Assessing IBM's POWER8, Part 1: A Low Level Look at Little Endian
by Johan De Gelas on July 21, 2016 8:45 AM ESTMemory Subsystem: Latency Measurements
There is no doubt about it: the performance of modern CPUs depends heavily on the cache subsystem. And some applications depend heavily on the DRAM subsystem too. We used LMBench in an effort to try to measure latency. Our favorite tool to do this, Tinymembench, does not support the POWER architecture yet. That is a pity, because it is a lot more accurate and modern (as it can test with two outstanding requests).
The numbers we looked at were "Random load latency stride=16 Bytes" (LMBench).
| Mem Hierarchy |
IBM POWER8 | Intel Broadwell Xeon E5-2640v4 DDR4-2133 |
Intel Broadwell Xeon E5-2699v4 DDR4-2400 |
| L1 Cache (cycles) | 3 | 4 | 4 |
| L2 Cache (cycles) | 13 | 12-15 | 12-15 |
| L3 Cache 4-8 MB(cycles) | 27-28 (8 ns) | 49-50 | 50 |
| 16 MB (ns) | 55 ns | 26 ns | 21 ns |
| 32-64 MB (ns) | 55-57 ns | 75-92 ns | 80-96 ns |
| Memory 96-128 MB (ns) | 67-74 ns | 90-91 ns | 96 ns |
| Memory 384-512 MB (ns) | 89-91 ns | 91-93 ns | 95 ns |
(Note that the numbers for Intel are higher than what we reported in our Cavium ThunderX review. The reason is that we are now using the numbers of LMBench and not those of Tinymembench.)
A 64 KB L1 cache with 4 read ports that can run at 4+ GHz speeds and still maintain a 3 cycle load latency is nothing less than the pinnacle of engineering. The L2 cache excels too, being twice as large (512 KB) and still offering the same latency as Intel's L2.
Once we get to the eDRAM L3 cache, our readings get a lot more confusing. The L3 cache is blistering fast as long as you only access the part that is closest to the core (8 MB). Go beyond that limit (16 MB), and you get a latency that is no less than 7 times worse. It looks like we actually hitting the Centaur chips, because the latency stays the same at 32 and 64 MB.
Intel has a much more predictable latency chart. Xeon's L3 cache needs about 50 cycles, and once you get into DRAM, you get a 90-96 ns latency. The "transistion phase" from 26 ns L3 to 90 ns DRAM is much smaller.
Comparatively, that "transition phase" seems relatively large on the IBM POWER8. We have to go beyond 128 MB before we get the full DRAM latency. And even then the Centaur chip seems to handle things well: the octal DDR-3 1333 MHz DRAM system delivers the same or even slightly better latency as the DDR4-2400 memory on the Xeon.
In summary, IBM's POWER8 has a twice as fast 8 MB L3, while Intel's L3 is vastly better in the 9-32 MB zone. But once you go beyond 32 MB, the IBM memory subsystem delivers better latency. At a significant power cost we must add, because those 4 memory buffers need about 64 Watts.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
124 Comments
View All Comments
zodiacfml - Thursday, July 21, 2016 - link
Like a good TV series, I can't wait for the next episode.aryonoco - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
OK, this is literally why Anandtech is the best in the tech journalism industry.There is nowhere else on the net that you can find a head to head comparison between POWER and Xeon, and unless you work in the tech department of a Fortune 500 company, this information has just not been available, until now.
Johan, thank you for your work on this article. I did give you beef in your previous article about using LE Ubuntu but I concede your point. Very happy to you are writing more for Anandtech these days.
Xeons really need some competition. Whether that competition comes from POWER or ARM or Zen, I am happy to see some competition. IBM has big plans for POWER9. Hopefully this is just the start of things to come.
JohanAnandtech - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
Thanks! it is very exciting to perform benchmarks that nobody has published yet :-).In hindsight, I have to admit that the first article contained too few benchmarks that really mattered for POWER8. Most of our usual testing and scripting did not work, and so after lot of tinkering, swearing and sweat I got some benchmarks working on this "exotic to me" platform. The contrast between what one would expect to see on POWER8 and me being proud of being able to somewhat "tame the beast" could not have been greater :-). In other words, there was a learning curve.
tipoo - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
I found it very interesting as well and would certainly not mind seeing more from this space, like maybe Xeon Phi and SPARC M7jospoortvliet - Tuesday, July 26, 2016 - link
Amen. But, to not ask to much, just the prospect of part 2 of the Power benchmark is already super exciting. Yes, the Internetz need more of this!Daniel Egger - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
Not quite sure what the Endianess of a systems adds to the competitive factor. Maybe someone could elaborate why it is so important to run a system in LE?ZeDestructor - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
Not much, really, with the compilers being good and all that.Really, it's quite clearly there just for some excellent alliteration.
JohanAnandtech - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
Basically LE reduces the barrier for an IBM server being integrated in x86 dominated datacenter.see https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/blogs...
Just a few reasons:
"Numerous clients, software partners, and IBM’s own software developers have told us that porting their software to Power becomes simpler if the Linux environment on Power supports little endian mode, more closely matching the environment provided by Linux on x86. This new level of support will *** lower the barrier to entry for porting Linux on x86 software to Linux on Power **."
"A system accelerator programmer (GPU or FPGA) who needs to share memory with applications running in the system processor must share data in an pre-determined endianness for correct application functionality."
Daniel Egger - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
While correct in theory, this hasn't been a problem for the last 20 years. People are used to using BE on PPC/POWER, the software, the drivers and the infrastructure are very mature (as a matter of fact it was my job 15 years ago to make sure they are). PPC/POWER actually have configurable endianess so if someone wanted to go LE earlier it would have easily been possible but only few ever attempted that stunt; so why have the big disruption now?KAlmquist - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
I assume that this is about selling POWER boxes to companies that currently run all x86 servers, and have a bunch of custom software that they might be willing to recompile. If the customer has to spend a bunch of time fixing endian dependencies in his software in order to get it to work on POWER, it will probably be less expensive for them to simply stick with x86.