Intel "Harpertown" Xeon vs. AMD "Barcelona" Opteron
by Jason Clark & Ross Whitehead on September 18, 2007 5:00 PM EST- Posted in
- IT Computing
AS3AP
This graph shows that at idle the Intel systems use approximately 28% more power than the AMD systems. We can safely assume this is mostly due to Intel's use of FB-DIMMs -- and the results will be even worse as additional memory is added.
For the first two load points it is very close but AMD is able to lead by a small margin. Once we hit load point three the Xeon E5472 is able to take the lead with the X5365 close behind. You can clearly see the improvement of Harpertown over Clovertown here as Harpertown is as much as 13% faster than an equivalently clocked Clovertown. Harpertown is also able to outpace Barcelona by as much as 27%. You can also see that Barcelona is able to outperform dual-core Opteron by as much as 38%, despite the much slower clock speed.
All quad-core processors exhibit similar CPU utilization for all load points. Again, we see the improvements of Harpertown as it consistently uses less CPU than Clovertown.
Keep in mind that the Xeon X5365 parts are 120W TDP and the Xeon E5472 parts are 80W TDP. Intel is getting much closer to competing with AMD on system power consumption but is still not there. Harpertown still uses as much as 14% more power than AMD.
At the lower load points, where the platforms are very similar in performance, the AMD systems are able to take the lead by as much as 17%. From load point four and above the Xeon E5472 is able to pull ahead slightly, ending with a maximum lead of 11%.
This graph shows that at idle the Intel systems use approximately 28% more power than the AMD systems. We can safely assume this is mostly due to Intel's use of FB-DIMMs -- and the results will be even worse as additional memory is added.
For the first two load points it is very close but AMD is able to lead by a small margin. Once we hit load point three the Xeon E5472 is able to take the lead with the X5365 close behind. You can clearly see the improvement of Harpertown over Clovertown here as Harpertown is as much as 13% faster than an equivalently clocked Clovertown. Harpertown is also able to outpace Barcelona by as much as 27%. You can also see that Barcelona is able to outperform dual-core Opteron by as much as 38%, despite the much slower clock speed.
All quad-core processors exhibit similar CPU utilization for all load points. Again, we see the improvements of Harpertown as it consistently uses less CPU than Clovertown.
Keep in mind that the Xeon X5365 parts are 120W TDP and the Xeon E5472 parts are 80W TDP. Intel is getting much closer to competing with AMD on system power consumption but is still not there. Harpertown still uses as much as 14% more power than AMD.
At the lower load points, where the platforms are very similar in performance, the AMD systems are able to take the lead by as much as 17%. From load point four and above the Xeon E5472 is able to pull ahead slightly, ending with a maximum lead of 11%.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
77 Comments
View All Comments
MrKaz - Thursday, September 20, 2007 - link
You bring very valid points! And thanks to the originator of this discussion!But let me spice things a little.
I think you and Anandtech are wrong!
Correct testing would be loading ALL THE MEMORY BANKS WITH RAM!!!
That would be more realistic scenario.
I see Intel praising the technology edge of FBDIMM by allowing to have more RAM on the system, then lets load the Intel system with the maximum RAM they can handle.
Otherwise seams a little biased test.
Showing how Intel systems:
-are energy efficient = use less RAM on them and add more to the AMD system
-can handle much more RAM than AMD = Show how Intel system have lots of memory banks
flyck - Thursday, September 20, 2007 - link
although you are correct when you say there are small errors in the setup, i cant agree with the part about being paid by intel todo...This is an assault which they cannot defend themselves against.
Either way this review would be much more interesting when a 2.5GHz release and low power barcelonas would be available. But that is dependent on AMD itself.
Viditor - Thursday, September 20, 2007 - link
As to that, the low power Barcelonas are available...NewEgg has them in stock already.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...">NewEgg
flyck - Thursday, September 20, 2007 - link
most hardware site rely on hardware that has been given to them for testpurposes. They wont buy them.Justin Case - Thursday, September 20, 2007 - link
Which is probably one of the reasons why CPUs in some reviews overclock so well, and the ones you buy from retail overclock so poorly.I don't trust any review where the item was supplied by the manufacturer; chances are they cherry-picked the best one they had, to get the best possible review. If the sites can't afford to buy the items they're reviewing, they should simply strike a deal with a retailer, where they get to test the stuff (and return it) in exchange for a sponsored link or something. That way the chances of getting an above-average (or below-average) part are the same as for anyone else.
Justin Case - Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - link
In other words, what you're saying that the Opteron did not have more RAM than the Xeon, so it did not get any benefit from the different memory configuration.Well, that's the "pro-AMD" conspiracy put to rest, no doubt. Thanks.
But you still have 8 DDR2 DIMMs on the Opteron versus 4 FB-DIMMs on the Xeon. As pointed out above, using the same configuration would either reduce the Barcelona system's power consumption (by about 18 watts, if both used 4 DIMMs) or increase the Harpertown system's consumption (by about 40 watts, if both used 8 DIMMs).
In the latter case (which is the likely scenario on a server under high loads - fill it with as much RAM as possible), that would put the Xeon's "performance per watt" below that of the Barcelona system in most of your tests.
And there's still the mystery of why a system that dissipates less heat needs more than twice as many fans. Or was there also a typo on the number of fans in each system? Maybe the number of fans is different but the total number of fan blades is the same, so that's alright? :)
Wirmish - Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - link
The problem is not the number of GB, it's the number of DIMMs.Do you try to convince us that one 8GB DIMM use the same power as eight 1GB DIMMs ?
This is just plain stupid.
Wirmish - Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - link
Same question...AMD..: 8 DIMMs (16 GB) + 7 fans
INTEL: 4 DIMMs (8 GB) + 3 fans
http://www.interfacebus.com/Memory_Module_DDR2_FB_...">LINK
With 8 FBDIMMs the Xeon may consume ~42 watts more !
A standard fan may consume anywhere from 1.6 to 6.0 watts.
Try to use only 4 fans (1 middle-front, 1 top-rear, 2 CPU) with the AMD system.
It will work perfectly and you will save ~15 watts.
1. Add 4 FBDIMM in the Xeon system.
2. Remove three 3.5" fans in the AMD system.
3. Rebench.
4. Update your power consumption and performance/watt graphs.
5. Thank you very much.
Proteusza - Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - link
okay I also think its fishy but I'm playing devils advocate here.if you had to run a netburst server, part of your power goes to cooling, thats part of your total energy requirement. if the AMD system requires more cooling, for whatever reason (no matter how strange that may seem), then like it or not its a part of your server and energy expense.
As for the differing amount of ram, that makes no sense at all. Why halve the amount of memory on the Intel system?
Justin Case - Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - link
Maybe AMD uses inferior knock-off photons, so despite dissipating less heat, it needs more cooling. ;)