PDA

View Full Version : Anandtech: AMD Opteron vs. Intel Xeon: Database Performance Shootout


SM-Bot
5 Mar 2004, 5:16pm
We are comparing three different Intel cores to AMD's one and only Opteron core, so let's focus on the Intel cores first. Intel's Prestonia core is the 0.13-micron heart and soul of the 2-way Xeon processor now. The latest and greatest Prestonia based Xeon runs at 3.2GHz and features a 512KB L2 cache as well as a 2MB on-die L3 cache. This Prestonia should sound very familiar as it is basically a Xeon version of the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition, which was a Pentium 4 version of the Xeon MP at a higher clock speed. Yes, Prestonia is a server version of a desktop version of a server processor. In fact, the only difference between Prestonia and the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition (other than packaging) is that the Prestonia only supports the 533MHz FSB. Front Side Bus bandwidth is actually a very serious issue when it comes to Intel CPUs, but we'll talk about that shortly.

Next we have the Xeon MP processors based off of Intel's 0.13-micron Gallatin core. The Gallatin core is what the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition was derived from, and offers 1MB, 2MB and now 4MB on-die L3 cache configurations. Prior to this article the largest cache size available on a Gallatin core was 2MB, but today Intel is launching their 4MB Gallatin parts. Both the Gallatin 2MB and 4MB parts continue to use a 400MHz FSB, which is the Xeon MP's Achilles' heel. The Gallatin 4MB parts are available in speeds of up to 3.0GHz, which we are including in this review today.

AMD's offerings are much simpler; the Opteron is available in 1-way, 2-way and 4-way+ configurations: the 1xx, 2xx and 8xx series respectively. AMD's offerings haven't changed since our web server comparison, although we should see 2.4GHz Opterons debut in the near future.

Anandtech Article

To kill the suspense...... :)


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.

croc_
5 Mar 2004, 5:28pm
:o

:woowoo:

beatz
5 Mar 2004, 8:22pm
Prestonia is a server version of a desktop version of a server processor :Pwned:

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Thrax
5 Mar 2004, 8:28pm
I fail to see how 3.2GHz < 2.2GHz is Intel remaining competitive.

Leonardo
5 Mar 2004, 9:45pm
Don't take this in the Tom's Hardware Guide mode. If Tom's people stated such (3.2GHz < 2.2GHz is Intel remaining competitive), it would be their way of implying that everything must be put into an Intel perspective. Anand is simply implying that Opteron/A64 was so far advanced, that they (Anandtech) are surprised that Intel could stay in the game as well as they have.

qparadox
7 Mar 2004, 2:22am
People buying servers don't give a crap about what speed something is running at. They care about how fast it does the job it needs to do. Clock Frequency has always been a moot point for all but the least informed buyers.

Thrax
7 Mar 2004, 4:02am
Unfortunately, that's not at all true.

A preposterously large portion of enterprise system administrators stick with Intel because they still readily follow the long-untrue myth of AMD's sluggish performance and instability.

Leonardo
8 Mar 2004, 2:00am
I'd have to agree with Thrax. I've met a number sys admin types who are quite good at their network management jobs, but if you start talking hardware with them, they get the deer-in-the-headlights look when you discuss hardware beyond just mentioning brand names. In fact, I'd say the majority of system administrators I've met really aren't very sharp about hardware, except for configuring pre-built systems.

mmonnin
8 Mar 2004, 2:10am
Yeah I would agree. The only real experience I have with them is the school admins but the ones that run the network dont know as much as the ones that actually troubleshoot the machines.