Assessing IBM's POWER8, Part 1: A Low Level Look at Little Endian
by Johan De Gelas on July 21, 2016 8:45 AM ESTClosing Thoughts
Testing both the IBM POWER8 and the Intel Xeon V4 with an unbiased compiler gave us answers to many of the questions we had. The bandwidth advantage of POWER8's subsystem has been quantified: IBM's most affordeable core can offer twice as much bandwidth than Intel's, at least if your application is not (perfectly) vectorized.
Despite the fact that POWER8 can sustain 8 instructions per clock versus 4 to 5 for modern Intel microarchitectures, chips based on Intel's Broadwell architecture deliver the highest instructions per clock cycle rate in most single threaded situations. The larger OoO buffers (available to a single thread!) and somewhat lower branch misprediction penalty seem to the be most likely causes.
However, the difference is not large: the POWER8 CPU inside the S812LC delivers about 87% of the Xeon's single threaded performance at the same clock. That the POWER8 would excel in memory intensive workloads is not a suprise. However, the fact that the large L2 and eDRAM-based L3 caches offer very low latency (at up to 8 MB) was a surprise to us. That the POWER8 won when using GCC to compile was the logical result but not something we expected.
The POWER8 microarchitecture is clearly built to run at least two threads. On average, two threads gives a massive 43% performance boost, with further peaks of up to 84%. This is in sharp contrast with Intel's SMT, which delivers a 18% performance boost with peaks of up to 32%. Taken further, SMT-4 on the POWER8 chip outright doubles its performance compared to single threaded situations in many of the SPEC CPU subtests.
All in all, the maximum throughput of one POWER8 core is about 43% faster than a similar Broadwell-based Xeon E5 v4. Considering that using more cores hardly ever results in perfect scaling, a POWER8 CPU should be able to keep up with a Xeon with 40 to 60% more cores.
To be fair, we have noticed that the Xeon E5 v4 (Broadwell) consumes less power than its formal TDP specification, in notable contrast to its v3 (Haswell) predecessor. So it must be said that the power consumption of the 10 core POWER8 CPU used here is much higher. On paper this is 190W + 64W Centaur chips, versus 145W for the Intel CPU. Put in practice, we measured 221W at idle on our S812LC, while a similarly equipped Xeon system idled at around 90-100W. So POWER8 should be considered in situations where performance is a higher priority than power consumption, such as databases and (big) data mining. It is not suited for applications that run close to idle much of the time and experience only brief peaks of activity. In those markets, Intel has a large performance-per-watt advantage. But there are definitely opportunities for a more power hungry chip if it can deliver significantly greater performance.
Ultimately the launch of IBM's LC servers deserves our attention: it is a monumental step forward for IBM to compete with Intel in a much larger part of the market. Those servers seem to be competitively priced with similar Xeon systems and can access the same Little Endian data as an x86 server. But can POWER8 based system really deliver a significant performance advantage in real server applications? In the next article we will explore the S812LC and its performance in a real server situations, so stay tuned.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
124 Comments
View All Comments
nobodyblog - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
Please correct this error, you are saying you are comparing with BEST Intel can provide, but you did address Xeon for workloads need Xeon Phi Knight Landing which is a standalone CPU, too. If you choose correctly, the benchmark will be sooo different.IBM Power 8 is 90 GB/s, while Intel's Xeon phi knight landing (as 7290F) has a bandwidth of 400 GB/s.
IBM power 8 does above 600 gflops single precision and above 300 gflops double precision FLOPs, this is *10 in Xeon phi 7290F.
Specint: xeon phi is 1500 vs 1700 for power 8
Power and Price aside....
Thanks!
LukaP - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
If we start comparing different product categories, why not bring the GP100 into this as well. It will deliver 10TFLOPS of single precision and can be had for much less than any of these. But then again, there is the same caveat as the Xeon Phi. You cant actually run an OS on it, you need a host CPU and then you dispatch kernels onto the accelerator. Even if its a socketed version.smilingcrow - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
You can boot from newer Xeon Phi; either current or the next generation due maybe this year!LukaP - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
Oh really? :o that is neat, though not sure if that useful, since even highly parallel tasks usually have some IPC dependent components...Anyways have you got a source for that, would love to read more
Drumsticks - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
I'm a verification intern on the Phi team right now, and you can indeed boot Knight's Landing! Anandtech mentions it here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/9802/supercomputing-...nobodyblog - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
Then you can add another xeon phi to above statistics... Xeon Phi KL is a CPU like other CPUs it does everything as mentioned even its specint is comparable, not so bad...Thanks!
tipoo - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
Xeon Phi is x86, but it's GPU-like in nature, massively parallel for performance with low per-core performance. The IBM Power8 and other Xeons compete in highly parallel spaces like banking, but where single thread performance also still matters. Can't compare them.nobodyblog - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
Xeon Phi Knight Landing has 3 times more single thread performance than silvermont (& knight corner).. I don't think it is so bad...The comparison is truly so, see the benchmarks, they say specint for example, or anything parallel performance, additionally, you can use a Xeon high performance with a xeon phi, there is nothing that prevents you. The benchmark is not about Database performance or parsing or anything similar, it is about this article, I don't say xeon phi is currently better positioned than xeon in these uses... But IBM's Power is not so, too, it has lots of core and lots of threads which is usable only in massive parallel uses...
Thanks!
nobodyblog - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
On the IBM server, numactl was used to physically bind the 2, 4, or 8 copies of SPEC CPU to the first 2, 4, or 8 threads of the first core. On the Intel server, the 2 copy benchmark was bound to the first core. It is not single thread, it is a trick IBM uses to cheat in benchmarks, it is 425% percents slower than xeon in single thread.Thanks!
jospoortvliet - Tuesday, July 26, 2016 - link
The benchmarks here pit one core against one core. The IBM cores can run 1, 2, 4 or 8 threads on a single core, the Intel does 1 or 2. The 425%, not sure where that number comes from, but it isn't what shows out of these benchmarks.The benchmarks show, as described by Johan:
In single thread, the IBM does about 13% less work than the Intel core. In 2-thread mode, the IBM does about 20% more than the intel across the two threads. The intel doesn't do more than 2 threads, the IBM can and does then, on average, 43% more work across the eight threads than the Intel does with its two.
So Intel is single-thread master here, IBM is throughput king. Now if you have a HEAVILY threaded workload, with hundreds of threads and little latency requirements for each, Knights Landing or a GPU is a better choice, with their hundreds of cores. If latency is important and you can afford to use two to four threads per core the IBM performs best. If latency is everything, you keep it at 1 thread per core and the Intel Xeon is the best performer.
That is entirely ignoring cost, of course, both Intel and IBM have high and low cost solutions with their downsides and benefits. This set of benchmarks simply pitted one core against another, entirely ignoring the differences in core count (IBM 10, Intel 22) and price (Intel orders of magnitude more expensive). You'll always have to look at a bigger picture: how many cores do you get for your dollar and what are your requirements.
Performance/watt, the Intel probably wins in all area's, at least if the system is idle frequently. Without idle the IBM might be not that bad, perf/power wise.
The big take-away from this article is, though, that IBM has built a system which can be quite price-competitive with Intel in the lower-high end market. To really be able to make a choice, we'd probably need a benchmark of two price-equivalent systems. I bet the workload would make a huge difference in who wins the price/performance fight.