Linux Database Server CPU Comparison
by Johan De Gelas on June 17, 2005 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- IT Computing
Analyses and Conclusion
First of all, we would like to emphasize that we are well aware of our findings - they are only applicable to your database applications if you run a "read heavy, few writes" database server and the database is not too large, so the most used parts can run mainly from the RAM. As 1 GB DIMMs are very cheap now and with the introduction of 64 bit CPUs and 64 bit Linux 2 years ago, it is clear that making sure that your database has enough memory for its disposal should become a lot easier for many database administrators.There are a few interesting conclusions that we can make about the software side of things. First of all, DB2 8.2 scales fantastic when you add more CPUs. This makes the dual core Opterons very attractive: an Opteron 265 costs as much as an Opteron 252 or Xeon Irwindale 3.6 GHz, but it is clear that it will perform a lot better. It also offers a better upgrade path, since you can use up to four cores on relatively cheap motherboards - compared to the average price of a quad CPU motherboard - with two sockets.
The MySQL MyISAM benches make it clear that pure speed isn't everything. MySQL MyISAM allows you to get away with a single CPU system as it delivered up 300 queries per second, while DB2 was only capable of delivering a bit more than one third of that performance. The picture quickly changes when we need safe transactions too (even with few writes, this might be critical): the InnoDB engine is about 40% slower in our environment. MySQL remains very fast, but as we add more CPUs, the difference gets very small with DB2. While this article has no ambition to be a guide to the software part of database servers, it is clear that you should choose your hardware in function of the database server software that you select. With DB2, you get enterprise class database serving, and dual core CPUs are a very good solution for it. MySQL is excellent to save on your hardware costs, but if you expect the number of transactions/data mining queries to rise quickly, adding more than two CPUs will buy you little performance (10 to 20% boost).
The most surprising thing that we noticed while comparing our new findings on the 2.6 kernel with those of our previous report (32 bit, 2.4 kernel) is that the Xeon benefits a lot less from 64 bit and the new 2.6 kernel than the Opteron. While the 64 bit binaries run consistently (much) faster on the Opteron, the Xeon isn't too happy with them and runs them 4 to 10% slower. Hyperthreading isn't - in our case - helping either, with 1 to 10% lower performance.
Branch prediction penalties, due to the longer pipeline of Nocona/Irwindale, are not the problem. We noticed with Vtune and Code Analyst that the Branch Prediction Unit of the Xeon Nocona and Irwindale does a marvellous job and predicts between 96% (MySQL) and 97% (DB2) of the branches correctly, while the Opteron's BPU is about 93% and 94% correct of the time. MySQL consists of 20% branches, and DB2 has only 16% branches. The L2-caches also do a good job with only 2% of data demands being covered by the RAM, and a 98% hitrate on the L1 and L2-caches.
According to our research, we can assume that the 64 bit implementation of the new Xeon is simply not as powerful as the Opteron's. Intel has some catching up to do, especially when you look at the dual core Opterons. We already discussed AMD's elegant dual core architecture in detail, but in this review, we have seen very good indications that the design with the two cores connected by the SRQ does improve performance in real world applications and not only in our cache-to-cache tests.
This architecture together with AMD being six months ahead with their dual core server product gives AMD significant advantages in the server market today. The lack of mature server versions of Windows (2003) and the fact that only the latest kernels of Linux support the dual core Opteron might slow AMD a bit down, but not for long.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
45 Comments
View All Comments
Guspaz - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link
Why are there no graphs like other Anandtech articles? Why is everything in hard to read tables with broken formatting? This one seems a bit rough around the edges compared to the usual Anandtech quality.juhl - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link
I find it quite odd that you claim to be testing with a 2.6.12 Linux kernel despite the fact that that kernel has not yet been released in a final version.If you are using one of the pre-release kernels you should explicitly say so, and tell us which one.
