POWER8 Servers: The Reality Check

As we've just seen, the specs of the POWER8 as announced at launch are very impressive. But what about the in the real world? The top models (10-12 at 4 GHz+, 2TB per socket) are still limited to the extremely expensive E870/E880, which typically costs around 3 times as much (or more) as a comparable Xeon E7 system. But there is light at the end of the tunnel: "PowerLinux" quad socket systems are more expensive than comparable x86 systems, but only by 10 to 30%.

The real competition for x86 must probably come from the third parties of the OpenPower Fondation. IBM sells them POWER8 chips at much more reasonable prices ($2k - $3k), so it is possible to build a reasonably priced POWER8 system. The POWER8 chips sold to third parties are somewhat "lighter" versions, but that is more an advantage than you would think. For example, by keeping the clockspeed a bit lower, the power consumption is lower (190W TDP). These chips also have only 4 (instead  of 8) memory buffer chips, which "limits" them to 1 TB of memory, but again this saves quite a bit of power, between 50W and 80W. In other words, the POWER8 chips available to third parties are much more reasonable and even more competitive than the power gobbling, ultra expensive behemoths that got all the attention at launch.  

Tyan already has an one socket server and several Taiwanese (Wistron) and Chinese vendors are developing 2 socket systems. Quad socket models are not yet on the horizon as far as we know, but is probably going to change soon.   

POWER8 vs. Xeon E5 v3: SPECing It Out

Unfortunately we did not have access to a full blown POWER8 system at this time. But as our loyal readers know, we do not limit our server testing to the x86 world (see here and here) . So until a POWER8 system arrives, we'll have to check out the available industry standard benchmarks. To that end we looked up the SPEC CPU2006 numbers for a single socket CPU. 

SPEC CPU2006 - One chip

The 12 cores inside the POWER8 - the single socket chips found in the more reasonable priced servers - perform very well. The integer performance is only a few percentages lower than the Intel chip and POWER8's floating point performance is well ahead of the Xeon.

Overall the POWER8 is quite capable of keeping up with the Xeon E5-2699v3. And don't let the "2.3 GHz" official clockspeed fool you into thinking that the Xeons are clocked unnecessarily low, either: in SPECint, the XEON is running at 2.8 GHz most of the time.

Ultimately, the POWER8 is able to offer slightly higher raw performance than the Intel CPUs, however it just won't be able to do so at the same performance/watt. Meanwhile the reasonable pricing of the POWER8 chips should result in third party servers that are strongly competitive with the Xeon on a performance-per-dollar basis. Reasonably priced, well performing dual and quad socket Linux on Power servers should be possible very soon.

The Competitor: IBM's POWER8 Benchmark Configuration
Comments Locked

146 Comments

View All Comments

  • PowerTrumps - Saturday, May 9, 2015 - link

    Oracle has been unable to develop a power core let alone a processor. What they have done is created servers with many cores and many threads albeit weak cores/threads. The S3 core was an improvement and no reason to think the S4 won't be decent either. However, the M7 will come (again, true to form) with 32 cores per socket. It will be like 8 mini clusters of 4 cores because they are unable to develop a single SMP chip with shared resources across all of the cores. As such, these mini clusters will have their own resources which will lead to latency and inefficiencies. Oracle is a software business and their goal is to run software on either the most cores possible or the most inefficient. They have both of these bases covered with their Intel and SPARC business.

    Also, performance per Watt is important for Intel because what you see is what you get. With Power though, when you have strong single thread performance, strong multi-thread performance and tremendous consolidation efficiency due to Power Hypervisor efficiency means ~200W doesn't matter when you can consolidate 2, 4 maybe 10 Intel chips at 135W each into a single Power chip because of this hypervisor efficiency.
  • tynopik - Friday, May 8, 2015 - link

    pg4 - datam ining
  • der - Friday, May 8, 2015 - link

    Woo...we're bout to have another GHz War here!
  • usernametaken76 - Friday, May 8, 2015 - link

    I'm sure you mean figuratively. We've been stuck between 4-5 GHz on POWER architecture for closing in on a decade.
  • zamroni - Friday, May 8, 2015 - link

    My conclusion is Samsung should buy AMD to reduce Intel dominance.
  • alpha754293 - Friday, May 8, 2015 - link

    It would have been interesting to see the LS-DYNA benchmark results again (so that you can compare it against some of the tests that you've ran previously). But very interesting...
  • JohanAnandtech - Friday, May 8, 2015 - link

    Give me some help and we'll do that again on an update version :-)
  • alpha754293 - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 - link

    Not a problem. You have my email address right? And if not, I'll just send you another email and we can get that going again. :) Thanks.
  • andychow - Friday, May 8, 2015 - link

    If Samsung bought AMD, they would lose the licence for both x86 and x86_64 production. It would in fact ensure Intel's dominance of the market.
  • Kevin G - Friday, May 8, 2015 - link

    The x86 license can be transferred as long as Intel signs off on the deal (and it is in their best interest to do so). What will probably happen is that if any company buys AMD, the new owner will enter a cross licensing agreement with Intel.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now