Database Performance Analysis

To make sense out of all these numbers, we summarized our findings below.

Database Performance (Linux)
MSI K2-102A2M Opteron 275 MSI K2-102A2M Opteron 280 Opteron 280 vs.
Opteron 275
Extrapolated Opteron 3 GHz Xeon 5160
3 GHz
MySQL - Dual-core 749 805 7% 946 996
MySQL - Quad-core 590 622 5% 703 904
PostgreSQL 490 524 7% 616 673


As the Xeon 5160 is not yet released, and it is unclear what AMD will do in response, we were curious how a 3 GHz Opteron would compare to our 3 GHz Woodcrest. Both architectures have similar pipeline lengths and will probably attain more or less the same clockspeeds under the same process technology, though of course Intel is ahead when it comes to process technology. It is interesting to see how the Opteron compares clock for clock with the new Xeon.

Database Scaling (Extrapolated)
Xeon 5160 vs.
Opteron 280
Xeon 5160 vs.
Extrapolated Opteron 3 GHz
MySQL - Dual-core 24% 5%
MySQL - Quad-core 45% 29%
PostgreSQL 28% 9%


The Xeon's advantage in Open source databases is significant but not as spectacular as the Spec 2000 Integer numbers. The fact that Woodcrest scales better, or should we say "less bad", is most likely a result of the massive 4 MB L2 cache. As said before, increasing the cache of the previous Xeon generation from 1 to 2 MB results in about 7-8% higher performance. While we cannot be sure that those number are also applicable to Opteron or Woodcrest, it is pretty clear that the 4 MB cache does give the newest Xeon a performance boost.

Despite the fact that Woodcrest is a behemoth when it comes to integer performance, it does not outperform the Opteron by a large margin in MySQL on clock for clock basis. The problem seems to be the FB-DIMM latency. A quick test with higher latency RAM on the Opteron showed that increasing the latency of the RAM subsystem by 20% resulted in a 20 to 25% decrease of MySQL performance. Although this doesn't allow us to get a precise idea of how memory latency influences Woodcrest's MySQL performance, it shows us clearly that memory latency has a big impact on MySQL's performance in our tests.

Web Server Performance Analysis

Below is our summary of web server performance. While we averaged the database numbers, we took the peak numbers of our web server tests. The reason is that at lower request rates, all systems perform the same. "Jsp" gives you the Java Server Page performance, AMP stands for Apache/MySQL/PHP.

Webserver Performance
  MSI K2-102A2M Opteron 275 MSI K2-102A2M Opteron 280 Opteron 280 vs.
Opteron 275
Extrapolated Opteron 3 GHz Xeon 5160
3 GHz
Jsp - Peak 144 154 7% 182 230
AMP - Peak 984 1042 6% 1178 1828


Extrapolating the performance of our 2.4 GHz Opteron 280 to 3 GHz again makes it for an interesting comparison.

Webserver Scaling (Extrapolated)
  Xeon 5160 vs.
Opteron 280
Xeon 5160 vs.
Extrapolated Opteron 3 GHz
Jsp - Peak 49% 26%
AMP - Peak 75% 55%


When it comes to web server performance, the newest Xeon is unbeatable and crushes the competition. A 3 GHz Opteron is not going to help.

Power

As our Woodcrest test system did not have DBS enabled, we decided to test only under full load. Again, take the results with a grain salt, as it is impossible to make everything equal. We tested all machines with only one power supply powered on, and we also tried to have a similar amount and type of fans (excluding the CPU fan, where the T1 doesn't have one). There are still differences between the motherboards, and the Sun uses 2.5 inch disks.

Max Power usage (100% CPU load - Watts)
  Configuration Power
Sun T2000 1CPU / 8 Cores - 8 GB RAM 188
Dual Opteron 275 HE 2CPU's (275HE) - 4 GB RAM 192
Dual Opteron 275 2CPU's - 4 GB RAM 239
Dual Xeon 5160 3 GHz 2 CPU's - 4 GB RAM 245
Dual Xeon "Irwindale" 3.6 GHz 2CPU's - 8 GB RAM 374


Simply looking at the power numbers, the T2000 server beats the rest. We were informed that the current T2000 Servers now ship with high efficiency 450W Power supplies (our T2000 uses a 550 Watt one), which will further reduce power consumption 10 Watts or more. From a performance/Watt point of view, the new Woodcrest CPU is the winner in most workloads.

MySQL Scaling and PostGreSQL Conclusion
Comments Locked

91 Comments

View All Comments

  • JohanAnandtech - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link

    Running 4 threads of SSL on 8 core Opteron gives you almost exactly the same scores as 4 threads on a 4 core Opteron. The 2.2 GHz DC Opteron runs at almost exactly the same speed as the 3 GHz woodcrest (that is why you can almost not see it), the 2.4 GHz is clearly in the lead.

    Sign/s: the 2.4 GHz Opteron is keeping up.

    Windows tests: see Jason Clark :-). At the end of this week, Jason will present the Windows based ones.
  • hondaman - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link

    Is gentoo using 64 bit?
  • JohanAnandtech - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link

    Yes. Added that to the configuration page. Thx.
  • vortmax - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link

    Can't keep a company the size of Intel with all it's resources down for too long. They came back and came back hard. I'm sure AMD was expecting this and I'm guessing they have some kind of contingency plan to counter. It might not be this year, but I would expect that in Q1 of 07, they will have some big announcements.

    Competition is a good thing.
  • stmok - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link

    Yeah, the contingency plan is called K8L. ;-)
  • Questar - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link

    So much for the fanboys saying the FSB would cripple Woodcrest.
  • DigitalFreak - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link

    Woodcrest, maybe. It will be interesting to see how the quad processor version does.
  • eRacer - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link

    A typo in the conclusion...under AMD Opteron disadvantages:

    - DDR2 offers lower latency, less power and less cost (for now)

    should be an advantage
  • vijay333 - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link

    i think AT is correct - unless i'm mistaken, opterons don't support DDR2, so they don't have the benefits of DDR2 (lower latency etc)
  • eRacer - Wednesday, June 7, 2006 - link

    quote:

    i think AT is correct - unless i'm mistaken, opterons don't support DDR2, so they don't have the benefits of DDR2 (lower latency etc)


    Oops, you are probably correct. I was thinking ahead to rev. F Opteron.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now