Westmere-EX: Intel's Flagship Benchmarked
by Johan De Gelas on May 19, 2011 1:30 PM EST- Posted in
- IT Computing
- Intel
- Xeon
- Cloud Computing
- Westmere-EX
vApusMark II Response Time
Each tile in vApusMark II demands 18 virtual CPUs: four for the Oracle OLTP test, eight for the MS SQL Server OLAP test, and six for the three web application VMs (two CPUs each). Therefore, a four tile test will require 72 virtual CPUs. A quad Xeon E7-4870 contains 40 cores and 80 threads with Hyper-Threading enabled. With a test that puts 72 virtual CPUs to work, you cannot measure the total throughput of the quad Xeon E7. In fact, some of those 72 virtual CPUs are not working at 100% all of the time. For example, the CPU load caused by the web VMs shows a lot of spikes. Thus, we can not interprete the throughput numbers without a look at the response times.
Back to our benchmark or throughput scores. Ideally, we should measure throughput at exactly the same response times. But with our current stress testing software, trying to keep response time the same would be an extremely time consuming process.
Since the quad Opteron shows a 40% increase in response time from 4 to 5 tiles (or from 20 to 25 VMs), we believe that the four tile score (149) is more representative of the "real performance". The extra throughput that the five tile test delivers comes at a response time price that is too high.
The response time of the Quad Xeon 7560 increases 9% when we try to load it with five extra VMs. In this case, the "real and fair" throughput score is a little bit harder to determine. It is somewhere between the score of 4 tiles and 5 tiles, probably around 180 or so.
In case of the Quad Xeon E7, however, things are crystal clear. Running 20 or 25 VMs does not make any difference: the response times stay in the same league. In this case we take the highest score to be the real one.
So if we take response times into account, the quad E7-4870 is about 35% faster than its predecessor (243 vs 180) and about 63% faster than the AMD system in our test (243 vs 149). AMD's fastest processor is the 2.5GHz 6180SE now. This CPU is clocked around 13% higher and should thus be able to reach a score of around 168. That means the Xeon E7-4870 should still have a 44% (or more) advantage over its nearest but much cheaper competitor in this particular workload.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
62 Comments
View All Comments
john@cepros.com - Thursday, May 19, 2011 - link
I did not see anything in the article about RAS, or at least my understanding of the acronym as its used in IT. Are you using it to mean "Reliability, Availability, and Serviceability"? If so, where was that addressed in the article? If not, what was RAS supposed to mean?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability,_Availabi...
haplo602 - Thursday, May 19, 2011 - link
I second this comment. You mention that the new Xeons have exceletn RAS features but do not describe a single one.How about an article on that topic ? And comparing to Opteron and Itanium while you are at it ? I have no clue about IBM or Sparc chips (Itanium is my daily bread), so I'd be very much interested in such a comparison.
The last thing I saw from a Nehalem Xeon was that it threw an MCA and rebooted the box. The only benefit was that it enabled some diagnostic. An Itanium system would deconfigure the CPU and boot stable with 1 less socket. The Xeon system just kept rebooting at the same point over and over again.
Casper42 - Thursday, May 19, 2011 - link
Go back and read the reviews on the Nehalem EX from 9 months ago.There are no major new RAS features in Westmere EX that I am aware of as its a die shrink and not a major feature change.
One of the things I remember was the ability to identify and disable a bad DIMM or even a bad memory chip within a DIMM in such a way that (if the OS supports it) the machine wouldn't crash and could keep running.
Also supports memory sparing so you can even load some extra memory in there to take over for the bad DIMM.
But I'm no expert, go back and read the older articles.
haplo602 - Friday, May 20, 2011 - link
I know, that's what I remember. In my world, that's not RAS, and as I witnesed first hand, it does not always work as expected.L. - Thursday, May 19, 2011 - link
Well .. if that's all the Intel 32nm process has to offer, I believe I can say there's blood in the water.The "crappy" old phenom-2 based Opterons are in fact keeping up in perf/watt WITH ONE LESS DIE SHRINK.
