• What
    is this?

    You've landed on the AMD Portal on AnandTech. This section is sponsored by AMD. It features a collection of all of our independent AMD content, as well as Tweets & News from AMD directly. AMD will also be running a couple of huge giveaways here so check back for those.

    PRESENTED BY

Dell PowerEdge R815 Benchmarked Configuration

CPU Four Opteron 6174 at 2.2GHz
RAM 16 x 4GB Samsung 1333MHz CH9
Motherboard Dell Inc 06JC9T
Chipset AMD SR5650
BIOS version v1.1.9
PSU 2x Dell L1100A-S0 1100W

The R815 is a very compact design: six fans in the middle of the chassis pull the cool air across the four Opteron socket and 32 DDR3 DIMM slots. Two risers offer two full height PCIe x8 slots each.


Click to enlarge

Two half-height PCIe x4 slots are also available. The server contains six drive bays, all in 2.5 inch format.


Click to enlarge

The DELL server line distinguishes itself with an LCD display that allows you to read system alerts and boot-up options. The dual internal SD modules are unfortunately still only 1GB and thus only suited for ESXi. The 1100W hot-pluggable PSU are the only available PSUs. The entire front with disk bays can slide forward to give easy access to the first row of CPU sockets and DIMM slots.

AMD and Dell also confirmed that you will be able to upgrade this server with the next generation "Bulldozer" CPUs.

Quad Opteron Style Dell HP Proliant DL380 G7
POST A COMMENT

51 Comments

View All Comments

  • JohanAnandtech - Friday, September 10, 2010 - link

    Thanks, appreciate you took the time to let us know. We went through 5 weeks of intensive testing and my eyes still hurt from looking at the countless excel sheets, with endless power and response time readings. ;-) Reply
  • FourthLiver - Thursday, September 09, 2010 - link

    at the end of page 12, you allude to a performance per watt analysis. looks like you forgot to put it up. i'm chomping at the bit to see those numbers!

    please disregard me if i failed to rtfa correctly. Anandtech is the best; your (all of you collectively) articles are brilliant and correct down to the smallest details. This is another article that was an absolute joy to read. :]
    Reply
  • JohanAnandtech - Thursday, September 09, 2010 - link

    Well you can't really calculate it, as it depends on the situation. On low load loads, the system that consumes the less, is the winner, on the condition that the response times stay low. But of course, if your systems are running at low load all time, there might be something wrong: you should have bought more RAM and consolidated more VMs per system.

    At higher loads, the power consumption at high load divided by the throughput (vApusmark) is close to the truth. But it is definitely not the performance/watt number for everyone

    It depends on your workloads. The more critical processing power (think response time SLA) is, the more the last mentioned calculation makes sense. The more we are talking about lots of lightly loaded VMs (like authentification servers, fileservers etc.), the more simply looking at the energy consumed at page 12 make sense.
    Reply
  • mino - Thursday, September 09, 2010 - link

    First, congratulations to a great article !

    Now to the small ammount of mess in there:
    "the CPUs consume more than the ACP ratings that AMD mentions everywhere"

    1) Avegare CPU Power (ACP) is NOT supposed/marketed to represent 100% load power use
    Wikipedia: "The average CPU power (ACP), is a scheme to characterize power consumption of new central processing units under "average" daily usage..."

    2) 122W at the wall and 110W at the CPU ??? Are you telling us the PSU's are 95% along with VRM/power/fans at 95% efficiency ? (0.95*0.95*1.22=1.10)
    . Sorry to spoil the party but that is NOT the case. 122W at wall means 100W at CPU at the most realistically 95W.

    Otherwise a great work. Keep is up!
    Reply
  • JohanAnandtech - Friday, September 10, 2010 - link

    "1) Avegare CPU Power (ACP) is NOT supposed/marketed to represent 100% load power use
    Wikipedia: "The average CPU power (ACP), is a scheme to characterize power consumption of new central processing units under "average" daily usage...""

    You are right. But what value does it have? As an admin I want to know what the maximum could be realistically (TDP is the absolute maximum for non-micro periods) and if you read between the lines that is more or less what AMD communicated (see their white paper). if it is purely "average", it has no meaning, because average power can be a quite a bit lower as some servers will run at 30% on average, others at 60%.

    These PSU are supposed to be 92-94% efficient and AFAIK the VRMs are at least 90% efficient. So 122 x 0.92 x 0.90 = 101 W.
    Reply
  • mino - Saturday, September 11, 2010 - link

    Well, I was bit unslept when writing it but anyway. So got a bit harser than should have.

    In my experience the ACP values pretty well represent your average loaded server (<= 80% load). But that is not the point.

    AMD created ACP in a response to the fact that their TDP numbers are conservative while Intel's are optimistic. That was the main cause wery well known to you as well.

    Call me an ass but I certainly do not remember AT bitching about Intel TDPs no bein representative (during last 6 years at least).
    And we all know too well that those NEVER represented the real power use of their boxen nor did they EVER represented what the "TDP" moniker stands for.

    Currently the situation is as such that identical 2P AMD box with 80W ACP has ~ the same power requirements as 2P Intel box with 80W TDP. You have just proven that.

    Therefore I believe it would be fair to stop bitching about AMD (or Intel) cheating in marketing (both do) and just say whether the numbers are comparable or not.
    Arguing about spin wattage is not really needed.
    Reply
  • JohanAnandtech - Monday, September 13, 2010 - link

    "Arguing about spin wattage is not really needed. "

    I have to disagree. The usual slogan is "don't look at TDP, look at measurements". What measurments? The totally unrealistic SPECpower numbers?

    It is impossible for review sites to test all CPUs. So it is up to vendors to gives us a number that does not have to be accurate on a few percent, but that let us select CPUs quickly.

    Customers should have one number that allows them to calculate worst case numbers which are realistic (heavily load webserver for example, not a thermal virus). So all CPU vendors should agree on a standard. That is not bitching, but is a real need of the sysadmins out there.
    Reply
  • mino - Thursday, September 09, 2010 - link

    One thing I would love to see is having the lowest end HP server put to its paces.
    So far it seems to us a the best option for vCenter hosting in small environments (with FT Vm's hosting vCenter).

    Maybe even run 1-tile vAPUS (v1? perhaps) on it ?
    Reply
  • m3rdpwr - Thursday, September 09, 2010 - link

    I would have prepared to have had the DL385 G7 compared.
    They can be had with 8 and 12 core CPU's.

    We have close to 200 HP servers of all models, rack and blades.
    Many running vm in our Data Center.

    -Mario
    Reply
  • duploxxx - Friday, September 10, 2010 - link

    same here, we moved also to 385g7 with the new 8-12core cpu's, Nice servers with huge core count since we never run more vCPU then pCPU in a system. Dell 815 looks like a good solution also, it was mentioned in the review the BL685 and DL585 are way more expensive. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now