Intel Clovertown: Quad Core for the Masses
by Jason Clark & Ross Whitehead on March 30, 2007 12:15 AM EST- Posted in
- IT Computing
Benchmarking Clovertown
What do you compare Clovertown to? Since there are no other quad core solutions to compare it to, we were stuck with how to compare it. Do you compare it only to existing dual socket options, Woodcrest and Opteron? Do you compare it only to existing eight way options, quad socket Opteron? There is no perfect answer, but we decided that comparing it to the previous Intel solution, Woodcrest, allowed us to explore scalability of the quad core architecture vs. the dual core architecture.
We also decided to include quad socket Opteron numbers for reference. We recognize that comparing a quad socket server to a dual socket server is a bit like comparing apples and oranges, but we decided to provide the results regardless until we see K10 and can do a proper comparison of quad core technologies. Let's not lose track that we are comparing two different technologies with totally different cost structures and power consumption profiles.
Another problem we had was the additional processing power that Clovertown provided with two sockets and eight cores. We found that we could no longer run our previous benchmarks, Dell DVD Store and our Forums Benchmark, as we did not have enough I/O throughput to handle the additional processing power. In our lab we have a Promise VTrak J300s which is a 12 disk SAS chassis, but we found that using 12 disks was not enough for our old benchmarks. We estimated we needed approximately 36-48 disks to be able to continue running our OLTP benchmarks. We were not able to "obtain" the required chassis and spindles so we decided to change our benchmark suite.
We did consider several SSD flash based disks but it seems there are more "announced" SSD Flash based drives than there are "shipping" drives. Until we can significantly increase our IP capacity in our lab we will no longer be running OLTP based benchmarks. Our preference to increase our I/O capacity would be an SSD solution as it would not require spinning dozens of drives in several chassis but... neither is available to us at this time.
What do you compare Clovertown to? Since there are no other quad core solutions to compare it to, we were stuck with how to compare it. Do you compare it only to existing dual socket options, Woodcrest and Opteron? Do you compare it only to existing eight way options, quad socket Opteron? There is no perfect answer, but we decided that comparing it to the previous Intel solution, Woodcrest, allowed us to explore scalability of the quad core architecture vs. the dual core architecture.
We also decided to include quad socket Opteron numbers for reference. We recognize that comparing a quad socket server to a dual socket server is a bit like comparing apples and oranges, but we decided to provide the results regardless until we see K10 and can do a proper comparison of quad core technologies. Let's not lose track that we are comparing two different technologies with totally different cost structures and power consumption profiles.
Another problem we had was the additional processing power that Clovertown provided with two sockets and eight cores. We found that we could no longer run our previous benchmarks, Dell DVD Store and our Forums Benchmark, as we did not have enough I/O throughput to handle the additional processing power. In our lab we have a Promise VTrak J300s which is a 12 disk SAS chassis, but we found that using 12 disks was not enough for our old benchmarks. We estimated we needed approximately 36-48 disks to be able to continue running our OLTP benchmarks. We were not able to "obtain" the required chassis and spindles so we decided to change our benchmark suite.
We did consider several SSD flash based disks but it seems there are more "announced" SSD Flash based drives than there are "shipping" drives. Until we can significantly increase our IP capacity in our lab we will no longer be running OLTP based benchmarks. Our preference to increase our I/O capacity would be an SSD solution as it would not require spinning dozens of drives in several chassis but... neither is available to us at this time.
56 Comments
View All Comments
yyrkoon - Monday, April 2, 2007 - link
You can not read, and understand what I am writting, and I am the dolt or moron . . .Interresting that . . . interresting indeed. I think what I will do, is just ignore whatever else you have to say, just like the majority of other readers seemingly have done.
archcommus - Friday, March 30, 2007 - link
However if Barcelona comes out and then Penryn smashes it just a few months later, yeah, then I'm gonna be worried about them. :(Griswold - Saturday, March 31, 2007 - link
Say no to drugs.anony - Friday, March 30, 2007 - link
This is for the authors. Sorry if I missed it, but do the power measurementsinclude chipset power? AMD processors include the memory controller as well,
right? Do the performance/watt take this into account?
Ross Whitehead - Friday, March 30, 2007 - link
We measured power at the wall, but we do not include the power for the disk chassis.Thus, performance/watt takes all of your mentioned items into account.
blckgrffn - Friday, March 30, 2007 - link
I am guessing Pernyn will be different enough from Clovertown to make using vmotion (and many other enterprise features) impossible. It sucks enough that we already have two processor families in our Dell 2950's, and here comes one more.I am all for progress, it just looks like this might be something VMware has to address at some point.
Nat
Beenthere - Friday, March 30, 2007 - link
...the industry. As usual Intel's "glueblob" is another rushed-out-the-door, knee-jerk reaction to AMD supplying superior CPU products. AMD is really gonna hurt Intel with Barcelona and friends.johnsonx - Friday, March 30, 2007 - link
Beenthere + Cornfedone = CramitpalGriswold - Saturday, March 31, 2007 - link
You forgot to add some "fine-ass".Phynaz - Friday, March 30, 2007 - link
Wow, you really are a moron.