Words of thanks

A lot of people gave us assistance with this project, and we would like to give them our sincere thanks.

Angela Rosario, Supermicro US
Michael Kalodrich, Supermicro US

Jerry L. Baugh, Intel US
William H. Lea , Intel US
Matty Bakkeren, Intel Netherlands

Marcel Eeckhout, MCS
Johan Van Dijck, MCS

Hopefully, Liz will still smile when we start our Oracle clustering research...

APUS Research team:
Elisabeth van Dijck, Oracle installation and fine tuning, MCS benchmarking
Tom Glorieux, Server & network administration

APUS software team:
Brecht Kets, Lead developer
Ben Motmans, Core developer
Leandro Cavalieri, Unix & power monitoring
Dieter Vandroemme, APUS benchmarking developer

The APUS software team: Dieter, Leandro, and Brecht

Benchmark configuration
Unfortunately, it is not that easy to get four CPUs of the same kind in the lab. We could only populate all four sockets with the Xeon E5320 (quad core 1.86 GHz). In the following pages you can read a more detailed description of our benchmarking methods.

Hardware configurations
Here is the list of the different configurations. The quad Opteron HP DL585 is only used as a reference point; this article is in no way meant to be an up-to-date AMD versus Intel comparison. Our focus is on the possibilities of the Twin 1U.

Xeon Server 1: Supermicro Superserver 6015T-INF
1 node, Dual Xeon DC 5160 3 GHz, Dual Xeon QC 2.33 GHz
2 nodes, 2 x 2 Xeon QC E5320
Intel 5000P chipset
Supermicro's X7DBT
(2 times) 4GB (4x1024 MB) Micron FB-DIMM Registered DDR-II 533 MHz CAS 4, ECC enabled
NIC: Dual Port Intel 82563EB Gigabit Platform LAN Connect
2 Seagate NL35 Nearline 250GB SATA-II 16MB 7200RPM

Xeon Server 2: Dual Xeon DP Supermicro Superserver 6015b-8+
Dual Xeon DP 5160 3 GHz
Intel 5000P chipset
Supermicro's X7DBR-8+
8 GB (8x1024 MB) Micron FB-DIMM Registered DDR-II 533 MHz CAS 4, ECC enabled
NIC: Dual Intel PRO/1000 Server NIC
2 Fujitsu MAX3073NC 73 GB - 15000 rpm - SCSI 320 MB/s

Opteron Server 1: Quad Opteron HP DL585
Quad Opteron 880 2.4 GHz
AMD8000 Chipset
16 GB (16x1048 MB) Crucial DDR333 CAS 2.5, ECC enabled
NIC: NC7782 Dual PCI-X Gigabit
2 Fujitsu MAX3073NC 73 GB - 15000 rpm - SCSI 320 MB/s

Client Configuration: Dual Opteron 850
MSI K8T Master1-FAR
4x512 MB Infineon PC2700 Registered, ECC
NIC: Broadcom 5705

MS Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition, Service Pack 2
MCS eFMS WebPortal v9.2.43
3DS Max 9.0

Supermicro 6015T-T/6015T-INF Server Benchmarking Software


View All Comments

  • SurJector - Tuesday, June 05, 2007 - link

    I've just reread your article. I'm a little bit surprised by the power:
    idle load
    1 node : 160 213
    2 nodes: 271 330
    increase: 111 117
    There is something wrong: the second node adds only 6W (5.5W counting efficiency) of power consumption ?

    Could it be that some power-saving options are not set on the second node (speedstep, or similar) ?

    Nice article though, I bet I'd love to have a rack of them for my computing farm. Either that or wait (forever ?) for the Barcelona equivalents (they should have better memory throughput).
  • Super Nade - Saturday, June 02, 2007 - link


    The PSU is built by Lite-On. I owned the PWS-0056 and it was built like a tank. Truely server grade build quality.


    Super Nade, OCForums.
  • VooDooAddict - Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - link

    Here are the VMWare ESX issues I see. ... They basically compound the problem.

    - No Local SAS controller. (Already mentioned)
    - No Local SAS requires booting from a SAN. This means you will use your only PCIe slot for a SAN Hardware HBA as ESX can't boot with a software iSCSI.
    - Only Dual NICs on board and with the only expansion slot taken up by the SAN HBA (Fiber Channel or iSCSI) you already have a less then ideal ESX solution. --- ESX works best with a dedicated VMotion port, Dedicated Console Port, and at least one dedicated VM port. Using this setup you'll be limited to a dedicated VMotion and a Shared Console and VM Port.

    The other issue is of coarse the non redundant power supply. While yes ESX has a High Availability mode where it restarts VMs from downed hardware. It restarts VMs on other hardware, doesn't preserve them. You could very easily loose data.

