Investigating Cavium's ThunderX: The First ARM Server SoC With Ambition
by Johan De Gelas on June 15, 2016 8:00 AM EST- Posted in
- SoCs
- IT Computing
- Enterprise
- Enterprise CPUs
- Microserver
- Cavium
Energy Consumption
A large part of the server market is very sensitive to performance-per-watt. That includes the cloud vendors. For a smaller part of the market, top performance is more important than the performance/watt ratio. Indeed for financial trading, big data analyses, database, and some simulation servers, performance is the top priority. Energy consumption should not be outrageous, but it is not the most important concern.
We tested the energy consumption for a one-minute period in several situations. The first one is the point where the tested server performs best in MySQL: the highest throughput just before the response time goes up significantly. Then we look at the point where throughput is the highest (no matter what response time). This is is the situation where the CPU is fully loaded. And lastly we compare with a situation where the floating point units are working hard (C-ray).
| SKU | TDP (on paper) spec |
Idle W |
MySQL Best throughput at lowest resp time (W) |
MySQL Max Throughput (W) |
Peak vs idle (W) |
Transactions per watt |
C-ray W |
| Xeon D-1557 | 45 W | 54 | 99 | 100 | 46 | 73 | 99 |
| Xeon D-1581 | 65 W | 59 | 123 | 125 | 66 | 97 | 124 |
| Xeon E5-2640 v4 | 90 W | 76 | 135 | 143 | 67 | 71 | 138 |
| ThunderX | 120 W | 141 | 204 | 223 | 82 | 46 | 190 |
| Xeon E5-2690 v3 | 135 W | 84 | 249 | 254 | 170 | 47 | 241 |
Intel allowed the Xeon "Haswell" E5 v3 to consume quite a bit of power when turbo boost was on. There is a 170W difference between idle and max throughput, and if you assume that 15 W is consumed by the CPU in idle, you get a total under load of 185W. Some of that power has to be attributed to the PSU losses, memory activity (not much) or fan speed. Still we think Intel allowed the Xeon E5 "Haswell" to consume more than the specified TDP. We have noticed the same behavior on the Xeon E5-2699 v3 and 2667 v3: Haswell EP consumes little at low load, but is relatively power hungry at peak load.
The 90W TDP Xeon E5-2640v4 consumes 67W more at peak than in idle. Even if you add 15W to that number, you get only 82W. Considering that the 67W is measured at the wall, it is clear that Intel has been quite conservative with the "Broadwell" parts. We get the same impression when we tried out the Xeon E5-2699 v4. This confirms our suspicion that with Broadwell EP, Intel prioritized performance per watt over throughput and single threaded performance. The Xeon D, as a result, is simply the performance per watt champion.
The Cavium ThunderX does pretty badly here, and one of the reason is that power management either did not work, or at least did not work very well. Changing the power governor was not possible: the cpufreq driver was not recognized. The difference between peak and idle (+/- 80W) makes us suspect that the chip is consuming between 40 and 50W at idle, as measured at the wall. Whether is just a matter of software support or a real lack of good hardware power management is not clear. It is quite possibly both.
We would also advise Gigabyte to use a better performing heatsink for the fastest ThunderX SKUs. At full load, the reported CPU temperature is 83 °C, which leaves little thermal headroom (90°C is critical). When we stopped our CRAC cooling, the gigabyte R120-T30 server forced a full shutdown after only a few minutes while the Xeon D systems were still humming along.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
82 Comments
View All Comments
vivs26 - Wednesday, June 15, 2016 - link
Not necessarily - (read Amdahl's law of diminishing returns). The performance actually depends on the workload. Having a million cores guarantees nothing in terms of performance unless the workload is parallelizable which in the real world is not as much as we think it could be. I'm curious to see how xeon merged with altera programmable fabric performs than ARM on a server.maxxbot - Wednesday, June 22, 2016 - link
Technically true but every generation that millstone gets a little smaller, the die area and power needed to translate x86 into uops isn't huge and reduces every generation.jardows2 - Wednesday, June 15, 2016 - link
Interesting. Faster in a few workloads where heavy use of multi-thread is important, but significantly slower in more single thread workloads. For server use, you don't always want parallelized tasks. The results are pretty much across the board for all the processors tested: If the ThunderX was slower, it was slower than all the Intel chips. If it were faster, it was faster than all but the highest end Intel Chips. With the price only being slightly lower than the cheapest Intel chip being sold, I don't think this is going to be a Xeon competitor at all, but will take a few niche applications where it can do better.With no significant energy savings, we should be looking forward to the ThunderX2 to see if it will bring this into a better alternative.
ddriver - Wednesday, June 15, 2016 - link
There is hardly a server workload where you don't get better throughput by throwing more cores and servers at it. Servers are NOT about parallelized task, but about concurrent tasks. That's why while desktops are still stuck at 8 cores, server chips come with 20 and more... Server workloads are usually very simple, it is just that there is a lot of them. They are so simple and take so little time it literally makes no sense parallelizing them.jardows2 - Wednesday, June 15, 2016 - link
In the scenario you described, the single-thread performance takes on even more importance, thus highlighting the advantage the Xeon's currently have in most server configurations.niva - Wednesday, June 15, 2016 - link
Not if the Xeon doesn't have enough cores to actually process 40+ singlethreaded tasks con-currently.hechacker1 - Wednesday, June 15, 2016 - link
But kernels and VMWare know how to schedule multiple threads on 1 core if it's not being fully utilized. Single threaded IPC can make up for not having as many cores. See the iPhone SoCs for another example.ddriver - Wednesday, June 15, 2016 - link
Not if you have thousands of concurrent workloads and only like 8 cores. As fast as each core might be, the overhead from workload context switching will eat it up.willis936 - Thursday, June 16, 2016 - link
Yeah if each task is not significantly longer than a context switch. Context switches are very fast, especially with processors with many sets of SMT registers per core.ddriver - Thursday, June 16, 2016 - link
If what you suggest is correct, then intel would not be investing chip TDP in more cores but higher clocks and better single threaded performance. Clearly this is not the case, as they are pushing 20 cores at the fairly modest 2.4 Ghz.