This is just huge ... it means that unless AMD manages to fuck up the bulldozer extremely bad (as in making it worse than the phenom 2), just the die shrink will give them a clear perf/watt advantage.
Add in the speed gained through the new process and the Xeons will look like power-hungry overpriced pieces of junk ... and that's still not considering that the bulldozer architecture is any better than the ph2.
L. - Thursday, May 19, 2011 - link
Also, if there ever was any time to buy amd stock . now it is. (like I said for nVidia back in July 2010, double within 6 months)Casper42 - Thursday, May 19, 2011 - link
While it looks that way on paper, the reality is the opposite.Intel CPUs, especially with Nehalem/Westmere families, just outright sell themselves. For whatever reason, and I cant explain it myself, the AMDs just dont sell as well.
Personally I love the new AMD line for servers.
They use the same CPUs for high end 2P and all 4P servers.
All the CPUs have the same memory speeds and loading rules
Quad channel memory even on 2P
They give you Cores-o-plenty (this can be a downside in the world of Oracle)
Then they have a much cheaper 1P/2P option with half the cores and Dual Channel memory
Each CPU family only has like 5/6 CPUs as well.
Its such a simple lineup its so easy for a enterprise customer to standardize a large cross section of the DC.
Now look at Intel.
1P is the 3000 family
2P is the 5000 family
4P is both the 6000 and 7000 family
8P is usually the 7000 family.
1/2 and 4/8 have different memory designs including Tri vs Quad channel
on 1/2 you get different memory speeds depending on what model CPU you buy.
Which is really fun because they have like a dozen or more CPU models on each of 1P and 2P.
So even though AMD seems like the better choice, Intel is still dominating the market.
Sandy Bridge 2P Servers will be out before the end of the year. Right now it looks like Bulldozer might beat them to market by a matter of a few months. If AMD slips that date, Intel will still have quite a competitive product and BD had better basically be FLAWLESS.
So for the next gen servers, I think the purchasing habits of most companies will not change unless AMD pulls a major rabbit out of their hat.
haplo602 - Friday, May 20, 2011 - link
on top of that, AMD gives you the same CPU virtualisation support in each model (does not matter if 1P, 2P, 4P+) while Intel differs between models.L. - Friday, May 20, 2011 - link
I have trouble understanding you : sandy bridge 2p servers will be out before the end of the year ?Aren't they out yet ?
And even if they're there, they will NOT compete with the AMD chips, as I said above, a 45nm Ph2-based Opteron is as power efficient as a 32nm sb-based xeon - lolwut ?
The only thing that will somehow be bad for bulldozer is Ivy Bridge 22nm IF it comes out as Intel planned it - and even then, it's only a repeat of the same core arch.
If Bulldozer is no more efficient than the phenom, you will have AMD win in perf/watt/dollar until ib is out, and then the only advantage will be the 3d gate, which Intel said would amount to a dozen % improvement over standard 22nm.
As a summary, if the Bulldozer Architecture is 12% more efficient than the Phenom 2, then the Bulldozer will destroy the Westmere-EX at the same process, and face the ivy bridge as an equal.
Considering the design options picked by AMD on bulldozer, I'm quite confident it'll be at least 12% more efficient through architecture.
And even if Intel is good at marketing, AMD has been gaining share and will gain more in the future.
Intel said this ?" With their latest chip, Intel promises up to 40% better performance at slightly lower power consumption."
Well that means that shrinking from 45nm to 32nm yields 30% (pinch of salt ;) ) improvement.
Make no mistake, Bulldozer will totally kill the Sandy Bridge based offerings, by at least a 30% margin on perf/watt/dollar and I would expect this to be in the 40-50% range with the architecture changes.
alent1234 - Monday, May 23, 2011 - link
nobody ever got fired for buying IBM. or these days Intel and Microsoft.by the time you price out a HP Proliant with AMD CPU's it's the same price or more than an Intel based server. maybe just a little cheaper. and the AMD CPU's do a lot worse on benchmarks that test more real world performance like database OLTP and other more common server tasks.