• 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

Measuring Real-World Power Consumption

The Equal Workload (EWL) version of vApus FOS is very similar to our previous vApus Mark II "Real-world Power" test. To create a real-world “equal workload” scenario, we throttle the number of users in each VM to a point where you typically get somewhere between 20% and 80% CPU load on a modern dual CPU server. The amount of requests is the same for each system, hence "equal workload".

The CPU load is typically around 30-50%, with peaks up to 65% (for more info see here). At the end of the test, we get to a low 10%, which is ideal for the machine to boost to higher CPU clocks (Turbo) and race to idle. We use the "Balanced" power policy and enable C-states as the current ESXi settings make poor use of the C6 capabilities of the latest Opterons and Xeons.

vApus FOS EWL Power consumption

We cannot say "mission accomplished", but AMD has made significant progress. 12% to 20% better performance while decreasing the power consumption by 6% to 8% is pretty good. The 95W TDP Xeons are still the performance per Watt champs though. Still, it looks like the Opteron is a decent alternative for some. Power consumption is about 12-13% higher (6376 vs E5-2660), but the performance per dollar is slightly better.

vApusMark FOS SAP S&D
POST A COMMENT

54 Comments

View All Comments

  • coder543 - Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - link

    99%? I love your highly scientific numbers. and yes, of course only Intel can design a perfect processor. I'm glad you were here to let everyone know.

    To quote Abraham Lincoln, (no, not really) "All of our servers run Intel. Everything AMD makes is no better than British tea."
    Reply
  • Tams80 - Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - link

    How much are Intel paying you? XD

    Seriously though; you've gone through the entire comments* posting walls of texts that add little to the discussion. Not only that, but your posts are a little offensive.

    *I realise I'm being hypocritical here.
    Reply
  • JKflipflop98 - Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - link

    Well, Intel does pay me and I'll be the first to say these chips are lookin pretty good in comparison with their previous generation counterparts. Good value for the money for sure.

    As Anand says, however, HPC users are usually after the "extreme" ends of the scale. They're either after max performance or max performance to fit into a certain power/heat envelope. In either case, we win.
    Reply
  • Tams80 - Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - link

    I'm sure you know what I mean. It wasn't exactly high brow humour.

    They certainly do look good, especially for a company that has already invested in AMD chips. Intel may well be better in both use cases, but at least AMD are providing competent competition.
    Reply
  • tech6 - Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - link

    The AMD 6x000 series has always looked nearly competitive on paper but is nowhere near Intel performance and efficiency. We have 3 data centers and one is running a mix of 6100 and 6200 Opterons while the others a re older Xeon 7300s and new E5 Xeons. In terms of single threaded and total performance of the 6x00 series cannot keep up with even old 7300 Xeons and can't touch the E5s. What AMD needs is a 30-40% boost in real world performance before they could be considered competitive. AMD also needs better relations with VMWare to optimize memory management on that platform.

    The price difference won't help them as the cost for a data center host is mostly software and can be $15 vCloud and $10K hardware. That reduces the cost advantage to 5% but delivers worse performance and uses more power.

    Most data centers are looking to get the most from their VMWare investments while reducing power consumption and these AMDs do neither.
    Reply
  • duploxxx - Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - link

    interesting information, but hard to catch if you don't add some figures and real data.

    Firsts of all the 7300 series had huge disadvantages with there FSB, so mentioning that these are way faster then the 6100-6200 opteron series is debatable. I 100% tend to disagree and we had severe Vmware performance issues on these machines on our highend applications.

    i'll just used anandtech as a refference:
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/2851/8
    http://www.it.anandtech.com/show/2978/amd-s-12-cor...

    even the 7400 series are a dog against opteron 8000 series and they are way older and slower against the 6000 series.

    for the E5 you have a point there, often the E5 series show a higher responsive platform, but once you load real life applications within hypervisor and they are starting to hit those HT cores we have seen several degraded performance within our datacenters, this is not really resulted into the anandtech VAPU's scores due to some sw within the benchmark that provides some code optimised results for the intels (the web servers) hence the higher score.

    The 6200 series did showe some response disadvantages but many things have to do with configuration of bios and power profiles in both server and hypervisor. might want to blame the setup rather then the servers. so for 6200 series we actually bought a 10% higher clock speed version to cover that, but reduced that again now with 6300 series.
    Reply
  • silverblue - Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - link

    I'm going to go trawl the internet (note I said trawl, not troll - very important to bear in mind) for articles on FX CPUs resulting in PCs dying... nope, no matches. Funny, huh?

    I've also run a search concerning AMD CPUs producing incorrect results and crashing; any such occurrences would be the results of design bugs which, I must point out, are not limited to AMD. Nehalem had a bug causing spurious interrupts that locks up the hypervisor on Windows Server 2008 R2, for example. Core 2 had a huge list of bugs.
    Reply
  • Shadowmaster625 - Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - link

    It is hard to disagree with the statement, knowing how overpaid US IT professionals are. But I just want to point out that this mentality is one of the reasons IT is being outsourced at a furious rate. Keep that in mind before you go blaming someone else for US jobs being lost.

    This meager cost savings may not matter here, but what about some company in Asia? They might actually bite on a few hundred dollar savings, especially if they are ordering quantities in the hundreds. In that case, $300 becomes $30,000. Which might be more than they spend on the people who deploy those servers.
    Reply
  • ExarKun333 - Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - link

    Outsourced work isn't much cheaper these days and the workers are of much less quality, on a whole. Reply
  • sherlockwing - Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - link

    Except in Asia( especially developing countries) the cost of electricity is a lot higher due to rapidly expanding industry,population & lacking power plants. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now