Intel's newest Quad Xeon MP versus HP's DL585 Quad Opteron
by Johan De Gelas on November 10, 2006 12:00 PM EST- Posted in
- IT Computing
Server CPUs overview
As the CPU is still one of the most important cost factors in a server, we want to give an overview of the currently available server CPUs. We'll start with the Intel CPUs.
The biggest advantage of Intel's newest Bensley platform is the longevity: the Dempsey, Woodcrest, and quad core Clovertown Xeon all use the same socket and "Bensley" platform. Even the successor of Clovertown, the 45nm Harpertown, is confirmed to be compatible with the Bensley platform.
The Opteron CPU comes in two forms: one for DDR and one for DDR-2. The DDR-2 version uses 4 model numbers, the DDR version three.
The Opteron's TDP numbers are the maximum power consumption numbers, while Intel's numbers are "thermal solution design targets". In practice, this means that you should subtract about 5% from AMD's TDP numbers to compare the two brands. AMD is not doing too well in the dual CPU arena: it needs about 30W more power per dual core CPU and CPU clock speed has hardly increased the past two years. Luckily for AMD, the power disadvantage is negated by the use of FB-DIMMs instead of DDR2 on the Intel platform.
As the CPU is still one of the most important cost factors in a server, we want to give an overview of the currently available server CPUs. We'll start with the Intel CPUs.
The biggest advantage of Intel's newest Bensley platform is the longevity: the Dempsey, Woodcrest, and quad core Clovertown Xeon all use the same socket and "Bensley" platform. Even the successor of Clovertown, the 45nm Harpertown, is confirmed to be compatible with the Bensley platform.
| Intel Xeon Overview | |||||||||
| Intel CPU | Clock | Codename | L2 | L3 | FSB | Mem bandwidth | TDP | In test? | Price |
| Xeon MP 7140M | 3.4GHz | Tulsa | 2x1MB | 16MB | 200 MHz Quad | 6.4 GB/s | 150W | No | $1,980 |
| Xeon MP 7130M | 3.2GHz | Tulsa | 2x1MB | 8MB | 200 MHz Quad | 6.4 GB/s | 150W | yes | $1,391 |
| Xeon MP 7120M | 3GHz | Tulsa | 2x1MB | 4MB | 200 MHz Quad | 6.4 GB/s | 95W | No | $1,117 |
| . | |||||||||
| Xeon DP 5160 | 3GHz | Woodcrest | 4MB | - | 333 MHz Quad | 21 GB/s | 80W | Yes | $851 |
| Xeon DP 5150 | 2.66GHz | Woodcrest | 4MB | - | 333 MHz Quad | 21 GB/s | 65W | No | $690 |
| Xeon DP 5148 | 2.33GHz | Woodcrest | 4MB | - | 333 MHz Quad | 21 GB/s | 40W | No | $519 |
| Xeon DP 5140 | 2.33GHz | Woodcrest | 4MB | - | 333 MHz Quad | 21 GB/s | 65W | No | $455 |
| Xeon DP 5130 | 2GHz | Woodcrest | 4MB | - | 333 MHz Quad | 21 GB/s | 65W | No | $316 |
| Xeon DP 5120 | 1.86GHz | Woodcrest | 4MB | - | 266 MHz Quad | 17 GB/s | 65W | No | $256 |
| . | |||||||||
| Xeon DP 5080 | 3.73GHz | Dempsey | 2x2MB | - | 266 MHz Quad | 8.5 GB/s | 130W | No | $851 |
| Xeon DP 5063 | 3.2GHz | Dempsey | 2x2MB | - | 266 MHz Quad | 8.5 GB/s | 95W | No | $369 |
| Xeon DP 5060 | 3.2GHz | Dempsey | 2x2MB | - | 266 MHz Quad | 8.5 GB/s | 130W | No | $316 |
The Opteron CPU comes in two forms: one for DDR and one for DDR-2. The DDR-2 version uses 4 model numbers, the DDR version three.
