• 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

Selecting an Appropriate Server CPU

For many businesses, performance isn't the top priority when it comes to selecting a server; chances are that low power and CAPEX budget are higher on the list. AMD's newest Opteron 4100 series is targetting exactly those businesses. The 4100 is the little brother of the Opteron "Magny-Cours" 6100. The Opteron 6100 crams up to two hex-core or quad-core chips in one package. In contrast, the "Lisbon" Opteron package contains only one chip. The "Lisbon" Opteron with C32 socket thus comes with the same improvements that the Opteron 6100 had over the hex-core "Istanbul":

  • Support for DDR3 memory (low voltage also supported)
  • Higher HyperTransport speeds.
  • Improved C1E sleep state.

The dual socket capable Opteron 4100 tries to find a place between the relatively cheap but single socket Xeon 3500/3600 series and the more expensive dual socket Xeon 5600 series. We chose three AMD Opterons and two Intel Xeons for a closer look.

The hex-core Opteron 4162 EE promises to consume no more than 32W (35W TDP), or an amazing low ~5W per core. The chip runs at a modest 1.7GHz and comes with an affordable $316 price tag. You can get a slightly faster 1.8GHz version, the 4164 EE, but that chip costs more than twice as much ($698). As we are searching for low power and inexpensive CPUs, it didn't make the cut. The only disadvantage other than the lower clock speed is the lower clocked HT3 link at 2GT/s instead of 6.4GT/s.

If that is still too expensive for you, AMD has also a quad-core 2.2GHz Opteron 4122 at probably the lowest price ever for a dual socket server CPU: $99. The CPU needs 75W on average according to AMD (95W TDP). You'll probably want to pay a little more for the 2.6GHz 4130 ($125), but unfortunately we didn't get that CPU in our labs. Adding about 15-18% to the performance numbers of the 4122 should tell you what the 4130 is capable of.

Most of you are probably looking for a good balance between power, throughput, single threaded performance, and price. The hex-core 2.1GHz Opteron 4170 HE is a good candidate at only $174. AMD promises that average power should be around 50W under load, with a maximum of 65W.

Simply stated, Intel does not like to play in those price ranges. The cheapest Xeon is priced at $188, and offers you the four cores of the E5603. At 1.6GHz, without Hyper-Threading, and with the L3 cut in half (4MB) we doubt that it will be a good alternative. It also needs a bit more power: 80W.

The only "decent" Xeon in the low price ranges is the Xeon E5606 (four "Westmere" cores at 2.13GHz, 8MB L3, no HT). Unfortunately, we didn't have this chip in the lab. To give you an idea where it would land, we added a Xeon E5506 at 2.13GHz, which is based on the older "Gainestown/Nehalem" architecture and has less L3 (4MB). Based on our past experiences you should add about 10 to 20% of performance to get an idea where the E5606 would land. In general, the Opterons will need to surpass this older chip to be compelling.

The low power Intel chips are priced a bit higher. We asked Intel, and the "slowest" low power chip they would send is the Xeon L5630. It offers four cores with Hyper-Threading (eight threads) at 2.13GHz, 12MB of L3, and consumes a very low 40W TDP. It will need to beat all the Opterons with a decent margin to justify the rather heavy $550 price tag.

In summary, it looks like AMD might have found a some unclaimed territory here as Intel does not offer low power and cheap Xeons. The question of course is whether the performance/watt/price ratio is interesting enough, and that's what we're here to find out.

Server Benchmark Configurations
POST A COMMENT

35 Comments

View All Comments

  • mino - Thursday, March 03, 2011 - link

    While the Wh metric is useful for efficiency evaluation, it is pretty much useless for the exact scenario you mention in the conclusion - power-capped server hosting.

    Please add the load-power numbers to the article.
    Reply
  • ppokorny - Sunday, March 06, 2011 - link

    And if lower results are better, shouldn't the graphs be sorted so the shorter bars are on top? Reply
  • mfenn - Thursday, March 03, 2011 - link

    People actually use the bezels on Dell servers? Reply
  • JohanAnandtech - Saturday, March 05, 2011 - link

    Only for pretty pictures :-) Reply
  • Lord 666 - Thursday, March 03, 2011 - link

    Trying to hold off on the 5600 purchase hoping that the 5700s are almost here.

    Any idea?
    Reply
  • duploxxx - Friday, March 04, 2011 - link

    ready to hold off until september - oktober?

    I assume you select an Intel server cpu by default as usual by IT?
    Reply
  • Ben - Thursday, March 03, 2011 - link

    I know that noise level is a bit of a joke for a "real" server, but I've had customers ask me about installing servers in environments that are less than ideal, where the noise level would be a factor in their decision (such as the corner of an office that is occupied).

    I would be interested in seeing noise levels from these units and possibly a future article focused on a couple units that don't sound like a 747 on takeoff.
    Reply
  • jcandle - Friday, March 04, 2011 - link

    I've experienced this as well. Primarily ones and twos of units as file and workgroup servers where towers would be ideal. Unfortunately, there are not many options when it comes to the storage. Those FC and SAS 16 and 24 bay RAIDs are virtually all designed for rack and put out their share of noise.

    While it doesn't occur often, some companies are requesting racks operate in the same room as workers; sometimes this has to do with large scientific equipment in the room, or other various lab requirements.

    What I would also like to see in addition to noise levels (dB levels at various distances) like Ben request, is the the thermal load (BTU output of each unit). While some manufacturers give it out and it is often estimated, a real world assessment would be nice. Although I understand this would be difficult if you did not receive a dozen or more eval units; perhaps you have trick up your sleeve.
    Reply
  • bobbozzo - Monday, March 07, 2011 - link

    You can convert Watts to BTUs easily:
    http://www.google.com/search?q=watts+to+btu
    Reply
  • ZL1Corvette - Thursday, March 03, 2011 - link

    A 95W chip consuming it's full 95W, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year consumes 832.2 kWh a year. At the GE (http://www.csgnetwork.com/elecenergycalcs.html) average of $.1 per kWh, 832.3 kWh costs only $83.22/year. Going from a 95W chip to a 35W chip only saves $51.19/year. So going with the 4170HE instead of the 4122 costs you $74. You save $24.60 a year. You'd need to keep the chip about 3 years for it to pay for itself. You'll only save a fraction of that per year when only considering the chip consumption, which seems like a safe assumption in the spirit of this article where chips are swapped between the same server.

    I did not use the GE calculator, but it gives the same numbers. A TDP is the thermal output, but I think it's safe to assume that that number is a close representation of the power use of the CPU. Power in = Power out. The only power outs I can think of are the thermal power and the "data" power. I'd find it difficult to imagine the "data" power being significant, and I think that the data would be the same no matter which chip you use.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now