AMD's 12-core "Magny-Cours" Opteron 6174 vs. Intel's 6-core Xeon
by Johan De Gelas on March 29, 2010 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- IT Computing
The SKUs
The Opteron 6176 looks a bit ridiculous as it delivers only 4% more performance at 30% higher power and 20% higher prices. The real reason behind this CPU is to battle another tanker, the Nehalem EX that Intel is going to launch tomorrow. The TDP and clockspeeds of that huge chip are very similar. If your application scales poorly and you don't care about power consumption, the X5677 is your champion; it is probably the fastest chip on the market for applications with low thread counts.
AMD vs. Intel 2-socket SKU Comparison | |||||||||
Intel Xeon Model
|
Cores | TDP | Speed (GHz) | Price | AMD Opteron Model | Cores | TDP | GHz | Price |
W5680 | 6 | 130W | 3.30 GHz | $1663 | 6176 SE | 12 | 105/137W | 2.3 GHz | $1386 |
X5670 | 6 | 95W | 2.93 GHz | $1440 | |||||
X5660 | 6 | 95W | 2.80 GHz | $1219 | 6174 | 12 | 80/115W | 2.2 GHz | $1165 |
X5650 | 6 | 95W | 2.66 GHz | $996 | 6172 | 12 | 80/115W | 2.1 GHz | $989 |
X5677 | 4 | 130W | 3.46 GHz | $1663 | 2439SE | 6 | 105/137W | 2.8 GHz | ? |
X5667 | 4 | 95W | 3.06 GHz | $1440 | |||||
6168 | 12 | 80/115W | 1.9 GHz | $744 | |||||
E5640 | 4 | 80W | 2.66 GHz | $744 | 6136 | 8 | 80/115W | 2.4 GHz | $744 |
E5630 | 4 | 80W | 2.53 GHz | $551 | 6134 | 8 | 80/115W | 2.3 GHz | $523 |
E5620 | 4 | 80W | 2.40 GHz | $387 | 6128 | 8 | 80/115W | 2.0 GHz | $266 |
L5640 | 6 | 60W | 2.26 GHz | $996 | 6164 HE | 12 | 65/? W | 1.7 GHz | $744 |
6128 HE | 8 | 65/? W | 2.0 GHz | $523 | |||||
6124 HE | 8 | 65/? W | 1.8 GHz | $455 | |||||
L5630 | 4 | 40W | 2.13 GHz | $551 | |||||
L5620 | 4 | 40W | 1.86 GHz | $440 |
The most interesting parts that AMD offers are the dodeca-core 6174 (2.2GHz), the octal-core 6136 (2.4GHz) and the octal-core low power 6128 (2.0GHz). The 6174 targets those with well scaling multi-threaded applications such as huge databases and virtualized loads. The 8-core 6136 might even be better as most schedulers find it easier to distribute threads and process over a power of 2 cores. Lots of applications also don't scale beyond 16 cores and the chip comes with a 200MHz clockspeed bonus and a very reasonable price.
The 6128 HE is also an interesting one. The 6128 HE might be a good way to reconcile low response times with low power, but we'll have to find that out later.
58 Comments
View All Comments
wolfman3k5 - Monday, March 29, 2010 - link
Great review! Thanks for the review, when will you guys be reviewing the AMD Phenom II X6 for us mere mortals? I wonder how the Phenom II X6 will stack up against the Core i7 920/930.Keep up the good work!
ash9 - Tuesday, March 30, 2010 - link
Since SSE4.1,SSE4.2 are not in AMD's , its Andand's way of getting an easy benchmark win, seeing some of these benchmark test probably use them-http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=719
August 31st, 2007
SSE extension wars heat up between Intel and AMD
"Microprocessors take approximately five years to go from concept to product and there is no way Intel can add SSE5 to their Nehalem product and AMD can’t add SSE4 to their first-generation 45nm CPU “Shanghai” or their second-generation 45nm “Bulldozer” CPU even if they wanted to. AMD has stated that they will implement SSE4 following the introduction of SSE5 but declined to give a timeline for when this will happen."
asH
mariush - Tuesday, March 30, 2010 - link
One of the best optimized and multi threaded applications out there is the open source video encoder x264.Would it be possible to test how well 2 x 8 and 2x12 amd configurations work at encoding 1080p video at some very high quality settings?
A workstation with 24 cores from AMD would cost almost as much as a single socket 6 cores system from Intel so it would be interesting to see if the increase in frequency and the additional SSE instructions would be more advantage than the number of cores.
Aclough - Tuesday, March 30, 2010 - link
I wonder if the difference between the Windows and Linux test results is related to the recentish changes in the scheduler? From what I understand the introduction of the CFS in 2.6.23 was supposed to be really good for large numbers of cores, and I'm given to understand that before that the Linux scheduler worked similarly to the recent Windows one. It would be interesting to try running that benchmark with a 2.6.22 kernel or one with the old O(1) patched in.Or it could just be that Linux tends to be more tuned for throughput whereas Windows tends to be more tuned for low latency. Or both.
Aclough - Tuesday, March 30, 2010 - link
In any event, the place I work for is a Linux shop and our workload is probably most similar to Blender, so we're probably going to continue to buy AMD.ash9 - Tuesday, March 30, 2010 - link
http://www.egenera.com/pdf/oracle_benchmarks.pdf"Performance testing on the Egenera BladeFrame system has demonstrated that the platform
is capable of delivering high throughput from multiple servers using Oracle Real Application
Clusters (RAC) database software. Analysis using Oracle’s Swingbench demonstration tool
and the Calling Circle schema has shown very high transactions-per-minute performance
from single-node implementations with dual-core, 4-socket SMP servers based on Intel and
AMD architectures running a 64-bit-extension Linux operating system. Furthermore, results
demonstrated 92 percent scalability on either server type up to at least 10 servers.
The BladeFrame’s architecture naturally provides a host of benefits over other platforms
in terms of manageability, server consolidation and high availability for Oracle RAC."
nexox - Tuesday, March 30, 2010 - link
It could also be that Linux has a NUMA-aware scheduler, so it'd try to keep data stored in ram which is connected to the core that's running the thread which needs to access the data. I probably didn't explain that too well, but it'd cut down on memory latency because it would minimize going out over the HT links to fetch data. I doubt that Windows does this, given that Intel hasn't had NUMA systems for very long yet.I sort of like to see more Linux benchmarks, since that's really all I'd ever consider running on data center-class hardware like this, and since apparently Linux performance has very little to do with Windows performance, based on that one test.
yasbane - Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - link
Agreed. I do find it disappointing that they put so few benchmarks for Linux for servers, and so many for windows.-C
jbsturgeon - Tuesday, March 30, 2010 - link
I like the review and enjoyed reading it. I can't help but feel the benchmarks are less a comparison of CPU's and more a study on how well the apps can be threaded as well as the implementation of that threading -- higher clocked cpus will be better for serial code and more cores will win for apps that are well threaded. In scientific number crunching (the code I write ), more cores always wins (AMD). We do use Fluent too, so thanks for including those benchamarks!!jbsturgeon - Tuesday, March 30, 2010 - link
Obviously that rule can be altered by a killer memory bus :-).