Software Configuration
Windows Tests
Windows 2003 Enterprise 64-bit was used for the tests along with SQL Server 2005 64-bit.

Linux Tests
CentOS 4.2 x86_64 was used along with MySQL 5.0.18 x86_64.

Hardware Configuration
Intel Paxville System
Quad 3.0 GHz Paxville Dual Core Processors (667Mhz FSB / 2x2MB L2)
E8500 (Twin Castle 4S) Xeon MP Truland Platform
16GB DDR2
8 x 18GB 15,000RPM Ultra320 SCSI drives in RAID-0
LSI Logic 320-2 SCSI Raid Controller

HP DL585 Opteron System
HP Proliant DL585 System
Quad Opteron 880 Dual Core Processors
16GB DDR
8 x 18GB 15,000RPM Ultra320 SCSI drives in RAID-0
LSI Logic 320-2 SCSI Raid Controller

Benchmark Configuration

Many of you will notice that we've finally transitioned our benchmark platform to 64-bit. It's been a long road getting there; we were constantly trying out builds of SQL 2005 64-bit as it was in development, and had mixed results. The final build produced viable numbers, and we've fully transitioned to SQL 2005 for all future benchmarks.

Our goal throughout the tests was a constant CPU usage of 80-90%; we didn't want to reach the point of system saturation, nor did we want the systems to have too many idle cycles. Each test was first verified and then run 3 times. The standard deviation for the tests is 3-4%. We then averaged the set of three runs to produce the final result.

Linux MySQL Tests

SysBench 0.4.3 was used for the MySQL tests. We ran 4 different tests for each platform. The first two tests consisted of accessing 1M rows in a read-write scenario, and 1M rows in a read-only scenario. The second tests were the same only with 10M rows.

MSSQL Forum Test

The forum benchmark is a standard mid-tier OLTP test, which was made by replicating live query data from our forum database during peak hours. We took those queries and then record them in an XML file, with random row ID generators to handle keeping the test as real-world as possible. We wrote a C# application which takes the test and plays it back using several threads to stress the database to a desired level.

Dell DVD Store

The DVD Store Version 2 (DS2) is a complete online e-commerce test application, with a backend database component, a web application layer, and driver programs. The goal in designing the database component as well as the mid-tier application was to utilize many advanced database features (transactions, stored procedures, triggers, referential integrity) while keeping the database easy to install and understand. The DS2 workload may be used to test databases or as a stress tool for any purpose. The test is maintained by Dave Jaffe and Todd Muirhead from Dell. We configured the test to hit the database directly, instead of using a web-tier; we're testing database performance, and that removes any unneeded complexity and possible discrepancies.

Technology Outlook Benchmark Results
Comments Locked

35 Comments

View All Comments

  • Ganjalf - Monday, April 24, 2006 - link

    You're correct! The Opteron has a 36-51% lead over the Paxville.
  • Theunis - Monday, April 24, 2006 - link

    What about power consumption and heat dissipation? More heat would require more power for air conditioners? More power to the server room requires, the more money you have to spend to maintain the solution.
  • Jason Clark - Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - link

    How about a separate article, short but go through powernow and the numbers?

    Cheers
  • Jason Clark - Monday, April 24, 2006 - link

    We wanted to do power consumption numbers, however the Opteron was a 110V system and the Paxville is a 220V system :)...

    Cheers
  • Ecmaster76 - Monday, April 24, 2006 - link

    Err, you can measure power on a 220V system too. Its not that hard and the numbers will certainly be comparable.
  • AnandThenMan - Monday, April 24, 2006 - link

    quote:

    We wanted to do power consumption numbers, however the Opteron was a 110V system and the Paxville is a 220V system :)...


    What difference does that make exactly? Wattage is wattage. The supply voltage has no effect on total system power draw. Perhaps the Intel box draws too much power for the measuring equipment to handle. ;>)
  • mino - Monday, April 24, 2006 - link

    It MAKES adifference of around 3-5% in favor of the 220V system(whatever system it is)

    The same efficiency PSU is generally 3-5% more efficient than 110V one. To convert from 220 to 12V is simply "easier" than to go from 110V. This is also the reason 12V rail is employed for powering CPU's and GPU's PWMs. It is simply more efficient.

    However the power comparison would not hurt since Dempsey would be used in real system so the Intel system handicap would be offset somehow.

    Seems K8L is gona come right on time for Core MP chips...
  • Lifted - Monday, April 24, 2006 - link

    Agreed, doesn't make a difference since a co-lo is giving you an certain Amp circuit with your rack, regardless of the voltage you need, and will charge you more per Amp required.
  • xtremejack - Monday, April 24, 2006 - link

    Didnt paxville come out in Q4 last year, why this review now? We all know Paxville was just a stop-the-bleed solution by Intel, to get a Dual-Core Xeon. It was never expected to be a performance part at all. So why this no-brainer review? The market's moved on. A point in Paxville's favour is its virtualization support though.
  • DrMrLordX - Monday, April 24, 2006 - link

    Even worse, Paxville is an older chip than Dempsey. I have to wonder if Intel's best MP offering is a 3 ghz Paxville chip. Is this true? If so, why? Intel has released 3.6 ghz Dempsey-based Xeons have they not? Dempsey and Paxville aren't too far off from one another, but if I recall correctly, Paxville was based off Smithfield while Dempsey was based off Presler (making Dempsey superior to Paxville).

    If Intel can't ship anything better than a 3 ghz Paxville in 4-way configurations, it's no wonder that they're losing. AMD has also released the Opteron 885, meaning the benchmarks we just saw were not run using AMD's best 4-way/8-way chip!

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now