Conclusion
The best news for AMD is that the newly launched 8224SE and 8222 will outperform the current Xeon MP by a significant margin. However, AMD will have very little time to enjoy that victory as the new Xeon MP based on the Core architecture is going to launch very soon. That leads us to the dual socket space. Here's a recap of the various benchmarks that we have run.
Intel has a clear lead in the rendering market. If you are rendering complex high resolutions images, the quad core Xeon is clearly the best choice. If you are rendering normal resolution pictures, quad core might not really pay off, but the dual core Xeon will still be a bit faster than the Opteron. Both Cinebench and 3ds max have been "mildly" optimized for SSE2, but if you use a carefully SSE2 optimized application the Opteron's lack of SSE power is painfully obvious: the Intel CPUs are up to 70% faster in SSE-heavy code. That is one specific area that Barcelona should remedy in the coming months. If you are in for a new server for your FP intensive applications, it might be interesting to wait a bit and see how Harpertown compares to Barcelona; if you can't wait, right now Intel is the first choice in this market.
When it comes to the purely business processing, such as database processing and java applications, we feel that the answer cannot be given so quickly. If your application is usually under high load, the Intel CPUs are clearly better. They use slightly less power than the Opteron SE and run faster. Especially if your application is based on databases such as DB2, Oracle, and MS SQL server, it is clear that the quad core Xeon still rules. The quad core Xeon may not be a "native quad core" design, but it was surely a brilliant move by Intel. Until AMD's own quad core comes out, this market will be out of reach of AMD.
However, some servers are only stressed during a short period of time or are based on mediocre scaling software like MySQL. In that case, the Opteron 2222 makes a lot of sense. The cores will run at a low and cool 1GHz most of the time and consume very little power. Our Tyan Server saved no less than 184W during the "calm periods" and that is a lot of power. That amount of power has to be multiplied by +/- 1.5 (adding your air conditioning's energy consumption) to calculate the total energy consumption savings, making power savings even more significant. During periods of high load, the Opteron 2222 still offers decent performance at a slightly lower price than the dual core 3.0GHz Xeons.
The most interesting thing about AMD's latest launch is probably that AMD has now a 3GHz Opteron that consumes very little when running at low load while it keeps the power consumption reasonable at full load. The Opteron 2224 SE will only interest the people who have already invested in clusters of cheap socket F servers and who are looking to squeeze more performance out of them. If you haven't made that investment already, there's nothing really new or surprising with the latest launch, so you might be best off waiting a bit longer to see what the future holds.
The best news for AMD is that the newly launched 8224SE and 8222 will outperform the current Xeon MP by a significant margin. However, AMD will have very little time to enjoy that victory as the new Xeon MP based on the Core architecture is going to launch very soon. That leads us to the dual socket space. Here's a recap of the various benchmarks that we have run.
| Performance Comparison | |||
| General applications | Opteron 3.2GHz vs. DC Xeon 3GHz | Opteron 3GHz vs. DC Xeon 3GHz | Opteron 3GHz vs. QC Xeon 2.33GHz |
| General applications | |||
| WinRAR 3.62 | 8% | 5% | -17% |
| 3D Applications | |||
| 3DS Max 9 | -11% | -16% | -34% |
| Cinebench 9 | 0% | -7% | -14% |
| zVisuel 3D Kribi Engine | -31% | -32% | -40% |
| Server applications | |||
| SPECjbb | 0% | -4% | -30% |
| MySQL | -12% | N/A | N/A |
Intel has a clear lead in the rendering market. If you are rendering complex high resolutions images, the quad core Xeon is clearly the best choice. If you are rendering normal resolution pictures, quad core might not really pay off, but the dual core Xeon will still be a bit faster than the Opteron. Both Cinebench and 3ds max have been "mildly" optimized for SSE2, but if you use a carefully SSE2 optimized application the Opteron's lack of SSE power is painfully obvious: the Intel CPUs are up to 70% faster in SSE-heavy code. That is one specific area that Barcelona should remedy in the coming months. If you are in for a new server for your FP intensive applications, it might be interesting to wait a bit and see how Harpertown compares to Barcelona; if you can't wait, right now Intel is the first choice in this market.
When it comes to the purely business processing, such as database processing and java applications, we feel that the answer cannot be given so quickly. If your application is usually under high load, the Intel CPUs are clearly better. They use slightly less power than the Opteron SE and run faster. Especially if your application is based on databases such as DB2, Oracle, and MS SQL server, it is clear that the quad core Xeon still rules. The quad core Xeon may not be a "native quad core" design, but it was surely a brilliant move by Intel. Until AMD's own quad core comes out, this market will be out of reach of AMD.
However, some servers are only stressed during a short period of time or are based on mediocre scaling software like MySQL. In that case, the Opteron 2222 makes a lot of sense. The cores will run at a low and cool 1GHz most of the time and consume very little power. Our Tyan Server saved no less than 184W during the "calm periods" and that is a lot of power. That amount of power has to be multiplied by +/- 1.5 (adding your air conditioning's energy consumption) to calculate the total energy consumption savings, making power savings even more significant. During periods of high load, the Opteron 2222 still offers decent performance at a slightly lower price than the dual core 3.0GHz Xeons.
The most interesting thing about AMD's latest launch is probably that AMD has now a 3GHz Opteron that consumes very little when running at low load while it keeps the power consumption reasonable at full load. The Opteron 2224 SE will only interest the people who have already invested in clusters of cheap socket F servers and who are looking to squeeze more performance out of them. If you haven't made that investment already, there's nothing really new or surprising with the latest launch, so you might be best off waiting a bit longer to see what the future holds.
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.