Intel's newest Quad Xeon MP versus HP's DL585 Quad Opteron
by Johan De Gelas on November 10, 2006 12:00 PM EST- Posted in
- IT Computing
The Official SPEC Numbers
We checked the SPEC FP and Int 2000 rates to get a first idea of what to expect. The Spec Rates are nothing more than measuring the performance of running multiple copies of the Spec CPU benchmarks simultaneously. Typically, the number of copies is the same as the number of cores. Again, it is important to note that these benchmark numbers are highly dependent on the compiler. SPEC fp and Integer show the best case performance as the CPU runs on aggressively compiled and highly optimized code. In reality, real world code is typically compiled in a more conservative and less optimized fashion.
Digging into the SPEC database, some very interesting results surface. The Fujitsu Siemens PRIMERGY RX600 S3 with Intel Xeon processor 7130M, 3.20 GHz is speced very similar to the Intel server in this test, and the HP DL585 machine is identical to ours and about 5% slower than the Xeon 7130 machine. The massive L3 cache is definitely helping the Xeon here.
Note the foolish figure that the previous Xeon MP 7041 cuts: almost 30% slower, 3 times more expensive and consuming twice as much compared to the Opteron 880 in the HP DL585. On top of that, Intel's newest Xeon 5160 makes the Quad Xeon MP 7041 look completely ridiculous as it performs 14% better with only two CPUs.
Floating point tests paint a different figure. The Xeon MP is no longer competitive. The best FP monsters are clearly the IBM Power 5+, Intel's Itanium, and AMD's Opteron. The AMD Opteron 880 is 43% faster than the Xeon MP 7130M.
We checked the SPEC FP and Int 2000 rates to get a first idea of what to expect. The Spec Rates are nothing more than measuring the performance of running multiple copies of the Spec CPU benchmarks simultaneously. Typically, the number of copies is the same as the number of cores. Again, it is important to note that these benchmark numbers are highly dependent on the compiler. SPEC fp and Integer show the best case performance as the CPU runs on aggressively compiled and highly optimized code. In reality, real world code is typically compiled in a more conservative and less optimized fashion.
| SPEC Int 2000 Performance | ||
| (CPU/cores) Server / CPU | Clock Speed (MHz) | SPEC Int 2000 |
| (4/8) IBM POWER5+ 36MB L3 | 2200 | 196 |
| (4/8) HP Opteron AM2 | 2800 | 160 |
| (4/8) HP Xeon MP 7140M 16MB L3 | 3400 | 159 |
| (4/8) FSC Xeon MP 7130M 8MB L3 | 3200 | 143 |
| (8/8) Hitachi Itanium 2 | 1666 | 138 |
| (4/8) HP Proliant DL585 Opteron | 2400 | 136 |
| (2/4) Dell Xeon 5160 | 3000 | 123 |
| (4/8) IBM Xeon MP 7041 | 3000 | 108 |
Digging into the SPEC database, some very interesting results surface. The Fujitsu Siemens PRIMERGY RX600 S3 with Intel Xeon processor 7130M, 3.20 GHz is speced very similar to the Intel server in this test, and the HP DL585 machine is identical to ours and about 5% slower than the Xeon 7130 machine. The massive L3 cache is definitely helping the Xeon here.
Note the foolish figure that the previous Xeon MP 7041 cuts: almost 30% slower, 3 times more expensive and consuming twice as much compared to the Opteron 880 in the HP DL585. On top of that, Intel's newest Xeon 5160 makes the Quad Xeon MP 7041 look completely ridiculous as it performs 14% better with only two CPUs.
| SPEC FP 2000 Performance | ||
| (CPU/cores) Server / CPU | Clock Speed (MHz) | SPEC FP 2000 |
| (4/8) IBM POWER5+ 36MB L3 | 2200 | 355 |
| (4/8) SGI Itanium Montecito 12 MB L3 | 1600 | 244 |
| (4/8) AMD Opteron 8220 SE | 2800 | 163 |
| (4/8) Sun Opteron 880 | 2400 | 140 |
| (4/8) HP Xeon MP 7140M 16 MB L3 | 3400 | 105 |
| (4/8) FS Xeon MP 7130M 8 MB L3 | 3200 | 97 |
| (2/4) Dell Xeon 5160 | 3000 | 81 |
| (4/8) IBM Xeon MP 7041 | 3000 | 64 |
Floating point tests paint a different figure. The Xeon MP is no longer competitive. The best FP monsters are clearly the IBM Power 5+, Intel's Itanium, and AMD's Opteron. The AMD Opteron 880 is 43% faster than the Xeon MP 7130M.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
88 Comments
View All Comments
JohanAnandtech - Saturday, November 11, 2006 - link
Well, we did mentione it at our price comparison. From a performance point of view, the G2 is within 2% of the DL585 given a similar configuration.Getting a server in the lab is not like getting a videochip for review. The machines are much more expensive, and you need much more time to review them properly. So OEMs are less likely to send you the necessary hardware. For a videocard they send out a $500 item that can be reviewed in a few weeks, maybe even a few days. For Server like these, they have to send out a $20000 machine and be able to miss it for a month or two at the least.
Viditor - Saturday, November 11, 2006 - link
I can certainly understand and empathise with the situation...and I did enjoy the article, Johan!
The reason I mentioned it is that line in your conclusion...
I thought that (considering the circumstances) it was a bit unfair and misleading...
JohanAnandtech - Saturday, November 11, 2006 - link
I just pointed out that it is a bit weird that a newer revision of the DL585 (it was thé HP Opteron machine just a few months ago) used SCSI 160. There is no reason at all why HP could not replace this: they revised the server anyway.I should mentioned that these results were solved in the G2, but still it is a missed chance... eventhough I reported it a bit too late :-)
photoguy99 - Friday, November 10, 2006 - link
yes, bring it on!finalfan - Friday, November 10, 2006 - link
On page The Official SPEC Numbers, in second table SPEC FP 2000 Performance, the positions of (4/8) HP Opteron AM2 and (8/8) Hitachi Itanium 2 should be switched. No Itanium runs at 3.4G and no way a 4way 1.6G AM2 can sit in second place.JohanAnandtech - Friday, November 10, 2006 - link
Corrected. It is weird, the accurate numbers were in the orginal document. The generation of the table went wrong. I have double checked and now the FP numbers should all be accurateJarredWalton - Friday, November 10, 2006 - link
Probably my fault. I think when it got put into Excel that the various x/y numbers were converted to dates. I thought I fixed all of those, but probably missed one or two. Sorry.icarus4586 - Friday, November 10, 2006 - link
This report brought to you by the department of redundancy department.
bwmccann - Friday, November 10, 2006 - link
When are you guys going to start benchmarking server CPUs using applications that are widely used in organizations on a daily basis?Most companies have a very high percentage of servers running Windows. With that I would love to see some test on SQL, Oracle, Exchange, and other core components of enterprises today.
Also it would be nice to see a closer comparison of the servers. For example you tested a DL585. A DL580 (Intel Woodcrest) would have been better suited since some of the components would be the same.
JohanAnandtech - Friday, November 10, 2006 - link
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2793">http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2793Most of the time Jason does the Windows benchmarking, me and my team do the Linux benchmarking.
Java, MySQL and SSL are also core components of many enterprise apps.
We are working on Oracle and got access to a realworld Oracle database a few weeks ago (for the first time), but it takes time to really understand what your benchmark is telling you and how you must configure your db. And Oracle is ...very stubborn, even patching to a slightly higher version can lead to big trouble.
The DL585 is a direct competitor (quad socket) in this space, more so than the DL580 (DUal Socket)