Intel Xeon 3.6 2MB vs AMD Opteron 252 Database Test
by Jason Clark & Ross Whitehead on February 14, 2005 8:00 AM EST- Posted in
- IT Computing
Price comparison & Final Words
In previous articles, we've taken a look at the cost of the processor itself. Since servers aren't just about the processor, we've taken our pricing to an entire platform. We've attempted to spec out Intel and AMD servers from 2 different vendors and have them as close as possible in terms of features. There are obviously a few differences here and there, but as illustrated below, the price difference is negligible between either platform when taking into account the features missing on either platform. Note that we are comparing Dual Intel 3.6 1MB L2 based servers against Dual Opteron 250 servers, since the newer products that we have discussed in this article are not yet in the retail channel.
| HP ProLiant DL360 SCSI | HP ProLiant DL145 SCSI | IBM xSeries 336 | IBM eServer 326 | |
| Platform | Intel | AMD | Intel | AMD |
| CPU | Dual 3.6 GHz 1MB L2 | Dual Opteron 250 (2.4GHz) | Dual 3.6 Ghz 1MB L2 | Dual Opteron 250 (2.4 GHz) |
| Memory | 2GB | 2GB | 2GB | 2GB |
| Hard Drive | 36.4 Pluggable Ultra320 (15,000 RPM) | 36.4 Non Pluggable Ultra320 (15,000 RPM) | IBM 36GB 2.5" 10K SCSI HDD HS | 36GB 10K U320 SCSI HS Option |
| SCSI Controller | Smart Array 6i Plus controller (onboard) | Dual Channel Ultra 320 SCSI HBA | Integrated Single-Channel Ultra320 SCSI Controller (Standard) | Integrated Single-Channel Ultra320 SCSI Controller (Standard) |
| Bays | Two Ultra 320 SCSI Hot Plug Drive Bays | Two non-hot plug hard drive bays | 4 hot swap bays | 2 hot swap bays |
| Network | NC7782 PCI-X Gigabit NICs (embedded) | Broadcom 5704 Gigabit Nics (embedded) | Dual integrated 10/100/1000 Mbps Ethernet (Standard) | Dual integrated 10/100/1000 Mbps Ethernet (Standard) |
| Power | 460W hot pluggable power supply | 500W non hot plug power supply | 585W power supply | 411W Power Supply (Standard) |
| Server Management | SmartStart & Insight Manager | None | System Management Processor (Standard) | System Management Processor (Standard) |
| OS | None | None | None | None |
| Cost | $5,946 | $5,009 | $5,476 | $5,226 |
Final words
We've illustrated how workload has a significant effect on platform decision when it comes to database servers. Obviously, for a small to medium business, where there are multiple different workloads being run on the same server, the decision to go with a platform architecture best suited for Data warehousing alone doesn't make sense. But for larger organizations where multiple database servers are used, each having a specific purpose, the decision to go with one platform or another could have a significant impact on performance. For dual-processor applications, Intel leads the way in everyday small to heavy transactional applications, whereas AMD shines in the analytical side of database applications "Data Warehousing".
These results do raise some questions as to what is going on exactly during each test at an architectural level. Is the processor waiting for data from the L2 cache? Is the processor branch prediction units not suited for this particular workload? Is there a bottleneck with memory latency? We want these questions answered, and are going to investigate ways to provide concrete answers to these tough questions in the future.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
97 Comments
View All Comments
Hans Maulwurf - Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - link
Yes, but IBM would not use memory that is not on the recommanded list of the mainboard, at lest I hope so.And it is possible that the boad sets very high latencies for the memory you used. So I think it is an important information especially when using memory that is not recommanded.
Jason Clark - Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - link
Hans, let me ask you this. When someone in an IT dept. calls Compaq, Dell, HP or IBM for a server do you think they ask them what the memory timings are set at? The answer is no. Which is why we aren't going to provide information like that, as it isn't relevant to the target audience or the purpose of the article. We're trying to educate the IT folks on what platform does what on certain workloads and IT related tests.Cheers.
prd00 - Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - link
Hans Maulwurf - Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - link
Jason,you do not have to play with the memory timings to report them.
dm - Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - link
danidentity, i guess you're right when you mentioned about 5pages of reply ;)...prd00 - Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - link
Sorry, missed your comment Jason.. I read viditor comment that said as single. So, in Dual setup, Xeon is more powerful now ;). Then, Xeon must be faster in single.I am waiting for 64 bit one ;)
prd00 - Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - link
Wow.. single??On single setup, I already knew that Xeon is powerful. Right now what we are lacking is a TRUE SERVER BENCHMARK. Not just single vs single. I can safely recommend Xeon since a few months ago on single setup, but right now, most of our customers are asking about DUAL SETUP. Some are looking in QUAD setup. Single is useless in server environment. For databse server, 9 out of 10 are looking for 2p setup
So, what I am really looking are database benchmark on single, dual and quad setup, and also how does it scale. Which platform best suited for 2p and 4p, and which one has better upgrade future (i.e. by adding processors), and until what point.
So, like, Xeon is good for 1p, but on 2p Opteron is better, while more than 8p we can consider Itanium instead for database server.
Kind of conclusion like that.
Jason Clark - Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - link
Zebo, because this is a server test. You don't play with memory timings/overclocking in servers. We used default memory timings that the Tyan board set for the memory. I linked to the manufacturer specs on the memory which identifies its SPD rating. The only thing we're investigating at this point is the 1GHz HT issue in the bios.PrinceGaz - Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - link
It's certainly a change from the usual Opteron beating Xeon in almost all server tests reviews, and all the more so because you say they were both dual CPU systems (I was under the impression while reading they were only single CPU servers being compared).It just goes to show how much difference the benchmarks that are run, how well the systems are set up, and any other things we never know about, can influence results.
I'm glad Intel is coming out ahead in some tests on AT, maybe you should make them come out ahead on desktop stuff too as that might encourage AMD to drop the prices on the higher rated E0 revision Athlon 64 processors sooner rather than later :)
Zebo - Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - link
Jason how comw you did'nt say mem timings nor speed or if 1T or not? I've never seen a review from AT without this.