performance of the 8 way AMD.. This is the real world, where people with cheque books live.

http://www.sap.com/solutions/benchmark/pdf/cert6106.pdf
http://www.sap.com/solutions/benchmark/pdf/cert6506.pdf


Don't see any business with the cash that would got for AMD servers tbh.


Are you really comparing apples to apples or apples to oranges?
The config of the two systems are so different.

http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2872&p=10
November 30, 2006 10:45:24 AM

On 4+ Intel managed to match Opteron, but thats pure brute force.
Intel can only surpass Opterons (on 4+) after the OCMC and CSI launch.
November 30, 2006 10:49:11 AM

Quote:
Nah, I'm more of a Lemans/F1 kinda guy. Gotta love Audi and Ferrari...

But it's true, the new 4P Xeons are still Netburst-based. Woodcrest still doesn't have anything that's 4P but I'm sure it would be fast...


Tulsa (4P + Intel CPU) is netburst based, but still is hell of a chip. In the high end server market that 16MB cache makes up much more ground then having Core2 based internals would.

It depends heavily on situations: programs which take advantage of a large cache will benefit more from Tulsa.
November 30, 2006 11:30:35 AM

http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2872&p=10

HP DL doesn't have a DDR2 and if i'm ok....they are comparing xeon 71xx against Opteron 885 which is not fair(there are 22xx and 88xx's) ... compare top of the line Intel to top of the line AMD.

They might say as they are comparing between two server boxes.

In any case its not a fair comparison between two top of the line server processors.

I agree with the anand
Quote:
In a nutshell, the new Xeon MP will have a hard time convincing people who are leaning towards an Opteron server or want the best performance/watt. But on the other hand, the decent performance and superior RAS features will keep the customers who desire high availability in the Intel camp, while the previous Xeon MP was such a poor performer that many people had no other choice than the AMD Opteron in the quad socket market.
December 2, 2006 4:03:17 PM

Quote:
Intel CPU's perform better at every level up to 8 sockets, so how do you come to the conclusion that AMD is better?

look here - 8 way Intel is close to DOUBLE the performance of the 8 way AMD.. This is the real world, where people with cheque books live.

http://www.sap.com/solutions/benchmark/pdf/cert6106.pdf
http://www.sap.com/solutions/benchmark/pdf/cert6506.pdf


Don't see any business with the cash that would got for AMD servers tbh.


Are you really comparing apples to apples or apples to oranges?
The config of the two systems are so different.

http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2872&p=10

Yes - it's not an exact match.... But still quite convincing IMHO....

Find me a real DB benchmark (not mysql) where an AMD system can outperform a 7140... The 7140 is a DB beast, who cares if it is because of 'raw power' or large cache sizes, Intel rule 4 to 8 way.

People only ever buy 4 or 8 way servers for DB's, every other app you are better served by 2 way systems, then scaling up with multiple servers.
December 2, 2006 4:03:38 PM

Quote:
Intel CPU's perform better at every level up to 8 sockets, so how do you come to the conclusion that AMD is better?

look here - 8 way Intel is close to DOUBLE the performance of the 8 way AMD.. This is the real world, where people with cheque books live.

http://www.sap.com/solutions/benchmark/pdf/cert6106.pdf
http://www.sap.com/solutions/benchmark/pdf/cert6506.pdf


Don't see any business with the cash that would got for AMD servers tbh.


Are you really comparing apples to apples or apples to oranges?
The config of the two systems are so different.

http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2872&p=10

Yes - it's not an exact match.... But still quite convincing IMHO....

Find me a real DB benchmark (not mysql) where an AMD system can outperform a 7140... The 7140 is a DB beast, who cares if it is because of 'raw power' or large cache sizes, Intel rule 4 to 8 way.

People only ever buy 4 or 8 way servers for DB's, every other app you are better served by 2 way systems, then scaling up with multiple servers.
December 2, 2006 4:05:35 PM

Yes - it's not an exact match.... But still quite convincing IMHO....

Find me a real DB benchmark (not mysql) where an AMD system can outperform a 7140... The 7140 is a DB beast, who cares if it is because of 'raw power' or large cache sizes, Intel rule 4 to 8 way.

People only ever buy 4 or 8 way servers for DB's, every other app you are better served by 2 way systems, then scaling up with multiple servers.
December 2, 2006 4:06:31 PM

Yes - it's not an exact match.... But still quite convincing IMHO....

Find me a real DB benchmark (not mysql) where an AMD system can outperform a 7140... The 7140 is a DB beast, who cares if it is because of 'raw power' or large cache sizes, Intel rule 4 to 8 way.

People only ever buy 4 or 8 way servers for DB's, every other app you are better served by 2 way systems, then scaling up with multiple servers.
!