    Then probably the biggest issue ... support. Most companies dropping the coin on ESX server are only going to run it on a supported platform. With supported platforms from the Dell, HP and IBM being comparatively priced and the above issues, I don't see them winning ANY of the ESX server crowd with this unit.

    I could however see this as a nice setup for the VMWare (free) Virtual Server crowd using it for virtualized Dev and/or QA environments where low cost is a larger factor then production level uptime.
  • JohanAnandtech - Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - link

    Superb feedback. I feel however that you are a bit too strict on the dedicated ports. A dedicated console port seems a bit exagerated, and as you indicate a shared Console/vmotion seems acceptable to me. Reply
  • DeepThought86 - Monday, May 28, 2007 - link

    I thought it interesting to note how poor the scaling was on the web server benchmark when going from 1S to 2S 5345 (107 URL's/s to 164). However the response times scaled quite well.

    Going from 307 ms to 815 ms (2.65) with only a clockspeed difference of 2.33 cs 1.86 (1.25) is completely unexpected. Since the architecture is the same, how can a 1.25 factor in clock lead to a 2.65 factor in performance? Then I remembered you're varying TWO factors at once making it impossible to compare the numbers.... how dumb is that in benchmark testing??

    Honestly, it seems you guys know how to hook up boxes but lack the intelligence to actually select test cases that make sense, not to mention analyse your results in a meaningful way

    It's also a pity you guys didn't test with the AMD servers to see how they scaled. But I guess the article is meant to pimp Supermicro and not point out how deficient the Intel system design is when going from 4-cores to 8
  • JohanAnandtech - Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - link


    Since the architecture is the same, how can a 1.25 factor in clock lead to a 2.65 factor in performance? Then I remembered you're varying TWO factors at once making it impossible to compare the numbers.... how dumb is that in benchmark testing??

    I would ask you to read my comments again. Webserver performance can not be measured by one single metric unless you can keep response time exactly the same. In that case you could measure throughput. However in the realworld, response time is never the same, and our test simulates real users. The reason for this "superscaling" of responstimes is that the slower configurations have to work with a backlog. Like it or not, but that is what you see on a webserver.


    It's also a pity you guys didn't test with the AMD servers to see how they scaled

    We have done that already here for a number of workloads:

    This article was about introducing our new benches, and investigating the possibilities of this new supermicro server. Not every article can be an AMD vs Intel article.

    And I am sure that 99.9% of the people who will actually buy a supermicro Twin after reading this review, will be very pleased with it as it is an excellent server for it's INTENDED market. So there is nothing wrong with giving it positive comments as long as I show the limitations.

  • TA152H - Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - link


    I think it's even better than you didn't bring into the AMD/Intel nonsense, because it tends to take focus away from important companies like Supermicro. A lot of people aren't even aware of this company, and it's an extremely important company that makes extraordinary products. Their quality is unmatched, and although they are more expensive, it is excellent to have the option of buying a top quality piece. It's almost laughable, and a bit sad, when people call Asus top quality, or a premium brand. So, if nothing else, you brought an often ignore company into people's minds. Sadly, on a site like this where performance is what is generally measured, if you guys reviewed the motherboards, it would appear to be a mediocre, at best product. So, your type of review helps put things in their proper perspective; they are a very high quality, reliable, innovative company that is often overlooked, but has a very important role in the industry.

    Now, having said that (you didn't think I could be exclusively complimentary, did you?), when are you guys going to evaluate Eizo monitors??? I mean, how often can we read articles on junk from Dell and Samsung, et al, wondering what the truly best monitors are like? Most people will buy mid-range to low-end (heck, I still buy Samsung monitors and Epox motherboards sometimes because of price), but I also think most people are curious about how the best is performing anyway. But, let's give you credit where it's due, it was nice seeing Supermicro finally get some attention.
  • DeepThought86 - Monday, May 28, 2007 - link

    Also, looking at your second benchmark I'm baffled how you didn't include a comparison of 1xE5340 vs 2x5340 or 1x5320 vs 2x5320 so we could see scaling. You just have a comparison of Dual vs 2N, where (duh!) the results are similar.

    Sure, there's 1x5160 vs 2x5160 but since the number of cores is half we can't see if memory performance is a bottleneck. Frankly, if Intel had given you instruction on how to explicitly avoid showing FSB limitations in server application they couldn't have done a better job.

    Oh wait, looks like 2 Intel staffers helped on the project! BIG SURPRISE!
  • yacoub - Monday, May 28, 2007 - link

    Looks like the top DIMM is not fully seated? :D
  • MrSpadge - Monday, May 28, 2007 - link

    Nice one.. not everyone would catch such a fault :)


Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now