Power
Our AMD system had a different but similar power supply as our Intel system. The fan setup was also different, but the peak power consumption of the fans of both systems was very close. If you would like a completely apples-to-apples comparison (or at least as close as we can get), we'll refer to our previous performance/watt measurements which have been done with almost identical systems. Take these Intel versus AMD figures with a grain of salt, but the comparison between the different AMD CPUs is still very interesting.
To be fair, we are using somewhat early Intel samples; the current Intel CPUs will probably consume a little less power due to process maturity and other minor tweaks. Still, it is very clear that AMD's CPUs are able to save a lot more when they are not stressed. What kind of power savings may you expect when you buy a lower power Opteron?
The above table makes a few interesting points
Our AMD system had a different but similar power supply as our Intel system. The fan setup was also different, but the peak power consumption of the fans of both systems was very close. If you would like a completely apples-to-apples comparison (or at least as close as we can get), we'll refer to our previous performance/watt measurements which have been done with almost identical systems. Take these Intel versus AMD figures with a grain of salt, but the comparison between the different AMD CPUs is still very interesting.
| Power Usage | ||||||
| SPECjbb | Cinebench (Load) | Idle | PowerNow! Idle | Load vs. Idle Savings | Idle PowerNow/EIST Savings | |
| Dual Xeon 5160 3.0 | 376 | 354 | 248 | 244 | 110 | 4 |
| Dual Xeon E5345 2.33 | 374 | 331 | 248 | 244 | 87 | 4 |
| Dual Opteron 2224 SE | 380 | 409 | 310 | 159 | 250 | 151 |
| Dual Opteron 2222 | 330 | 342 | 259 | 158 | 184 | 101 |
| Dual Opteron 8218HE 2.6 GHz | 279 | 299 | 225 | 155 | 144 | 70 |
To be fair, we are using somewhat early Intel samples; the current Intel CPUs will probably consume a little less power due to process maturity and other minor tweaks. Still, it is very clear that AMD's CPUs are able to save a lot more when they are not stressed. What kind of power savings may you expect when you buy a lower power Opteron?
| Power Savings | ||||
| SPECjbb | Cinebench | Idle | PowerNow! Idle | |
| Normal 95W vs. SE 119W | 50 | 67 | 51 | 1 |
| HE 68W vs. Normal 95 | 51 | 43 | 34 | 3 |
The above table makes a few interesting points
- It is quite impressive that the AMD Opteron 2222 is now able to reach 3GHz at 95W. This means that, compared to just 2-3 months ago, you save up to 67W per server and get the same performance (2222 versus the older 2222SE).
- AMD's PowerNow! Technology is very efficient: it saves you between 150W and 250W depending on system load and configuration. 250W seems impossible, but the three fans of our Tyan TA26 had to run at much higher speeds to cool the CPUs at 3.2GHz than at 1GHz.
- The gains of Intel's EIST are very limited: the CPUs only throttle back to 2GHz.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
30 Comments
View All Comments
Spoelie - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
Thanks for the clarification, I was under the impression the only real states were idle (1ghz) and full tilt (3.2ghz). Never seen any other states but all I ever use are the desktop chips, I wasn't aware CnQ could be more dynamic than that.yuchai - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
I believe all A64 chips including the desktop ones have the different power states. For example my X2 4200+ has 4 states. 1.0, 1.8, 2.0 and 2.2 Ghz.ButterFlyEffect78 - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
Are they talking about the barcelona?If not, then this is old news.
I'm sure everyone by now knows that intels new cpu's are better then the current AMD opterons.
KingofFah - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
It really isn't. The were demonstrating the new 3.2ghz opteron. Also, this was a dual socket setup, and anand said, and everyone who monitors the server world knows, that the opterons come out ahead overall in the 4S environment.The more sockets, the more performance advantage opterons have on intel in the server space. This is well known. The purpose of this was to show it in the dual socket environment.
duploxxx - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
confused, no it is the stupidity of people like you that think that all Intel offerings are better then the ones for AMD.@anand, you're conclusion of the database world that the quadcore still rules..... where are the benchmarks?
now it is nice to see all these benches next to each other, when are you going to combine benches, no longer servers are used for one application, they are more combined these days with more apps. Maybe its time you also have a look at vmware esx etc.... will probably give you a different look at the offerings of AMD these days.
clairvoyant129 - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
You don't have to get hostile because he does have a point. In the desktop market, Intel is clearly better unless we're talking about low end. Server market, it's still a toss up but Intel still has a lead.yyrkoon - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
Um, you guys obviously have not been paying much attention have you ?1) AMD CPUs=cheaper
2) AMD CPUs of comparrible speed perform nearly as good if not as good or better than their Intel counterparts. ie: I think you better check the last benchmarks anandtech post 'homie', because I saw a lot of AMD on top of the game benches. (6000+ vs e6600).
3) Yes, a C2D *may* overclock better, and if it is you intention to overclock, it makes perfect sense to buy one, just be prepared to pay more for the CPU.
4) Up until recently, or possibly still happening into the near future, AMD system boards availible often offered more features for less cost. It does seem however with the P35 Chipset, vendors are starting to come around.
5) last, but not least, THIS article IS NOT about desktop hardware now IS IT ?! why bring some stupid lame ass coment into some place that it does not even fit ? GOd, and I thought I needed a new life . . .
Final Hamlet - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
It is these "but"s, that make the difference.If they exist, you can't state "all Intel CPUs" anymore, because there are exceptions.
ButterFlyEffect78 - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
I'm sorry everybody.English is my 2nd language so I sometimes can't always express what I want to say.
What i meant to say is that Intel's new line of cpu's based on Core 2 duo tech. are better-(more advanced) then those based on K8 technology. If this is not true then there should not be a reason to introduce the K10 later this year to counterattack core 2 duo/quad.
But again, I could be wrong.
Calin - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
Core2Duo technology from Intel is better overall than the K8 technology from AMD - this includes basic architecture, current improvements on the initial architecture (K8 is older and has more of those small improvements), and process/production technology.However, Intel lagged in introduction of Core2 based server processors, and even now their FBDIMM technology is slower and hotter (power hungry) than AMD's Opteron/DDR. Until this changes, AMD still has a market in servers, albeit not as good as before the Core2Duo Xeon processors.