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
Comparing With the Other ARMs
We did not have access to any recent Cortex-A57 or X-Gene platform to run the full SPEC CPU2006 suite. But we can still combine our previous findings with those that have been published on the 7-cpu.com. The first X-Gene 1 result is our own measurement, the second one is the best we could find.
| SKU | Clock | Baseline Xeon D Compress | Baseline Xeon D Decompress |
| Atom C2720 | 2.4 | 1687 | 2114 |
| X-Gene 1 (AT bench) | 2.4 | 1580 | 1864 |
| X-Gene 1 (best) | 2.4 | 1770 | 1980 |
| Cortex-A57 | 1.9 | 1500 | 2330 |
| ThunderX | 2.0 | 1547 | 2042 |
| Xeon D1557 | 1.5-2.1 | 3079 | 2320 |
| Xeon E5-2640 v4 | 2.4-2.6 | 3755 | 2943 |
| Xeon E5-2690 v3 | 2.6-3.5 | 4599 | 3811 |
Let's translate this to percentages, where we compare the Thunder-X performance to the Xeon D and the Cortex-A57, two architectures it must try to beat. The first one is to open a broader market, the second one to justify the development of a homegrown ARMv8 microarchitecture.
| SKU | Clock | Baseline Xeon D Compress | Baseline Xeon D Decompress | Baseline A57 Compress | Baseline A57 Decompress |
| Atom C2720 | 2.4 | 55% | 91% | 112% | 91% |
| X-Gene (AT bench) | 2.4 | 51% | 80% | 105% | 80% |
| X-Gene (best) | 2.4 | 57% | 85% | 118% | 85% |
| Cortex-A57 | 1.9 | 49% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| ThunderX | 2.0 | 50% | 88% | 103% | 88% |
| Xeon D1557 | 2.1 | 100% | 100% | 205% | 100% |
| Xeon E5-2640 v4 | 2.4 | 122% | 127% | 250% | 126% |
| Xeon E5-2690 v3 | 3.5 | 149% | 164% | 307% | 164% |
First of all, these benchmarks should be placed in perspective: they tend to have a different profile than most server applications. For example compression relies a lot on memory latency and TLB efficiency. Decompression relies on integer instructions (shift, multiply). Since this test has unpredictable branches, the ThunderX has an advantage.
The ThunderX at 2 GHz performs more or less like an A57 core at the same speed. Considering that AMD only got eight A57 cores inside a power envelope of 32W using similar process technology, you could imagine that a A57 chip would be able to fit 32 cores at the most in a 120W TDP envelope. So Cavium did quite well fitting about 50% more cores inside the same power envelope using an old 28 nm high-k metal gate process.
Nevertheless, a 120W Xeon E5 offers about 2.5-3 times higher compression performance. The gap is indeed much smaller in decompression, where the wide Broadwell core is only 13% (!) faster than the narrow ThunderX core (compare the Xeon D-1557 with the ThunderX).
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
82 Comments
View All Comments
Daniel Egger - Wednesday, June 15, 2016 - link
I could hardly disagree more about the remote management of SuperMicro vs. HP. Remote management of HP is *the horror*, I've never seen worse and I've seen a lot. It's clunky, it requires a license to be useful (others do to but SuperMicro does not have such nonsense), the BCM tends to crash a lot (which is very annoying for a remote management solution), boot is even slower than all other systems I know due to the way they integrate the BIOS and remote management on the system and it also uses Java unless you have Windows machines around to use the .NET version.For the remote management alone I would chose SuperMicro over most other vendors any day.
JohanAnandtech - Thursday, June 16, 2016 - link
I found the .Net client of HP much less sluggish, and I have seen no crashing at all. I guess there is no optimal remote management client, but I really like the "boot into firmware" option that Intel implemented.rahvin - Thursday, June 16, 2016 - link
Not only that but Supermicro actually releases updates for their BCM's. I had the same shocked reaction to the HP claim. Started to wonder if I was the only one that thought supermicro was light years ahead in usability.I should note that Supermicro's awful Java tool works on Linux as well as windows. Though it refuses to run if your Java isn't the newest version available.
pencea - Wednesday, June 15, 2016 - link
All these articles and yet still no review for the GTX 1080, while other major sites have already posted their reviews of both 1070 & 1080. Guru3D already has 2 custom 1080 and a custom 1070 review up.Ryan Smith - Wednesday, June 15, 2016 - link
It'll be done when it's done.pencea - Wednesday, June 15, 2016 - link
Unacceptably late for something that should've been posted weeks ago.Meteor2 - Thursday, June 16, 2016 - link
Will anyone read it though? Your ad impressions are going to suffer.Ryan Smith - Thursday, June 16, 2016 - link
Maybe. Maybe not. But it's my own fault regardless. All I can do is get it done as soon as I reasonably can, and hope it's something you guys find useful.name99 - Thursday, June 16, 2016 - link
Give it a freaking rest. No-one is impressed by your constant whining about this.pencea - Thursday, June 16, 2016 - link
Not looking to impress anyone. As a long time viewer of this site, I'm simply disappointed that a reputational site like this is constantly late for GPU reviews.