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 results
As can be seen from the results, the doubling of the L2 Cache did not improve performance on the Xeon's in this test. We speculate that this is because the test consists of approximately 10 long running queries, which are processing datasets that are 100's of megabytes, thus not allowing for reuse of the L2 Cache. The Opteron, on the other hand, excelled due to its on-die memory controller. The different platforms exhibited approximately 50% CPU utilization across all CPUs. This demonstrates that you do not have to be CPU bound to experience the benefits of faster CPUs.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
97 Comments
View All Comments
Visual - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
the intel board that you used, you listed it as SE7620AF2. there is no such thing though, so is it a typoed SE7520AF2 or a yet unreleased board?kaka - Saturday, February 19, 2005 - link
??,OPteron is better than xeon!!Fluff - Thursday, February 17, 2005 - link
But in future it would be handy to touch upon extra features such as differences in remote management, what happens if a cpu fails, if memory fails is there hotswop. As these probably affect a decision as well as performance.I believe that people benefit from the sort of technical analysis and simulated real world that Anandtech does but in addition the other factors such as up-time and manangement would be nice to know.
If a cpu fan / stick of memory fails on a database at the weekend and no one is there to hear the alarm what do the various platforms do?
If a cpu fails on a dual opteron does that mean it loses all the data attached to that cpu? Does the same happen on a xeon? Will a Xeon keep going with just one - chipkill?
I'm not sure if this is outside the scope of Anandtech.
Jason Clark - Thursday, February 17, 2005 - link
Hans, you are correct in that they wouldn't be using non supported memory. But, since the board was pre-production and at the time of testing there were no "recommended' memory modules, we had to go with what we had. Word is our issues were bios related and a new bios should address it.Cheers
Jason Clark - Thursday, February 17, 2005 - link
Hans, fair enough on the next article we'll include it for those curious.Jason Clark - Thursday, February 17, 2005 - link
Viditor, we tested with 8GB of memory using PAE and AWE support in SQL. When 64bit versions of sql and windows 2003 are ready we'll be all over it.Viditor - Thursday, February 17, 2005 - link
BTW, for some Linux spec results, check these out...http://www.pathscale.com/pr_021505.html
Sun Fire V20z server (2xAMD Opteron processor Model 252, SLES9) with PathScale EKOPath Compiler Suite: SPECfp2000 -- 2036, SPECint_rate2000 -- 40.4, SPECfp_rate2000 -- 46.5.
The Sun Fire V40z server with PathScale EKOPath Compiler Suite (4xAMD Opteron processor Model 852, SLES9): SPECint_rate2000 76.7, SPECfp_rate2000 -- 87.1.
The Sun Fire V20z server (2xAMD Opteron processor Model 250, SLES8): SPECfp_rate2000 37.2.
IBM eServer OpenPower 710 (2x1.65 GHz Power5, Linux): SPECfp_rate -- 40.2.
IBM eServer p5 510 (2x1.65 GHz Power5, AIX): SPECint_rate2000 -- 33, SPECfp_rate2000 -- 43.2
Viditor - Thursday, February 17, 2005 - link
Jason...I see you are retesting the HT, but I haven't seen a comment from you about testing 64bit with large memory (>4GB). Is this something you just aren't prepared to do right now?
Cheers...
Viditor - Thursday, February 17, 2005 - link
"I read viditor comment that said as single"Yup...very sorry prd00...my bad!
"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"
Fair call Jason, but as this is a beta bios, it might be an important data point...
sleepless - "Looking at the configuration you show Opteron 250 with a 252. Did you have a problem getting another 252 Opteron for the test?"
They built 2 test platforms, 1 with dual 250s and 1 with dual 252s...or so I assume (after my last mistake I take nothing for granted)...:-)
sleepless1 - Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - link
Looking at the configuration you show Opteron 250 with a 252. Did you have a problem getting another 252 Opteron for the test?