AMD got the attention of Microsoft with their 64-bit Athlon 64/Opteron platform, and it was enough attention to warrant a new OS port to x86-64. Just weeks ago AMD scored another victory, with Intel announcing the adoption of AMD's 64-bit extensions to x86.

Future Xeon and Pentium 4 processors will ship with the x86-64 extensions enabled but architecturally they will be identical to the currently available Prescott based Pentium 4. The architectural similarity between Intel's IA-32e ad IA-32 processors (IA-32e is Intel's marketing equivalent to AMD64) is an important point to note as it means that if Opteron is able to outperform Xeon in 32-bit mode, it will maintain a performance advantage in 64-bit mode as well. We are assuming that Intel has no specialized hardware to improve 64-bit performance over AMD's solution, so the Xeon vs. Opteron comparisons we've brought you in the 32-bit world should still hold true in the 64-bit world later this year.

There has been much editorializing about Intel's recent 64-bit announcement, and we'll add nothing more than this to it all: it's a very good thing that Intel has gone the x86-64 route, it will mean that we see software support, drivers and overall market acceptance sooner. We have AMD to thank for Intel's backing x86-64, which is a big feather in AMD's cap but if there's one thing to be said about business it's that there's no room for pride.

Intel made the right decision; they would be losing sales if they didn't adopt x86-64, leaving those who needed a 64-bit x86 solution no option other than Opteron. However Intel gives AMD nothing if they adopt x86-64 in their own CPUs; AMD's sales don't increase and remember what we said about pride in business.

We'll talk more about Intel's upcoming 64-bit Xeons (Nocona and Potomac) in the conclusion, but let's get to what we're all here to see today: AMD's Opteron and Intel's Xeon go head to head in a real-world database serving comparison.

We compared the two titans in our web serving tests late last year, where AMD left Intel in a cloud of dust. Now the stakes are much higher, can Intel's deeply pipelined architecture contend with AMD's server-grown Opteron?

A Confusing Market
POST A COMMENT

58 Comments

View All Comments

  • Rand - Friday, May 20, 2005 - link

    Reply
  • perlgreen - Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - link

    Is there any chance that you guys could do more tests and benchmarking on Linux for IT Computing/Servers? I really like your site, but it'd be really nice if there would be more stuff for fans of the Penguin!

    cheers,

    Campbell
    Reply
  • ragusauce - Friday, March 05, 2004 - link

    #54
    We have been building from source and trying different options / debug versions...
    Reply
  • DBBoy - Friday, March 05, 2004 - link

    #47 - In OLAP, or poorly indexed environments where the amount of data exceeds the 4 MB L3 cache of the Xeons the Opteron is going to shine even more with it's increased memory bandwidth.

    Assuming you do not bottleneck on the disk IO the SQL cache/RAM will be utilised much more thus putting more of a burden on the FSB of the Xeons in addition to allowing the Opteron's memory bandwidth to display it's abilities.
    Reply
  • Jason Clark - Friday, March 05, 2004 - link

    ragusauce, using binaries or building from source?

    Cheers
    Reply
  • ragusauce - Friday, March 05, 2004 - link

    We have been doing extensive testing of MySQL64 on Opteron and have had problems with seg faults as well. Reply
  • zarjad - Thursday, March 04, 2004 - link

    Great, thanks.
    My thoughts:
    In this type of application you are likely to use more than 4GB memory.
    Memory bandwidth should matter because you will be doing a lot of full table scans (as opposed to using indexes).
    Reply
  • Jason Clark - Thursday, March 04, 2004 - link

    zarjad, I'll get back to you on that question I have some thoughts and amd discussing them with one of the guys that worked with us on the tests (Ross). Reply
  • zarjad - Thursday, March 04, 2004 - link

    Jason, any comments on #47? Reply
  • Jason Clark - Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - link

    The os used was windows 2003 enterprise which does indeed support NUMA. So NUMA was enabled.. this was covered in an earlier response. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now