Linux Database Server CPU Comparison
by Johan De Gelas on June 17, 2005 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- IT Computing
Benchmarks IBM DB2 8.2: Intel versus AMD
| Concurrency | Dual Xeon Irwindale |
Single Xeon Irwindale |
Dual Xeon Nocona | Single Xeon Nocona | Dual Opteron | Dual Opteron | Single Opteron | Dual Opteron | Intel Pentium D Dual Core | Intel Pentium 4 |
| 3.6 GHz | 3.6 GHz | 3.6 GHz | 3.6 GHz | 2.2 GHz | 2.4 GHz | 2.4 GHz | 2.6 GHz | 3.2 GHz | 3.8 GHz | |
| 1 | 94 | 90 | 101 | 95 | 97 | 116 | 119 | 124 | 89 | 99 |
| 2 | 172 | 109 | 164 | 107 | 202 | 219 | 151 | 233 | 141 | 118 |
| 5 | 207 | 114 | 215 | 110 | 262 | 287 | 156 | 308 | 199 | 123 |
| 10 | 228 | 115 | 223 | 117 | 268 | 294 | 156 | 320 | 201 | 126 |
| 20 | 225 | 118 | 207 | 112 | 264 | 306 | 153 | 328 | 202 | 124 |
| 35 | 232 | 116 | 215 | 116 | 275 | 284 | 153 | 308 | 174 | 120 |
| 50 | 230 | 114 | 214 | 113 | 275 | 281 | 150 | 307 | 203 | 127 |
| AVG | 225 | 115 | 215 | 114 | 269 | 291 | 153 | 314 | 196 | 124 |
All averages are calculated on the concurrency levels from 5 to 50. There is no doubt about it: it pays off big time to invest in a multi-CPU machine in DB2. It is of no use to invest in the fastest single CPU system. A mid-range dual CPU system will easily outperform it.
The table below is an overview of the differences in the CPUs.
| Concurrency | Dual versus Single Xeon Irwindale | Dual versus Single Xeon Nocona | Dual Opteron 250 vs Single | Dual Opteron 2,6 GHz versus Irwindale 3,6 GHz | Xeon Irwindale versus Nocona |
| 1 | 5% | 6% | -3% | 32% | -7% |
| 2 | 57% | 53% | 45% | 36% | 4% |
| 5 | 82% | 96% | 84% | 49% | -4% |
| 10 | 99% | 91% | 89% | 40% | 2% |
| 20 | 92% | 84% | 100% | 46% | 9% |
| 35 | 99% | 86% | 86% | 33% | 8% |
| 50 | 102% | 89% | 88% | 33% | 7% |
| AVG | 95% | 89% | 89% | 40% | 5% |
The performance of DB2 scales almost perfectly on the different platforms. Irwindale scales a little better than two other CPUs, probably thanks to the larger L2-cache. However, this does not save Intel from defeat: the Opteron 2.6 GHz is the champion in these tests. What happened? In our previous test, the fastest Xeon (Nocona 3.6 GHz) was a bit faster than the best Opteron (250, 2.4 GHz). First of all, the Opteron 252 scales very well, and is 8% faster than its older 2.4 GHz brother, as the 252 is clocked at 8.3% higher. But the Xeon Irwindale gets a 5% - 7% performance from its larger L2-cache, so that is not the real issue.
However, when we compared a 64 bit with a 32 DB2 instance, the Opteron gained 13% performance from moving to 64 bit, while the Xeon lost 3 to 4%! Secondly, with the 2.4 kernel, the Xeon gained an additional boost from Hyperthreading, while we could not measure this performance increase anymore. Thirdly, it seems that the Opteron gains more due to the move from the 2.4 kernel to 2.6 kernel than the Xeon.
Benchmarks IBM DB2: Single core versus Dual core
What about our Dual core Opteron 875/275? We managed to get DB2 running on Gentoo, kernel 2.6.12rc5. You can find the results below. All tests have been performed on the MSI K8Master-FAR2.| Concurrency | Dual Dual Core AMD | Single Dual Core AMD | Dual Opteron | Quadcore vs Dual | Dualcore versus Dual Single |
| 2.2 GHz | 2.2 GHz | 2.2 GHz | |||
| 1 | 107 | 118 | 111 | -9% | 6% |
| 2 | 194 | 213 | 162 | -9% | 32% |
| 5 | 368 | 242 | 222 | 52% | 9% |
| 10 | 423 | 256 | 227 | 66% | 13% |
| 20 | 448 | 253 | 216 | 77% | 17% |
| 35 | 434 | 246 | 213 | 76% | 16% |
| 50 | 429 | 251 | 218 | 71% | 15% |
| AVG | 421 | 250 | 219 | 68% | 14% |
Simply amazing how much punch the Dual core 275/875 has. It offers a 14% performance increase over a completely similar configured dual CPU Opteron 248 setup. Add a second core, and DB2 8.2 rewards you with another 70% performance increase. And all this is happening on our ATX MSI K8Master-FAR2 board.
