ColdFusion Test Results

Macromedia ColdFusion MX is a rapid application development language that started off under a company named Allaire. It was originally developed in C++ and then interpreted into HTML by the ColdFusion runtime service. Today, ColdFusion runs on top of a J2EE server, and is compiled into Java byte code, which is then executed in the J2EE server's Java Virtual Machine (JVM). ColdFusion MX 6.1 was the version that we used, with the August 2004 updater applied. We left ColdFusion configured with 8 simultaneous requests, we enabled trusted cache, and we set the JVM to 512MB for minimum and maximum heap size as recommended in the Macromedia performance documentation.

The difference between the Opteron and Xeon here was approximately 3%, which isn't far off our deviation of 2.5%. The JVM isn't optimized for either CPU architecture, so the test is completely impacted by the hardware itself. The results here indicate that either CPU platform would result in very similar performance on the ColdFusion MX 6.1 application server.

FuseTalk ColdFusion MX 6.1

FuseTalk ColdFusion MX 6.1

FuseTalk ColdFusion MX 6.1

Index PHP Test Results
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Saist - Monday, October 18, 2004 - link

    I just wanted to comment that as I read the graphs, the opteron lead all but .NET
  • justly - Monday, October 18, 2004 - link

    22 There was a thread here that talked about the infoword article, I suggest you at least lokk at it before you claim there are no holes in its conclusion.

    Like any other thread it does drift of topic at times but there are a lot of conclusions made by the author of the article (rck01) that he either could not or would not elaborate on. Personally I wouldnt trust the results of that article untill some of the questions asked in that thread get answered.
  • Chuckles - Monday, October 18, 2004 - link

    No, lets hope that AMD responds by getting a compiler team and optimizing the binary daylights out of the various compilers in addition to boosting the clock. That way everybody wins.
  • dollar - Monday, October 18, 2004 - link

    - The Xeons and the Opterons have the same 1MB L2 cache, cached up Xeons? Huh?
    - There are no Windows Server 2003 64-bit edition but the betas, and people looking for servers most likely aren't using betas. Also there is little or no real software availible. Plus, the Xeons are also 64-bit capable (so that would't put the Opterons at any real advantage anyways.
    - The fact that software is optimized for Xeons turns the tide in their favour, but it's nothing wrong with that, the costumer still gets more performance. Unfortunatly for AMD there isn't likely to be any widespread Opteron optimization with a 5% markedshare. That's what it's like to be the little guy :(

    Xeon's came out victorious (for once), let's hope AMD responds with faster CPUs ;)
  • sprockkets - Monday, October 18, 2004 - link

    I guess my only question is what type of Xeon was used, the ones with huge cache, or what?

    I liked that Infoworld report, in a way. It's weird that Opterons are faster, but load up a Xeon with work and it is faster. Kinda makes sense, but if you are faster when under load, wouldn't you run faster without load? Does that mean Xeons waste most of the time without other programs to take advantage then of Hyper Threading?

    Then again, with a shared bus architecture it's been proven here until the Xenon went up to a 800mhz bus that Opterons scale much better.
  • Guspaz - Monday, October 18, 2004 - link

    Isn't it kind of an unfair test to compare a 64-bit processor in 32 bit mode to a 32 bit processor?

    If you're going to benchmark without taking advantage of one of the Opteron's biggest features (AMD64), why not disable something like Hyper-Threading to compensate? From what I understand both AMD64 and HyperThreading provide similar performance increases of something like 5 to 15 percent.
  • WooDaddy - Monday, October 18, 2004 - link

    I understand for the purpose of the review, it might be easier to order from the same vendor, but since the architecture of each one is different (AMD/Intel), most companies wouldn't sell conflicting yet equivalent servers. The server market caters less to fanboys/men/women than the fickle consumer market.

    My point is that if you are going to compare full blown pre-assembled systems, you should look at competing vendors since it isn't cost effective for the vendor to release self-competing products. But since you probably built your own (the test configuration info was rather sparce), make sure the component cost is the same. That's the comparision that would count.
  • Jason Clark - Monday, October 18, 2004 - link

    I plan on adding a cost comparison in our next article in this series. The trick is to make it as fair as possible where each system is outfitted in a similar fashion from the same vendor if possible.

  • Questar - Monday, October 18, 2004 - link

    Oh yeah, that's a really good idea. I should base business buying decisions based upon a review at a gaming site. There's a source I would quote in my research.
  • mrdudesir - Monday, October 18, 2004 - link

    That review at info world was a joke. No Data, just assertions that they claim, would they care to back it up with evidence. If you want to see a real review check out this one over at GamePC that i found, which actually outlines all of the hardware and apps used.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now