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.


Data Warehouse results
Comments Locked

97 Comments

View All Comments

  • bob661 - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link

    #14
    The 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!

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now