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
erwos - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link
If they used RHEL4, this would be far more useful. SuSE's not quite a bit player, but let's face it: Red Hat is dominating the commercial space.-Erwos
SunLord - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link
Interesting benchmark though i would of prefered you used a postgresql instead of DB2 since it's also open source and is the most likely alternnative to mysql... a DB2/Oracle bench would be kinda cool...Son of a N00b - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link
nice work guys!nserra - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link
#6 "but very important: AMD, OPEN YOUR EYES AND SEE WHAT INTEL IS DOING WITH PRICING ON DUAL CORES! don't get cought with pants down."Explain me something:
- how do you explain or how Intel will explain that their single core processor cost more than the dual core ones?
- Why should you buy a single core over a dual core if it cost more?
- How good is this Intel market decision (marketing).
I think is pretty logical to me that a dual core cost more than a single core processor so 4800+ more expansive than a 4000+ so it's OK! Stop blaming AMD, and their marketing team!
Viditor - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link
Calin - "Unfortunately, it seems that their dual core processors will be more expensive than Intel's"Actually, that's not true at all!
The fact is that AMD haven't released a "Value Line" of dual core yet because they don't see a large enough market for it.
By comparing the 2 companies offerings, it's apparent that the 820D should match up equvalently to a dual core Sempron when it's released, and the ($1000) 840EE matches up to the ($500) 4200+ rather nicely.
The 4400+ and the 4800+ are in a class by themselves without competition at the moment, hence the prices are high.
AlexWade - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link
I like these real world benchmarks articles.snedzad - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link
Again "Root me" wallpaper. Moron.Starglider - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link
I would guess that the problem is the netburst architecture's fast integer units. As I recall, the P4 integer units are split into two 16-bit stages and run at double the main clock using complicated differential signaling logic. I seriously doubt it would be feasible for Intel to add another two stages or to double the width of the units, as they're already power and chip area hungry and pretty much integral to the design. AMD on the other hand designed the Opteron to be 64-bit from the ground up and is running at a lower clock speed, making 64-bit wide single stage logic much easier.Thus the authors speculation that the P4 is taking twice as many cycles to process 64-bit simple integer operations (while the Opteron needs no additional cycles) seems highly likely to me. I'm one of those (apparently) rare programmers that needs to use 64-bit integers a lot, so it's not surprising that all our compute servers are Opteron powered.
Calin - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link
I really hope AMD will get a share of the higher profit server processor market. Unfortunately, it seems that their dual core processors will be more expensive than Intel'sZalmanKalman - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link
Wow, great and detailed artical. The punchline is so sweet to my ears. Vary sad to INTeL Fans, but I guess they buy, and will buy, intel b/c of corporate safty.but very important: AMD, OPEN YOUR EYES AND SEE WHAT INTEL IS DOING WITH PRICING ON DUAL CORES! don't get cought with pants down.