The latest stable kernel at the time I write this is 2.6.11.12, the latest development kernels are 2.6.12-rc6, 2.6.12-rc6-git8 & 2.6.12-rc6-mm1 . There's also the question of wether or not you used a stock kernel.org kernel or a "patched to hell-and-back with crap" gentoo kernel...
So, what were you really using?
sinisterDei - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link
#20Correct me if I'm wrong, but would not the query cache positively affect the scores of both vendor's chips?
I suppose I don't have a pair of database machines just sitting around to test it out, but I'd imagine that if query cache was enabled the Opteron would experience similar performance boosts to the Xeon- if not more of a boost thanks to the higher-performing memory subsystem.
Just my $.02 to counteract the fear-monger :)
Viditor - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link
"Translation: We didn't want our beloved AMD to lose, so we doctored the test"Translation of the translation...
Shoot the messenger! :-)
michaelpatrick33 - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link
#20 Ah yes the conspiracy theories begin. Just like AMD with Tomshardware. The server results here appear pretty consistent with every other server test I have seen on review sites but who knows.# 19. Intel is only at 90nm but do have 300mm wafers. That is why Fab36 is so important for AMD. 300mm wafers and 65nm by Q2 of 2006 should put them pretty equal with Intel's fabrication level. Production level is still way, way in favor of Intel though.
Pricing, as I said before the Opteron dualcore chips are way cheaper than Intel dualcore server chips because Intel doesn't have any.
Questar - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link
"The " query cache" was off, as we wanted to test worst case performance. In some cases, the query cache was able to push a single Xeon to 1000 queries per second, and the CPU was still capable of doing more, as the CPU load was at 50% - 70%. "Translation: We didn't want our beloved AMD to lose, so we doctored the test.
thegagman - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link
BTW guys, one reason why AMD may be pricing its chips mihc higher is the MFG process. Unless I am mistaken (and someone correct me if I am wrong), they are still using 200mm wafers on a 90 or 110 process. Intel is using 300mm at 65 nm...this results in a huge difference in throuhput. Since AMD is already pricing its CPUs very agressively to gain market share, and the die of those dual-cores is much bigger (anybody know the real %?) then it is to be anticipated that their dual-cores are much more exspensive. They are probably gambling on selling dual-core Opterons at high-margins via Sun and other OEMs first,which will probably take most of their wafers. This is why their Desktop parts are coming later I would bet...thegagman
nserra - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link
#17 Good answers but, "Depends on the applications you run. On single threaded code, the faster single core will run your code faster."Doesn’t explain what I was meaning, so for you is OK to pay more for a single core processor, because runs faster some times (may run slower other times), how will you know what it will happen? (Supposing that you don’t know shit about your software requirements).
. AMD don’t have this problem so why would amd for example release an 4200+ processor at the same price of the 3500+ ? If the performance is equal or superior?
I think amd have made they right decisions, like intel have made his.
They all play with what they have, and not with they haven’t.
fitten - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link
"Explain me something:- how do you explain or how Intel will explain that their single core processor cost more than the dual core ones? "
Because Intel sets the prices of their chips. They want to push dual-core to the masses so they price them accordingly.
"- Why should you buy a single core over a dual core if it cost more? "
Depends on the applications you run. On single threaded code, the faster single core will run your code faster.
"- How good is this Intel market decision (marketing). "
Probably pretty good. Considering you have to buy a new motherboard to use the dual-core Intel parts, they dropped the price so that the CPU + motherboard cost is about the same (or less than still) the cost of just the dual-core CPU from AMD. Sounds like a good strategy to me.
michaelpatrick33 - Friday, June 17, 2005 - link
I also think it is safe to say that Amd's dualcore Opterons will be cheaper than any Intel dualcore server chip for the next six to eight months since there aren't any Intel dualcore server chips. IDC just released market research that showed AMD with 30% of the 4way server sales in Q1 '05. That is what AMD is after. The 64bit performance difference is surprising to say the least.