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

  • Questar - Monday, October 18, 2004 - link

    RTFA, the numbers are all there. Now who's the joke?
  • Phiro - Monday, October 18, 2004 - link

    Good article - we currently exclusively use clustered dual-P4 cpu boxes w/hyperthreading enabled & Windows 2003 for our web clusters, and the .net side of it gets larger every day, so this quick review was right on the money. The one thing I would have added was a quick cost comparison for the like servers.

    People, you may all beg and cry for things like Linux testing, Windows 64 testing, etc. etc. but given the simple constraints on this article - basic web server comparison using hardware & OS's and software that's actually in production at most Fortune 500 companies - that's useful to some of us. I'm sorry they didn't benchmark this with Raptors, 42 sticks of ram and the latest beta nvidia drivers, but this wasn't a "how high can we max out web server performance" - they write those on odd-numbered days :)
  • PrinceXizor - Monday, October 18, 2004 - link

    That infoworld "review" was a joke. No benchmarking numbers, just the reviewers own subjective opinions. There may be some grain of truth in the multi-tasking vs. non multi-tasking strengths of the Xeons. But, its impossible to say from that "review". There was virtually no useful information for evaluating the platforms. Its no wonder that most useful reviews are from on-line hardware sites like AT, [H], TechReport, THG, etc.

  • WooDaddy - Monday, October 18, 2004 - link

    BIG problem with this review. HOW MUCH DO THEY COST!?!

    No self-respecting company would purchase a server without performing a cost/performance ratio.

    My assumption is that the Opteron system is less expensive.. that being said, then the review is moot. Equally priced systems should be used. My next assumption is that then the new Opteron system would spank the Intel...

    But unfortunately, I'm an AMD fanman.
  • Questar - Monday, October 18, 2004 - link

    That should say that testing of Opteron vs Xeon with workstation class loads has already been done by others
  • Questar - Monday, October 18, 2004 - link

    Testing of Opteron vs Xeon has already been done by others:

    To quote:
    "What we found was eye-opening. The Opteron machine outperformed the Xeons when lightly loaded with minimal multitasking, but once the real work started, the Opteron stopped. It was effectively shut down by the same multitasking load that the two Xeons performed with ease. In the clean environment, it still performed at less than half the speed of the older and allegedly less-capable Xeons."
  • allnighter - Monday, October 18, 2004 - link

    I feel sorry for all my fellow AMD fans for getting so defensive over one test result. Especially when clearly stated that the application uses optimized code for Intel processors. What's the big deal? Anyone surprised?
  • Jeff7181 - Monday, October 18, 2004 - link

    #19... since you obviously didn't read the other posts or the article and just looked at the graphs... the fact that the Intel solution was faster than the AMD solution in .NET is more likely due to the fact that .NET has been optimized for the P4.
  • MightyB - Monday, October 18, 2004 - link

    I think it is nice to see Intel finally beat a opteron .. they only had to make a 3.6Ghz and beef up the cache before they could match it :-).. The only thing this review lacks like all others is to mention the prize difference.. how much more do u pay to get those 8% in .NET....??

    Best regards
  • Rohde - Monday, October 18, 2004 - link

    #10 - Since they only used a single pair of memory sticks, Numa would not have made a difference.

    If instead they attached 1GB of memory to each processor, we probably would have seen better performance in all benchmarks since one CPU would not be taking a memory latency hit with each access.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now