We used Ubuntu Server 10.10 and Folidng@Home for power consumption and acoustic testing. It's fairly common to see these measurements taken fairly quickly after a configuration is presented with load. But instead of taking a reading 15 minutes into a workload, we let these servers run at 100% utilization for six hours each. This actually yields an appreciable difference in power consumption and noise compared to the shorter testing used on desktop hardware, and is probably closer to what a server might see in a data center. We picked Folding@Home because it is a real-world GROMACS-based application used for research purposes, and a big work unit takes 24 hours or more for the machine to complete. It also scales fairly well from four to 64 cores, making it useful for generating high CPU load over long periods. Both Linux and Windows clients are available, but the Linux client tends to be a quite a bit faster on the same hardware, and Linux gives options for better thread management.
Power consumption and noise testing was performed using each motherboard's PWM-controlled fan settings. This is worth noting because there is one school of thought that suggests you should keep fans at full speed in order to push as much air through the chassis as possible. A side benefit of pegging fans at full speed is that there is no ramp up or down, putting additional wear on the fans. The other school of thought, and one that I ascribe to, is that motherboard PWM fan control is good enough to keep components cool while saving power. If workloads are relatively even, there is not much ramp up or down anyway, allowing the coolers to spin at lower average speed. Just to give you an idea, at full speed, the fans used in these barebones units can draw between 15 and 18 W each. With four to eight fans per system, that's not a negligible amount of power. Data centers typically have restrictions on power delivery, so cutting back may help save overage charges.
An Extech 380803 True RMS power meter was used to measure power consumption of each system. Measurements were taken at the six-hour mark and averaged over three runs. The systems were allowed to cool for three hours between runs in a fully powered-off state.
Supermicro and Intel achieve almost identical power consumption. Tyan isn't far behind. However, there is a measurable delta between the three systems. There is a distinct possibility that the difference is due to Supermicro and Intel using 80 PLUS Platinum-rated PSUs, while Tyan arms its machine with less-efficient Gold-rated power supplies. Also, Tyan uses a separate PCB to distribute power around the chassis.
For sound testing, we used an Extech 407764 NIST-calibrated digital sound meter with a 15-foot microphone extension cable so that we could monitor from another room to preserve a 32 dB(A) sound floor (the Extech 407764 is rated for 30-130 dB sensitivity.) The idle measurements were taken 30 minutes after the system booted into Ubuntu Server, and the load readings were taken before each Folding@Home six-hour run was completed. Three runs were averaged for the scores below.
Intel does well here, as does Supermicro. The Tyan chassis is a bit louder (particularly at idle). But being a 2U enclosure, there is significantly less noise than if these were 1U machines. All three servers are too noisy to put in the middle of an open office or in a home. However, in a data center, these noise levels are expected.
Realistically, these machines will run under at least some load most of the time. So, while idle noise is recorded for the sake of completeness, the results are less relevant in the real world than the load numbers.
- Three 2P Xeon E5-2600 Platforms Compared: Intel, Supermicro, And Tyan
- The Rules, Contenders, And Test Setup
- Supermicro 6027R-N3RF4+: Layout And Overview
- Supermicro 6027R-N3RF4+: Layout And Overview, Continued
- Supermicro 6027R-N3RF4+: Management Features And Serviceability
- Tyan GN70-K7053: Layout And Overview
- Tyan GN70-K7053: Layout And Overview, Continued
- Tyan GN70-K7053: Management Features And Serviceability
- Intel R2208GZ4GC: Layout And Overview
- Intel R2208GZ4GC: Layout And Overview, Continued
- Intel R2208GZ4GC: Management Features And Serviceability
- Pricing, Warranty, And Support Comparison
- Benchmark Results: Adobe CS 5, 3ds Max, And Cinebench
- Benchmark Results: Compiling, Folding, And Euler
- Power Consumption And Noise Comparison
- Whose 2U Server System For Xeon E5 Is Best?


I agree. Just reduce it a little bit but don't make it too hard to see
Usually? The E5s absolutely crush AMD's best offerings. AMD's top of the line server chips are about equal in performance to Intel's last generation of chips, which are now more than two years old. It's even more lopsided than Sandy Bridge vs. Bulldozer.
As an AMD fan, I wish we could. But while Magny-Cours was competitive with the last gen Xeons, AMD doesn't really have anything that stacks up against the E5. In pretty much every workload, E5 dominates the 62xx or the 61xx series by 30-50%. The E5 is even price competitive at this point.
We'll just have to see how Piledriver does.
Having said that I would suggest you include expected PPD for the given TPF since that is what folders look at when deciding on hardware. Or you could just devote 48 hours from each machine to generate actual results for F@H and donate those points to your F@H team (yes Tom's has a team [40051] and visibility is our biggest problem).
The issue is that other tech sites promote their teams. We do not have a promotive site. Even while mentioning F@H, some people do not agree with it or will never want to participate. It is a mentality. However, it is a choice!
F@H on such a monster? Do the math and you'll see that just after one year of 24/7 operation you would rack up over 3 billion points, putting you in the top 10 for teams and no.1 spot for single user.
That's assuming, of course, that you've forked out $20k for your monthly power bill to run that fully-stocked 42U rack and paid $240k to your utility company for the entire year. Then there's the cost of the hardware itself - around $26k for each 2U server, or around a cool $600,000.
SPEND MONEY FAST
all powerful server are expensive now.
I believe market for cheap but powerful server are big, and no one is working on this area.
I know the profit is not big, but by big quantity it mean big money too
The point is that memory is directly connected to 1 CPU only. Adding a 2nd CPU doubles aggregate bandwidth, but could actually hurt performance, if the software isn't written to carefully to localize data and manage affinity between threads & CPUs.
great work.
That is something that we are looking at. This was more of a look at what is out there for barebones kits. I totally agree that these types of comparisons would be great.
That is already done (but as more of a work around) build a standard PC.
Many high end gaming motherboards work well in a server environment, and can easily handle a high traffic website.
Most web hosting does not need a super powerful server (which is why virtualization is so popular). If you are running a relatively small business and are not doing anything that is hugely CPU bound (eg, rendering) then you can save a bit of money with a decent desktop PC.