MySQL Configuration
To get an idea what a typical SLES 10 user will experience, we simply used the MySQL version which is supported by the latest SLES 10 SP1, i.e. MySQL 5.0.26. Unfortunately, this means that we see the typically bad scaling. Therefore we focus on the single CPU, dual core results. It doesn't make sense to use a quad Xeon 5345 here: more than two CPUs give negative scaling as we have reported before. The 2.33GHz Xeon 5345 scored between 700 and 750 queries per second as a result of this. For those who are surprised by this: notice that Intel's own benchmarks use four parallel runs of the Sysbench MySQL benchmark to get higher scores out of MySQL. All testing was done with InnoDB as our storage engine in MySQL 5.0.26. Here is our MySQL configuration:
The "query cache" was off, as we wanted to test worst case performance. Our test database is still the same 1GB database. The workload consists of more than 90% selects, mostly a "read intensive" workload. All numbers are expressed in queries per second (Y-axis), and the X-axis shows the number of concurrent accesses.
MySQL results
The Xeon 5160 keeps a 10-14% lead on the Opteron 2224. Our time was limited, and you'll see other versions of MySQL pop up in later reviews. The first results seem to indicate that the difference between the Opteron and Xeon gets smaller.
To get an idea what a typical SLES 10 user will experience, we simply used the MySQL version which is supported by the latest SLES 10 SP1, i.e. MySQL 5.0.26. Unfortunately, this means that we see the typically bad scaling. Therefore we focus on the single CPU, dual core results. It doesn't make sense to use a quad Xeon 5345 here: more than two CPUs give negative scaling as we have reported before. The 2.33GHz Xeon 5345 scored between 700 and 750 queries per second as a result of this. For those who are surprised by this: notice that Intel's own benchmarks use four parallel runs of the Sysbench MySQL benchmark to get higher scores out of MySQL. All testing was done with InnoDB as our storage engine in MySQL 5.0.26. Here is our MySQL configuration:
| MySQL Configuration | |
| default-storage-engine | InnoDB |
| skip-external-locking | |
| skip-locking | |
| key_buffer | 256M |
| . | |
| table_cache | 64 |
| max_allowed_packet | 1M |
| thread_stack | 128K |
| . | |
| sort_buffer_size | 2M |
| read_buffer_size | 2M |
| innodb_buffer_pool_size | 1G |
| . | |
| thread_concurrency | 16 |
| innodb_thread_concurrency | 16 |
| innodb_additional_mem_pool_size | 8MB |
| read_rnd_buffer_size | 8MB |
| thread_cache | 64 |
| max_heap_table | 256MB |
| tmp_table | 128MB |
| . | |
| innodb_log_file_size | 250MB |
| innodb_table_locks | 0 |
| innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit | 0 |
| max_user_connections | 2000 |
| max_connections | 2000 |
The "query cache" was off, as we wanted to test worst case performance. Our test database is still the same 1GB database. The workload consists of more than 90% selects, mostly a "read intensive" workload. All numbers are expressed in queries per second (Y-axis), and the X-axis shows the number of concurrent accesses.
MySQL results
The Xeon 5160 keeps a 10-14% lead on the Opteron 2224. Our time was limited, and you'll see other versions of MySQL pop up in later reviews. The first results seem to indicate that the difference between the Opteron and Xeon gets smaller.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
30 Comments
View All Comments
2ManyOptions - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
... for most of the benchmarks Intel chips performed better than the Opterons, don't know why Intel should get scared from these, they can safely wait for Barcelona. Didn't really understand why you have out it as AMD is still in game with these in the 4S space.baby5121926 - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
intel got scared because they dont want to see the real result from AMD + ATI.the longer intel lets AMD lives, the more dangerous intel will be.
that's why you guys can see Intel is attacking AMD really really hard at this meantime... just to kick AMD out of the game.
Justin Case - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
What are the units in the WinRAR results table?coldpower27 - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
Check Intel own pricing lists, and you will see that Intel has already pre-empted some of these cuts with their Xeon X5355 at $744 or Xeon E5345 at $455 and the "official" Xeon X5365 should be cout soon if not already...http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pricelist/proce...">http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pric...rice_lis...
TheOtherRizzo - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
I know nothing about 4S servers. But what's the essence of this article? Surely not that NetBurst is crap? We've known that for years. Is the real story here that Intel doesn't really give a s*** about 4S, otherwise they would have moved on to the core 2 architecture long ago? Just guessing.coldpower27 - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
Xeon 7300 Series based on the Tigerton core which is a 4 Socket Capable Kentsfield/Clovertown derivatives is arriving in Sepetember this year, so Intel does care in becoming more competitive in the 4S space, but it is just taking some time.They decided to concentrate on the high volume 2S sector is all first, since Intel has massive capacity, going for the high volume sector first makes sense.
mino - Monday, August 13, 2007 - link
Yes and no, actually to have two intel quads running on a single FSB was a serious technical problem.Therefore they had to wait for 4-FSB chipset to be able to get them out the door. Not to mention the qualification times which are a bit onger for 4S platforms that 2S.
AMD does not have these obstacles as 8xxx series are essentially 2xxx series from stability/reliability POW.
Calin - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
The 5160 processor is Core2 unit, not a NetBurst one. Also, the 5345 is a quad core based on Core2jay401 - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
People built 3.0GHz - 3.33GHz E4300 & E4400 systems six months ago that cost roughly $135 for the CPU. Others went for an E6300 or more recently an E6320, both again under $200.They were all relatively easy overclocks.
Why does anyone with any skill in building their own computer care about an $800+ CPU again?
Calin - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
Why don't Ford Mustangs use a small engine, overclocked to hell? Like an inline 4 2.0l with turbo, and a high rpm instead of their huge 4+ liter engines?Why do trucks use those big engines, when they could get the same power from a smaller, gasoline, turbocharged engine?
People pay $800+ for processors that work in multiprocessor systems (your run of the mill Athlon64 or E4300 won't run). Also, they use error checking (and usually error correcting) memory in their systems - again, Athlon64 doesn't do this. They also use registered DDR in order to access more memory banks - your Athlon64 again falls short. On the E4300 side, the chipset is responsible with those things, so you could use such a processor in a server chassis - if the socket fits.