Quad Core Intel Xeon 53xx Clovertown

Render Servers

To get a better idea on how the different server platforms compare, we did some rendering too. Most of our tests (MySQL, DB2, and SPECjbb2005) are very integer intensive, whereas render tests are floating point intensive. We start with a simple Cinebench 9.5 benchmark (on Windows 2003 32 bit), which is based on Maxon's Cinema 4D rendering engine.

Cinebench 9.5
CPU	1280x720
Quad Opteron 880 2.4	1720
Dual Quad Xeon E5345 2.33	1686
Dual DC Xeon 5160 3.0	1456
Quad Xeon E5345 2.33	1272
Quad DC Xeon 7130M 3.2	1169
Dual Opteron 880 2.4	1121
Dual DC Xeon 5060 3.73	1079
Dual DC Xeon 7130M 3.2	889

Four 2.4GHz Opteron cores are a bit slower than four 2.33GHz Xeons, but when we look at the eight core scores the Opteron is a bit faster. Again, it seems that the Opteron system scales better.

Cinebench 9.5 (32 bit) Per core performance
CPU	Quad core	Octal core	Scaling 4->8
Xeon 7130 3.2 GHz	889	1272	43%
Xeon 5345 2.33 GHz	1169	1686	44%
Opteron 880 2.4 GHz	1121	1720	53%
Opteron 890 2.8 GHz	1297	1990	53%
Xeon 5160 3 GHz	1456	N/A	N/A
.
Xeon Scaling 2.33 -> 3 GHz	25%
Opteron 880 vs. Quad core Xeon 2.33 GHz	-4%	2%	21%

Why do we analyze this in so much detail? Cinebench, like most renders, couldn't care less about the memory subsystem. We tested our Clovertown system with two or four memory channels and the results were exactly the same. Therefore, we are pretty sure the slightly worse scaling of the Xeon E5345 is not a result of limited bandwidth or higher latency. There must be something else that limits scalability, and that something else is most likely cache coherency.

Cinebench 9.5 (32 bit) Per socket performance
CPU	Dual Socket
Quad core Xeon 2.33 GHz vs. Xeon 5160	16%
Quad core Xeon 2.33 GHz vs. Opteron 880	50%
Quad core Xeon 2.33 GHz vs. Opteron 890	30%

Cinebench is popular because it is an easy benchmark, but 3dsmax is a very popular application. We tested with 3dsmax version 9, which has been improved to work better with multi-core systems. We used the "architecture" scene, which has been our favorite benchmarking scene for years. All tests were done with 3dsmax's default scanline renderer, SSE enabled and we rendered at HD 720p resolution. We measure the time it takes to render frames 20 to 22.

3DS Max 9 Architecture
CPU	1280x720
Quad Opteron 880 2.4	273
Dual Quad Xeon E5345 2.33	308
Dual DC Xeon 5160 3.0	309
Quad Xeon E5345 2.33	392
Dual DC Xeon 5060 3.73	419
Quad DC Xeon 7130M 3.2	443
Dual Opteron 880 2.4	454

This cannot be a coincidence anymore: a single Xeon E5345 leaves the dual Opteron 880 far behind, but a dual Xeon E5345 trails the quad Opteron. It is not only the application that matters; the dataset has an impact too. Take a look at the table below where rendered at 720p and 480p resolution.

3DS Max 9 Architecture
CPU	720x480	1280x720
Quad Opteron 880 2.4	137	273
Dual Quad Xeon E5345 2.33	138	308
Dual DC Xeon 5160 3.0	133	309
Quad Xeon E5345 2.33	167	392
Dual DC Xeon 5060 3.73	188	419
Quad DC Xeon 7130M 3.2	201	443
Dual Opteron 880 2.4	196	454
.
Scaling Opteron 880	43%	66%
Scaling Xeon E5345	21%	27%

As you can see, the resolution at which you normally render determines how much you benefit from eight cores. Using an octal core machine to render relatively low resolution movies is like driving a potent 8 cylinder engine in a crowded city: all the horsepower goes to waste as you accelerate for a short period and then hit the brakes when approaching a red light. The same is true for rendering: unless you are rendering a complex scene at high resolution, the multi-core engine can never show its full potential. Thanks to better scaling, the quad Opteron platform has still a small advantage.

3DSMax 9 (32 bit) Per socket performance
CPU	Dual Socket
Quad core Xeon 2.33 GHz vs. Xeon 5160	0%
Quad core Xeon 2.33 GHz vs. Opteron 880	47%
Quad core Xeon 2.33 GHz vs. Opteron 890	27%

However, when it comes to price/performance, it is not the quad core Xeon or the Opteron that wins, but most likely the Xeon 5160. It is more flexible as it will outperform the quad core Xeon in any scene that is not as complex as architecture and resolutions that are lower than 720p. Only if your scenes use radiosity lighting can we see a clear advantage for using the quad core Xeon. We noticed that the Xeon was up to 40% faster in such scenes.