Web infrastructure Power consumption

Next we tested the system under load.

Web server Power Consumption
(*) measured/calculated to mimic a Xeon-E3 "m300-ish" board.

Notice how much difference there is between a feature rich motherboard and a micro server cartridge. The ASRock board consumes about twice as much as the HP m300 cartridge and the Supermicro node is in between. In both cases the cost of cooling is not included. Of course, we should not compare the ASRock board and the m300 cartridge directly as they target different markets, but it shows that the energy efficiency of a scale-out server infrastructure depends a lot on the server chassis used. HP's Moonshot really nailed it.

Power efficiency is not the forte of the X-Gene at the moment. The Xeon E3-1230L v3 is able to outperform it by a large margin and consumes a lot less power in the process. Even in combination with our most feature-rich boards such as the ASUS P9D-MH, a Xeon E3-1230L v3 does not consume more than an X-Gene with a much more efficient cartridge.

Saving Power at Idle The War of the SoCs: Performance/Watt
POST A COMMENT

47 Comments

View All Comments

  • gdansk - Monday, March 09, 2015 - link

    xgene is not looking so great. Even if it is 50% more efficient as they promise they'll still be behind Atom. Reply
  • Samus - Monday, March 09, 2015 - link

    HP Moonshot chassis are still *drool* Reply
  • Krysto - Monday, March 09, 2015 - link

    The main problem with the non-Intel systems is not only that they use older processes compared to Intel, but that they use older processes even compared to the rest of the non-Intel chip industry. AMD is typically always behind 1 process node among non-Intel chip makers. If they'd at least use the cutting edge processes as they become available from non-Intel processes, maybe they'd stand a chance, especially now that the gap in process technologies is shrinking. Reply
  • Samus - Monday, March 09, 2015 - link

    AMD simply isn't as bad as people continually make them out to be. Yes, they're "behind" Intel but it's all in the approach. We are talking about two engineering houses that share nothing in common but a cross licensing agreement. AMD has very competitive CPU's to Intel's i5's for nearly half the price, but yes, they use more power (at times 1/3 more.)

    But facts are facts: AMD is the second high-tech CPU manufacture in the world. Not Qualcomm, not Samsung. It's pretty obvious AMD engineering talent spreads more diversity than anyone other than Intel, and potentially superior to Intel on GPU design (although this has obviously been shifting over the years as Intel hires more "GPU talent.")

    AMD in servers is a hard pill to swallow though. If purchasing based on price alone, it can be a compelling alternative, but for rack space or low-energy computing?
    Reply
  • Taneli - Tuesday, March 10, 2015 - link

    AMD doesn't even make it in top 10 semiconductor companies in sales. Qualcomm is three, Samsung semicondutors six and Intel almost ten times the size of AMD.

    Outside of the gaming consoles they are being completely overrun by competition.
    Reply
  • owan - Tuesday, March 10, 2015 - link

    I'm sorry, at one point I was an AMD fanboy, back when they actually deserved it based on their products, but you just sound like an apologist. Facts are the facts, FX processors aren't competitive with i5's in performance or power or performance/$ because they get smacked so hard they can't be cheap enough to make up for it. Their CPU designs are woefully out of date, their APU's are bandwidth starved and use way too much power to be useful in the one place they'd be great (mobile), and their lagging process tech means theres not much better coming on the horizon. I don't want to see them go, but at the rate ARM is eating up general computing share, it won't be long before AMD becomes completely irrelevant. It will be Intel vs. ARM and AMD will be an afterthought. Reply
  • xenol - Wednesday, March 11, 2015 - link

    Qualcomm is used in pretty much used in most cell phones in the US to the point you'd think Qualcomm is the only SoC manufacturer. I'm pretty sure that's also how it looks in most of the other markets as Korea. Plus even if their SoCs aren't being used, they're modems are heavily used.

    If anything, Qualcomm is bigger than AMD. Or rather, Qualcomm is the Intel of the SoC market.
    Reply
  • xenol - Wednesday, March 11, 2015 - link

    [Response to myself since I can't edit]
    Qualcomm's next major competitor is Apple. But that's about it.

    Also I meant to say other markets except Korea.
    Reply
  • CajunArson - Monday, March 09, 2015 - link

    Bear in mind that the Atom parts were commercially available in 2013, so they are by no means brand-new technology and the 14nm Atom upgrades will definitely help power efficiency even if raw performance doesn't jump a whole lot.

    Anandtech is also a bit behind the curve because Intel is about to release Xeon-D (8 Broadwell cores and integrated I/O in a 45 watt TDP, or lower), which is designed for exactly this type of workload and is going to massively improve performance in the low-power envelope sphere:

    http://techreport.com/review/27928/intel-xeon-d-br...
    Reply
  • SarahKerrigan - Monday, March 09, 2015 - link

    14nm server Atom isn't coming.

    http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1325955

    "Atom will become a consumer only SoC."
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now