AMD's 12-core "Magny-Cours" Opteron 6174 vs. Intel's 6-core Xeon
by Johan De Gelas on March 29, 2010 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- IT Computing
HPC and Encryption Benchmarks
Just a few days prior to today's launch, we were able to get access to the benchmark numbers that Intel and AMD produced for LSDyna’s (Crash simulation) and Fluent (fluid dynamics) from Ansys. The first benchmark is the Ansys Fluent Truck_14 m benchmark.
The next one is LS Dyna “Neon refined revised”.
In both cases, the four memory channels and 12 core mix per CPU seem to pay off: AMD can beat Intel again in the HPC benchmarks, although the advantage is small.
Next we ran Sisoft Sandra 2010's encryption benchmark. Do remember that this is a completely synthetic benchmark. A 100% encryption performance advantage might translate in a very small performance advantage in a real world application. For example the code run on a website might only include a small part of encryption code.
Once the Xeon X5670's AES instructions can do their work, encryption is lightening fast. Here the new Xeon is 19 times faster than its older brother and 9 times faster than the best Opteron. Encryption can be broken up easily in smaller parts, it scales extremely well. The result is that the CPU with the most threads, the Xeon 5670 and Opteron 6174 easily outperform their older brothers in cryptographic hash functions.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
58 Comments
View All Comments
Accord99 - Monday, March 29, 2010 - link
The X5670 is 6-core.JackPack - Tuesday, March 30, 2010 - link
LOL. Based on price?Sorry, but you do realize that the majority of these 6-core SKUs will be sold to customers where the CPU represents a small fraction of the system cost?
We're talking $40,000 to $60,000 for a chassis and four fully loaded blades. A couple hundred dollars difference for the processor means nothing. What's important is the performance and the RAS features.
JohanAnandtech - Tuesday, March 30, 2010 - link
Good post. Indeed, many enthusiast don't fully understand how it works in the IT world. Some parts of the market are very price sensitive and will look at a few hundreds of dollars more (like HPC, rendering, webhosting), as the price per server is low. A large part of the market won't care at all. If you are paying $30K for a software license, you are not going to notice a few hundred dollars on the CPUs.Sahrin - Tuesday, March 30, 2010 - link
If that's true, then why did you benchmark the slower parts at all? If it only matters in HPC, then why test it in database? Why would the IDM's spend time and money binning CPU's?Responding with "Product differentiation and IDM/OEM price spreads" simply means that it *does* matter from a price perspetive.
rbbot - Saturday, July 10, 2010 - link
Because those of us with applications running on older machines need comparisons against older systems in order to determine whether it is worth migrating existing applications to a new platform. Personally, I'd like to see more comparisons to even older kit in the 2-3 year range that more people will be upgrading from.Calin - Monday, March 29, 2010 - link
Some programs were licensed by physical processor chips, others were licensed by logical cores. Is this still correct, and if so, could you explain in based on the software used for benchmarking?AmdInside - Monday, March 29, 2010 - link
Can we get any Photoshop benchmarks?JohanAnandtech - Monday, March 29, 2010 - link
I have to check, but I doubt that besides a very exotic operation anything is going to scale beyond 4-8 cores. These CPUs are not made for Photoshop IMHO.AssBall - Tuesday, March 30, 2010 - link
Not sure why you would be running photoshop on a high end server.Nockeln - Tuesday, March 30, 2010 - link
I would recommend trying to apply some advanced filters on a 200+ GB file.Especially with the new higher megapixel cameras I could easilly see how some proffesionals would fork up the cash if this reduces the time they have to spend in front of the screen waiting on things to process.