| AMD Opteron Overview | |||||||||
| AMD CPU | Clock | Codename | L2 | L3 | HT | Mem bandwidth | TDP | In test? | Price |
| Opteron 8220 SE | 2.8GHz | Santa Rosa | 2x1MB | - | 1000 MHz DDR | 8.5 GB/s | 119W | No | $2,149 |
| Opteron 8218 | 2.6GHz | Santa Rosa | 2x1MB | - | 1000 MHz DDR | 8.5 GB/s | 95W | No | $1,514 |
| Opteron 8216 | 2.4GHz | Santa Rosa | 2x1MB | - | 1000 MHz DDR | 8.5 GB/s | 95W | No | $1,165 |
| Opteron 8214 | 2.2GHz | Santa Rosa | 2x1MB | - | 1000 MHz DDR | 8.5 GB/s | 95W | No | $873 |
| Opteron 8216 HE | 2.4GHz | Santa Rosa | 2x1MB | - | 1000 MHz DDR | 8.5 GB/s | 68W | No | $1,340 |
| . | |||||||||
| Opteron 885 | 2.6GHz | Egypt | 2x1MB | - | 1000 MHz DDR | 6.4 GB/s | 95W | No | $1,514 |
| Opteron 880 | 2.4GHz | Egypt | 2x1MB | - | 1000 MHz DDR | 6.4 GB/s | 95W | yes | $1,165 |
| Opteron 875 | 2.2GHz | Egypt | 2x1MB | - | 1000 MHz DDR | 6.4 GB/s | 95W | No | $873 |
| Opteron 875 HE | 2.2GHz | Egypt | 2x1MB | - | 1000 MHz DDR | 6.4 GB/s | 55W | No | $1,514 |
| . | |||||||||
| Opteron 2220 SE | 2.8GHz | Santa Rosa | 2x1MB | - | 1000 MHz DDR | 8.5 GB/s | 95W | No | $786 |
| Opteron 2216 | 2.6GHz | Santa Rosa | 2x1MB | - | 1000 MHz DDR | 8.5 GB/s | 95W | No | $611 |
| Opteron 2214 | 2.4GHz | Santa Rosa | 2x1MB | - | 1000 MHz DDR | 8.5 GB/s | 95W | No | $450 |
| Opteron 2214 | 2.2GHz | Santa Rosa | 2x1MB | - | 1000 MHz DDR | 8.5 GB/s | 95W | No | $377 |
| Opteron 2216HE | 2.4GHz | Santa Rosa | 2x1MB | - | 1000 MHz DDR | 8.5 GB/s | 68W | No | $531 |
| . | |||||||||
| Opteron 285 | 2.6GHz | Italy | 2x1MB | - | 1000 MHz DDR | 6.4 GB/s | 95W | No | $611 |
| Opteron 280 | 2.4GHz | Italy | 2x1MB | - | 1000 MHz DDR | 6.4 GB/s | 95W | No | $450 |
| Opteron 275 | 2.2GHz | Italy | 2x1MB | - | 1000 MHz DDR | 6.4 GB/s | 95W | No | $377 |
| Opteron 275 HE | 2.2GHz | Italy | 2x1MB | - | 1000 MHz DDR | 6.4 GB/s | 55W | yes | $611 |
The Opteron's TDP numbers are the maximum power consumption numbers, while Intel's numbers are "thermal solution design targets". In practice, this means that you should subtract about 5% from AMD's TDP numbers to compare the two brands. AMD is not doing too well in the dual CPU arena: it needs about 30W more power per dual core CPU and CPU clock speed has hardly increased the past two years. Luckily for AMD, the power disadvantage is negated by the use of FB-DIMMs instead of DDR2 on the Intel platform.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
88 Comments
View All Comments
JohanAnandtech - Saturday, November 11, 2006 - link
Well, we did mentione it at our price comparison. From a performance point of view, the G2 is within 2% of the DL585 given a similar configuration.Getting a server in the lab is not like getting a videochip for review. The machines are much more expensive, and you need much more time to review them properly. So OEMs are less likely to send you the necessary hardware. For a videocard they send out a $500 item that can be reviewed in a few weeks, maybe even a few days. For Server like these, they have to send out a $20000 machine and be able to miss it for a month or two at the least.
Viditor - Saturday, November 11, 2006 - link
I can certainly understand and empathise with the situation...and I did enjoy the article, Johan!
The reason I mentioned it is that line in your conclusion...
I thought that (considering the circumstances) it was a bit unfair and misleading...
JohanAnandtech - Saturday, November 11, 2006 - link
I just pointed out that it is a bit weird that a newer revision of the DL585 (it was thé HP Opteron machine just a few months ago) used SCSI 160. There is no reason at all why HP could not replace this: they revised the server anyway.I should mentioned that these results were solved in the G2, but still it is a missed chance... eventhough I reported it a bit too late :-)
photoguy99 - Friday, November 10, 2006 - link
yes, bring it on!finalfan - Friday, November 10, 2006 - link
On page The Official SPEC Numbers, in second table SPEC FP 2000 Performance, the positions of (4/8) HP Opteron AM2 and (8/8) Hitachi Itanium 2 should be switched. No Itanium runs at 3.4G and no way a 4way 1.6G AM2 can sit in second place.JohanAnandtech - Friday, November 10, 2006 - link
Corrected. It is weird, the accurate numbers were in the orginal document. The generation of the table went wrong. I have double checked and now the FP numbers should all be accurateJarredWalton - Friday, November 10, 2006 - link
Probably my fault. I think when it got put into Excel that the various x/y numbers were converted to dates. I thought I fixed all of those, but probably missed one or two. Sorry.icarus4586 - Friday, November 10, 2006 - link
This report brought to you by the department of redundancy department.
bwmccann - Friday, November 10, 2006 - link
When are you guys going to start benchmarking server CPUs using applications that are widely used in organizations on a daily basis?Most companies have a very high percentage of servers running Windows. With that I would love to see some test on SQL, Oracle, Exchange, and other core components of enterprises today.
Also it would be nice to see a closer comparison of the servers. For example you tested a DL585. A DL580 (Intel Woodcrest) would have been better suited since some of the components would be the same.
JohanAnandtech - Friday, November 10, 2006 - link
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2793">http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2793Most of the time Jason does the Windows benchmarking, me and my team do the Linux benchmarking.
Java, MySQL and SSL are also core components of many enterprise apps.
We are working on Oracle and got access to a realworld Oracle database a few weeks ago (for the first time), but it takes time to really understand what your benchmark is telling you and how you must configure your db. And Oracle is ...very stubborn, even patching to a slightly higher version can lead to big trouble.
The DL585 is a direct competitor (quad socket) in this space, more so than the DL580 (DUal Socket)