Benchmarks IBM DB2: Single versus Dual versus Quad
What about the “conventional” quad CPU configuration? The Iwill H4103 was our testing platform.| Concurrency | Dual Opteron 848 | Quad Opteron 848 | Quad versus Dual |
| 2.2 GHz | 2.2 GHz | ||
| 1 | 102 | 104 | 2% |
| 2 | 184 | 186 | 1% |
| 5 | 212 | 318 | 50% |
| 10 | 218 | 358 | 64% |
| 20 | 212 | 375 | 77% |
| 35 | 223 | 393 | 76% |
| 50 | 208 | 377 | 81% |
| AVG | 214 | 364 | 70% |
DB2 continues to scale very well. A 70% performance increase is the result of adding two more CPUs. Notice that the Quad CPU need 20 concurrent connections running many queries to get to the full potential (up to 80% performance increase). The Quad Xeon was unfortunately not available to the lab.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
45 Comments
View All Comments
Guspaz - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link
Why are there no graphs like other Anandtech articles? Why is everything in hard to read tables with broken formatting? This one seems a bit rough around the edges compared to the usual Anandtech quality.juhl - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link
I find it quite odd that you claim to be testing with a 2.6.12 Linux kernel despite the fact that that kernel has not yet been released in a final version.If you are using one of the pre-release kernels you should explicitly say so, and tell us which one.
The latest stable kernel at the time I write this is 2.6.11.12, the latest development kernels are 2.6.12-rc6, 2.6.12-rc6-git8 & 2.6.12-rc6-mm1 . There's also the question of wether or not you used a stock kernel.org kernel or a "patched to hell-and-back with crap" gentoo kernel...
So, what were you really using?
sinisterDei - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link
#20Correct me if I'm wrong, but would not the query cache positively affect the scores of both vendor's chips?
I suppose I don't have a pair of database machines just sitting around to test it out, but I'd imagine that if query cache was enabled the Opteron would experience similar performance boosts to the Xeon- if not more of a boost thanks to the higher-performing memory subsystem.
Just my $.02 to counteract the fear-monger :)
Viditor - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link
"Translation: We didn't want our beloved AMD to lose, so we doctored the test"Translation of the translation...
Shoot the messenger! :-)
michaelpatrick33 - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link
#20 Ah yes the conspiracy theories begin. Just like AMD with Tomshardware. The server results here appear pretty consistent with every other server test I have seen on review sites but who knows.# 19. Intel is only at 90nm but do have 300mm wafers. That is why Fab36 is so important for AMD. 300mm wafers and 65nm by Q2 of 2006 should put them pretty equal with Intel's fabrication level. Production level is still way, way in favor of Intel though.
Pricing, as I said before the Opteron dualcore chips are way cheaper than Intel dualcore server chips because Intel doesn't have any.
Questar - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link
"The " query cache" was off, as we wanted to test worst case performance. In some cases, the query cache was able to push a single Xeon to 1000 queries per second, and the CPU was still capable of doing more, as the CPU load was at 50% - 70%. "Translation: We didn't want our beloved AMD to lose, so we doctored the test.
thegagman - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link
BTW guys, one reason why AMD may be pricing its chips mihc higher is the MFG process. Unless I am mistaken (and someone correct me if I am wrong), they are still using 200mm wafers on a 90 or 110 process. Intel is using 300mm at 65 nm...this results in a huge difference in throuhput. Since AMD is already pricing its CPUs very agressively to gain market share, and the die of those dual-cores is much bigger (anybody know the real %?) then it is to be anticipated that their dual-cores are much more exspensive. They are probably gambling on selling dual-core Opterons at high-margins via Sun and other OEMs first,which will probably take most of their wafers. This is why their Desktop parts are coming later I would bet...thegagman
nserra - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link
#17 Good answers but, "Depends on the applications you run. On single threaded code, the faster single core will run your code faster."Doesn’t explain what I was meaning, so for you is OK to pay more for a single core processor, because runs faster some times (may run slower other times), how will you know what it will happen? (Supposing that you don’t know shit about your software requirements).
. AMD don’t have this problem so why would amd for example release an 4200+ processor at the same price of the 3500+ ? If the performance is equal or superior?
I think amd have made they right decisions, like intel have made his.
They all play with what they have, and not with they haven’t.
fitten - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link
"Explain me something:- how do you explain or how Intel will explain that their single core processor cost more than the dual core ones? "
Because Intel sets the prices of their chips. They want to push dual-core to the masses so they price them accordingly.
"- Why should you buy a single core over a dual core if it cost more? "
Depends on the applications you run. On single threaded code, the faster single core will run your code faster.
"- How good is this Intel market decision (marketing). "
Probably pretty good. Considering you have to buy a new motherboard to use the dual-core Intel parts, they dropped the price so that the CPU + motherboard cost is about the same (or less than still) the cost of just the dual-core CPU from AMD. Sounds like a good strategy to me.
michaelpatrick33 - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link
I also think it is safe to say that Amd's dualcore Opterons will be cheaper than any Intel dualcore server chip for the next six to eight months since there aren't any Intel dualcore server chips. IDC just released market research that showed AMD with 30% of the 4way server sales in Q1 '05. That is what AMD is after. The 64bit performance difference is surprising to say the least.