Intel Xeon 3.6 2MB vs AMD Opteron 252 Database Test
by Jason Clark & Ross Whitehead on February 14, 2005 8:00 AM EST- Posted in
- IT Computing
It's been five months since either of the processor giants released a new server processor. Today, both Intel and AMD have new offerings. Intel has updated their 3.6 GHz Xeon to include an additional 1MB of L2 cache, and AMD has bumped their quickest Opteron up 200Mhz to 2.6GHz with the Opteron 252. Neither one of these upgrades is groundbreaking, but they do offer some performance increases, especially the 2MB Xeon. We'll see some more significant releases later this year from both manufacturers with their Dual Core offerings.
Intel's Update
Instead of a clock increase, Intel decided to throw some cache at the existing 3.6 Xeon units. In one of our previous articles, we took a look at a 4MB Gallatin Xeon and compared it to an Opteron. The results showed that the 4MB cache on the Gallatin didn't boast any large increases over that of the Opteron with 1MB of L2 cache. The main reason for that was the 400Mhz bus, which starved the Gallatin of precious bandwidth. Times have changed; Intel recognized the bandwidth issue and today, an extra 1MB of L2 cache on the 800Mhz bus that the Nocona and Irwindale Xeons offer does make a difference. Of course, the difference depends entirely on the workload, which we'll explain further as we reveal our results.
AMD's Update
The Opteron 252 is mostly a clock speed increase from 2.4GHz to 2.6GHz, but there are a few of other differences that are worth mentioning. The packaging has changed on the new 252 from ceramic to organic - you can see the difference from a 250 to the 252 below. Aside from the packaging, AMD has also thrown in SSE3 instructions, increased the HyperTransport to 1GHz, and the 252 is manufactured on 90nm. As for the Dual Core roadmap for AMD, it remains on schedule for mid-2005. Dual core Opterons will be socket compatible with existing 940 pin sockets that support 90nm (95W/80A).
 |
 |
| Click images to enlarge. | |
64bit SQL Server Tests?
In our recent SQL articles, we've been asked, "where are the 64 bit tests?" Who cares about 32 bit based tests? First, we're right on top of 64 bit testing for SQL Server - remember that this application is still in beta. Regarding the second question, the large majority of SQL Server database servers are running on 32 bit platforms, so a lot of people do care. That being said, 64 bit SQL Server is definitely sought after, and we are going to provide coverage as soon as we can.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
97 Comments
View All Comments
Jason Clark - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
bthomas, read page 1 please. We focus on the window side of the house and there is no released 64bit OS or SQL server yet.Quanticles, the only measure we has was ntune which reported the HT bus running at 1GHz. Dual configuration for all tests.
Quanticles - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
Did you check to make sure the HT bus was actually running at 1 GHz with an o-scope?Where you running these systems as 1P or 2P? I got the impression that you were running the tests as 1P systems and then was making recommendations on 2P systems.
bthomas - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
Geez. Nobody is mentioning the fact that the Opteron is running on a 32-bit OS in these tests.Yeah, its basically a wash under these conditions, but so what..the real test would be under 64 bit. DB applications/servers are supposed to really thrive in the 64-bit realm. Why didnt you test under a 64 bit OS/DB software like Linux/Postgres|MySQL/etc ?!?
=b.t.
rivieracadman - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
I forgot to ask; Does the 152 offer SSOI or is it still SOI. From the power ratings I can guess it's still SOI. Just curious ...chucky2 - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
I like how vendors cripple the AMD offerings...sometimes ever so slightly, other times largely. Take a look at the two HP offerings listed out at the end of the article and tell me which one you'd like to buy? For $900 extra, I'll give up whatever performance benefit I'd see for the managability any day.Not AMD's fault...it's the vendors... :(
Chuck
Fluff - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
Was NUMA enabled on 2003 Enterprise Edition for the 252?Did it make any difference?
This was not made clear in the article.
Unless /PAE is the equivalent.
mlittl3 - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
For those of you who are interested in what opterons will be made using 90 nm and 1 GHz hypertransport, here is the link on amd's website.http://www2.amd.com/us-en/OPN_Printer/1,,,00.html?...
Sorry it is so long but there is a lot of scripting for filtering results on the page.
To summarize, Opterons 242 (1.6 GHz) to 852 (2.6 GHz) are being updated to the new die process and HT bus.
I would like to recommend to the author of the article to include a reference section at the end of every review to relevant websites for more information. This would be similar to the reference section in the article from Johan. The above link should go there as well as any links to more indepth architecture info on both AMD's and Intel's websites. Just a thought.
skiboysteve - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
that extra period at the end of post #28 made what would have been a normal statement entirely creepy as hell...snorre - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
It would be more interesting with an update to these articles:http://anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=1982
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1935
"The true test that remains, however, is a test comparing AMD’s Opteron to Intel’s Itanium 2. Intel was not very receptive to the idea of doing a head-to-head; not out of a fear of losing, but out of a desire not to lend AMD any credibility by showing that the Opteron is indeed a competitor to the Itanium 2. While we do believe that the Itanium 2 in its 128-way configurations is definitely out of the Opteron’s league, in the 2-way and 4-way configurations that we are interested in comparing, the two are absolutely competitors.
Whether Intel is looking to supply us with an Itanium 2 system or not, we will make that comparison."
We're still waiting...
SpaceRanger - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
I'd love to see it Jason..