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
Data Warehouse Test Explained
We are always looking to improve the quality of our reviews and as a result, we have added a new Stress Test to our suite.
This "Data Warehouse" test is focused on large record sets with plenty of aggregation. This test is based on a system that we developed to track and manage Request statistics for www.AnandTech.com and Forums.AnandTech.com. It tracks statistics like Requests/Hour, Requests/Hour/IP Address, Unique IP Addresses/Hour, Unique Users/Hour, Daily Browser stats, etc. These stats are further summarized by site, i.e.: www or Forums.
As with the other Stress Tests, each test was repeated three times and the average between the three tests was used. For this Data Warehouse Stress Test, we defined a quantity of work to complete and measured how long each platform required to process the workload.
So, to ensure that IO was not the bottleneck, each test was started with a database, including tempdb, which had already been expanded so that autogrow activity did not occur during the test. During the execution of the tests, there were no applications running on the server or monitoring software. Task Manager, Profiler, and Performance Monitor where used when establishing the baseline for the test, but never during execution of the tests.
At the beginning of each platform, the server was rebooted to ensure a clean and consistent environment. The database was always copied to the 8 disk RAID 0 array with no other files present to ensure that file placement and fragmentation was consistent between runs. In between each of the three tests, the database was deleted, the original database was copied again to the array, and SQL Server was restarted.
There is no "client" required for this test. The workload is initiated by a stored procedure call from Query Analyzer.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
97 Comments
View All Comments
bob661 - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
#14The difference is the 2xx can go up to 2 CPU's and the 8xx can go up to 8 CPU's. That's it.
Ross Whitehead - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
R3MF, we plan to discuss w/ AMD and Tyan the lack of benefit the 1 GHz HyperTransport provided.Jason Clark - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
ceefka, meager? 3 of the most popular uses of a database? If there is something you think we are missing, please reveal ;).We'll work on a web article asap.
ksherman - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
is it just me, or did you take the best Xeon and put it against a mid range Opteron? what about the 8xx series? what is the difference between 2xx and 8xx?blackbrrd - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
Seems Intel just turned the table again. What about webserver performance?blckgrffn - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
I meant on the desktop, which is why the PM doesn't really count, sorry I wasn't more clear on that...blckgrffn - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
I hope that the upcoming prescotts with 2meg L2 cache show similar improvements across the board - not because I am Intel fan, but really AMD hasn't had much in the way of direct competition from Intel lately (the PM doesn't count)Every benchmark has been: The 3000+ AMD64 is better than nearly any P4 for gaming performance, and if you really want to win all the benches but one or two, shell out for the fx-55... kind of boring, really :)
ceefka - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
However meager the benchies, it proofs my point that a company should mix and match according to their needs and not just stick with one or the other because their supplier says they shoud buy this or that.We have lots of financial data and scans, tables etc. going here, so a 4-way Opteron can be justified to sit between a few Xeon boxes for other apps. Unfortunately we're in the Intel comfort zone and browsing through accounts, scans and tables is therefore tedious.
R3MF - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
just because i'm awkward -i'd like to see a comparison between a:
> FX55 (2.6GHz) & O252 (2.6GHz)
> nF4 Ultra & nF4 Pro (abit wln8+)
> 2x 512MB DDR500
> 2x 300GB Max10 NCQ
> 6800 Ultra
in order to see whether the core enhancements in the new Opteron make a difference........?
am i asking for too much? :p
gordon151 - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
Yeah, this article needs to be re-written because the Opteron doesn't crush Xeon. These numbers are dubious!