Price comparison & Final Words

In previous articles, we've taken a look at the cost of the processor itself. Since servers aren't just about the processor, we've taken our pricing to an entire platform. We've attempted to spec out Intel and AMD servers from 2 different vendors and have them as close as possible in terms of features. There are obviously a few differences here and there, but as illustrated below, the price difference is negligible between either platform when taking into account the features missing on either platform. Note that we are comparing Dual Intel 3.6 1MB L2 based servers against Dual Opteron 250 servers, since the newer products that we have discussed in this article are not yet in the retail channel.

   HP ProLiant DL360 SCSI  HP ProLiant DL145 SCSI  IBM xSeries 336  IBM eServer 326
Platform Intel AMD Intel AMD
CPU Dual 3.6 GHz 1MB L2 Dual Opteron 250 (2.4GHz) Dual 3.6 Ghz 1MB L2 Dual Opteron 250 (2.4 GHz)
Memory 2GB 2GB 2GB 2GB
Hard Drive 36.4 Pluggable Ultra320 (15,000 RPM) 36.4 Non Pluggable Ultra320 (15,000 RPM) IBM 36GB 2.5" 10K SCSI HDD HS 36GB 10K U320 SCSI HS Option
SCSI Controller Smart Array 6i Plus controller (onboard) Dual Channel Ultra 320 SCSI HBA Integrated Single-Channel Ultra320 SCSI Controller (Standard) Integrated Single-Channel Ultra320 SCSI Controller (Standard)
Bays Two Ultra 320 SCSI Hot Plug Drive Bays Two non-hot plug hard drive bays 4 hot swap bays 2 hot swap bays
Network NC7782 PCI-X Gigabit NICs (embedded) Broadcom 5704 Gigabit Nics (embedded) Dual integrated 10/100/1000 Mbps Ethernet (Standard) Dual integrated 10/100/1000 Mbps Ethernet (Standard)
Power 460W hot pluggable power supply 500W non hot plug power supply 585W power supply 411W Power Supply (Standard)
Server Management SmartStart & Insight Manager None System Management Processor (Standard) System Management Processor (Standard)
OS None None None None
Cost $5,946 $5,009 $5,476 $5,226

Final words

We've illustrated how workload has a significant effect on platform decision when it comes to database servers. Obviously, for a small to medium business, where there are multiple different workloads being run on the same server, the decision to go with a platform architecture best suited for Data warehousing alone doesn't make sense. But for larger organizations where multiple database servers are used, each having a specific purpose, the decision to go with one platform or another could have a significant impact on performance. For dual-processor applications, Intel leads the way in everyday small to heavy transactional applications, whereas AMD shines in the analytical side of database applications "Data Warehousing".

These results do raise some questions as to what is going on exactly during each test at an architectural level. Is the processor waiting for data from the L2 cache? Is the processor branch prediction units not suited for this particular workload? Is there a bottleneck with memory latency? We want these questions answered, and are going to investigate ways to provide concrete answers to these tough questions in the future.


Data Warehouse results
Comments Locked

97 Comments

View All Comments

  • Visual - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link

    the intel board that you used, you listed it as SE7620AF2. there is no such thing though, so is it a typoed SE7520AF2 or a yet unreleased board?
  • kaka - Saturday, February 19, 2005 - link

    ??,OPteron is better than xeon!!
  • Fluff - Thursday, February 17, 2005 - link

    But in future it would be handy to touch upon extra features such as differences in remote management, what happens if a cpu fails, if memory fails is there hotswop. As these probably affect a decision as well as performance.

    I believe that people benefit from the sort of technical analysis and simulated real world that Anandtech does but in addition the other factors such as up-time and manangement would be nice to know.

    If a cpu fan / stick of memory fails on a database at the weekend and no one is there to hear the alarm what do the various platforms do?

    If a cpu fails on a dual opteron does that mean it loses all the data attached to that cpu? Does the same happen on a xeon? Will a Xeon keep going with just one - chipkill?

    I'm not sure if this is outside the scope of Anandtech.
  • Jason Clark - Thursday, February 17, 2005 - link

    Hans, you are correct in that they wouldn't be using non supported memory. But, since the board was pre-production and at the time of testing there were no "recommended' memory modules, we had to go with what we had. Word is our issues were bios related and a new bios should address it.

    Cheers
  • Jason Clark - Thursday, February 17, 2005 - link

    Hans, fair enough on the next article we'll include it for those curious.
  • Jason Clark - Thursday, February 17, 2005 - link

    Viditor, we tested with 8GB of memory using PAE and AWE support in SQL. When 64bit versions of sql and windows 2003 are ready we'll be all over it.
  • Viditor - Thursday, February 17, 2005 - link

    BTW, for some Linux spec results, check these out...

    http://www.pathscale.com/pr_021505.html

    Sun Fire V20z server (2xAMD Opteron processor Model 252, SLES9) with PathScale EKOPath Compiler Suite: SPECfp2000 -- 2036, SPECint_rate2000 -- 40.4, SPECfp_rate2000 -- 46.5.

    The Sun Fire V40z server with PathScale EKOPath Compiler Suite (4xAMD Opteron processor Model 852, SLES9): SPECint_rate2000 76.7, SPECfp_rate2000 -- 87.1.

    The Sun Fire V20z server (2xAMD Opteron processor Model 250, SLES8): SPECfp_rate2000 37.2.

    IBM eServer OpenPower 710 (2x1.65 GHz Power5, Linux): SPECfp_rate -- 40.2.

    IBM eServer p5 510 (2x1.65 GHz Power5, AIX): SPECint_rate2000 -- 33, SPECfp_rate2000 -- 43.2
  • Viditor - Thursday, February 17, 2005 - link

    Jason...

    I see you are retesting the HT, but I haven't seen a comment from you about testing 64bit with large memory (>4GB). Is this something you just aren't prepared to do right now?

    Cheers...
  • Viditor - Thursday, February 17, 2005 - link

    "I read viditor comment that said as single"

    Yup...very sorry prd00...my bad!

    "Which is why we aren't going to provide information like that, as it isn't relevant to the target audience or the purpose of the article"

    Fair call Jason, but as this is a beta bios, it might be an important data point...

    sleepless - "Looking at the configuration you show Opteron 250 with a 252. Did you have a problem getting another 252 Opteron for the test?"

    They built 2 test platforms, 1 with dual 250s and 1 with dual 252s...or so I assume (after my last mistake I take nothing for granted)...:-)
  • sleepless1 - Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - link

    Looking at the configuration you show Opteron 250 with a 252. Did you have a problem getting another 252 Opteron for the test?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now