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
It's been five months since either of the processor giants released a new server processor. Today, both Intel and AMD have new offerings. Intel has updated their 3.6 GHz Xeon to include an additional 1MB of L2 cache, and AMD has bumped their quickest Opteron up 200Mhz to 2.6GHz with the Opteron 252. Neither one of these upgrades is groundbreaking, but they do offer some performance increases, especially the 2MB Xeon. We'll see some more significant releases later this year from both manufacturers with their Dual Core offerings.
Intel's Update
Instead of a clock increase, Intel decided to throw some cache at the existing 3.6 Xeon units. In one of our previous articles, we took a look at a 4MB Gallatin Xeon and compared it to an Opteron. The results showed that the 4MB cache on the Gallatin didn't boast any large increases over that of the Opteron with 1MB of L2 cache. The main reason for that was the 400Mhz bus, which starved the Gallatin of precious bandwidth. Times have changed; Intel recognized the bandwidth issue and today, an extra 1MB of L2 cache on the 800Mhz bus that the Nocona and Irwindale Xeons offer does make a difference. Of course, the difference depends entirely on the workload, which we'll explain further as we reveal our results.
AMD's Update
The Opteron 252 is mostly a clock speed increase from 2.4GHz to 2.6GHz, but there are a few of other differences that are worth mentioning. The packaging has changed on the new 252 from ceramic to organic - you can see the difference from a 250 to the 252 below. Aside from the packaging, AMD has also thrown in SSE3 instructions, increased the HyperTransport to 1GHz, and the 252 is manufactured on 90nm. As for the Dual Core roadmap for AMD, it remains on schedule for mid-2005. Dual core Opterons will be socket compatible with existing 940 pin sockets that support 90nm (95W/80A).
 |
 |
| Click images to enlarge. | |
64bit SQL Server Tests?
In our recent SQL articles, we've been asked, "where are the 64 bit tests?" Who cares about 32 bit based tests? First, we're right on top of 64 bit testing for SQL Server - remember that this application is still in beta. Regarding the second question, the large majority of SQL Server database servers are running on 32 bit platforms, so a lot of people do care. That being said, 64 bit SQL Server is definitely sought after, and we are going to provide coverage as soon as we can.
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!