AMD's Quad-Core Barcelona: Defending New Territory
by Johan De Gelas on September 10, 2007 12:15 AM EST- Posted in
- IT Computing
AMD's Newest Quad-Core
Before we start talking about benchmarks, here's a short overview of the new models and their pricing in the competitive landscape. AMD is launching both 4/8-way (4S) and 2-way (2S) models of the new quad-core Opterons at speeds ranging from 1.7GHz to 2GHz. To keep things simple, we'll first take a look at the 4S (four socket) market.
AMD uses a different power rating than TDP: "Average CPU Power" or ACP. AMD claims that this power rating is very similar to Intel's TDP: it is the average power draw when the processor runs high utilization workloads. A CPU with a TDP of 95W has an ACP of 75W; one with a TDP of 68W has an ACP of 55W. According to AMD, ACP should be the number we use to compare to Intel's TDP. We'll verify this claim in a later article.
Let's see how the new Opterons compare to Intel's CPUs when it comes to pricing and power:
First of all, it is worth noting that the old Tulsa Xeons remain very expensive and are not even worth considering as they only offer half the performance of Tigerton. The same can be said about the Opteron 82xx series. These CPUs are clocked a lot higher which is interesting for applications that scale badly and need excellent single threaded performance, but nobody is going to buy a 4S machine for such an application. It will be interesting to see if AMD lowers the prices of these CPUs or not.
Back to Barcelona, it also has to face the newly launched Tigerton (of which we are preparing a review). It seems that AMD's CPUs might conquer the high performance blade market easy: AMD offers 55W (68W TDP) quad-cores for about $700-$900, while Intel wants no less than $2300 for their lower power 4S quad-core. Our first tests indicate that a 1.9GHz Barcelona should outperform a 1.86GHz Tigerton, but more testing is needed. For now, we can only conclude that Intel has priced itself out of the 4S blade market. Then again, pricing doesn't always seem to be the primary concern with blades.
AMD also positions the 2GHz 8350 against the Tigerton 2.13GHz, which should allow them to defend the new found territory: AMD has no less than 56% of the 4S market in the US. Basically, we can conclude that AMD's pricing in the 4S market should be quite competitive.
2-Way Market
The 4S market has some great profit margins, but 75%-80% of the server market is 2S. Below is AMD's pricing for this very popular market.
So how does AMD's pricing compare to Intel's?
AMD positions the 2350 2GHz between the 2.13 and 2.33GHz quad-core Xeon. The 1.9GHz version squarely targets the 2GHz E5335. AMD has no answer to the X5365 and E5355, but currently those CPUs are offered in a higher power consumption band, so this is not the really the end of the world. The 3.2GHz and 3GHz Opterons might still make sense for some hard to scale applications if AMD lowers the prices significantly.
Before we start talking about benchmarks, here's a short overview of the new models and their pricing in the competitive landscape. AMD is launching both 4/8-way (4S) and 2-way (2S) models of the new quad-core Opterons at speeds ranging from 1.7GHz to 2GHz. To keep things simple, we'll first take a look at the 4S (four socket) market.
AMD uses a different power rating than TDP: "Average CPU Power" or ACP. AMD claims that this power rating is very similar to Intel's TDP: it is the average power draw when the processor runs high utilization workloads. A CPU with a TDP of 95W has an ACP of 75W; one with a TDP of 68W has an ACP of 55W. According to AMD, ACP should be the number we use to compare to Intel's TDP. We'll verify this claim in a later article.
Let's see how the new Opterons compare to Intel's CPUs when it comes to pricing and power:
| Intel 4S Processors | |||||||||
| Core Architecture CPUs | |||||||||
| Quad/ Dualcore | Clock | Codename | L2 | L3 | FSB | Mem bandwidth | TDP | Price | |
| Xeon MP X7350 | Quad | 2.93GHz | Tigerton | 2 x 4MB | - | 266 MHz Quad | 8.5GB/s | 130W | $2301 |
| Xeon MP E7340 | Quad | 2.4GHz | Tigerton | 2 x 4MB | - | 266 MHz Quad | 8.5GB/s | 80W | $1980 |
| Xeon MP E7330 | Quad | 2.4GHz | Tigerton | 2 x 3MB | - | 266 MHz Quad | 8.5GB/s | 80W | $1391 |
| Xeon MP E7320 | Quad | 2.13GHz | Tigerton | 2 x 2MB | - | 266 MHz Quad | 8.5GB/s | 80W | $1,177 |
| Xeon MP E7310 | Quad | 1.6GHz | Tigerton | 2 x 2MB | - | 266 MHz Quad | 8.5GB/s | 80W | $856 |
| Xeon MP L7345 | Quad | 1.86GHz | Tigerton | 2 x 4MB | - | 266 MHz Quad | 8.5GB/s | 50W | $2301 |
| NetBurst Architecture CPUs | |||||||||
| Xeon MP 7140M | Dual | 3.4GHz | Tulsa | 2x 1MB | 16MB | 200 MHz Quad | 6.4GB/s | 150W | $1980 |
| Xeon MP 7130M | Dual | 3.2GHz | Tulsa | 2x 1MB | 8MB | 200 MHz Quad | 6.4GB/s | 150W | $1391 |
| Xeon MP 7120M | Dual | 3GHz | Tulsa | 2x 1MB | 4MB | 200 MHz Quad | 6.4GB/s | 95W | $1117 |
| AMD 4S Processors | |||||||||
| Barcelona Architecture CPUs | |||||||||
| Quad/ Dualcore | Clock | Codename | L2 | L3 | HT | Mem bandwidth | TDP | Price | |
| Opteron 8350 | Quad | 2GHz | Barcelona | 4x 0.5MB | 2MB | 1000 MHz DDR | 10.6GB/s | 95W | $1019 |
| Opteron 8347 | Quad | 1.9GHz | Barcelona | 4x 0.5MB | 2MB | 1000 MHz DDR | 10.6GB/s | 95W | $768 |
| Opteron 8347 HE | Quad | 1.9GHz | Barcelona | 4x 0.5MB | 2MB | 1000 MHz DDR | 10.6GB/s | 68W | $873 |
| Opteron 8346 HE | Quad | 1.8GHz | Barcelona | 4x 0.5MB | 2MB | 1000 MHz DDR | 10.6GB/s | 68W | $698 |
| K8 Architecture CPUs | |||||||||
| Opteron 8224 SE | Dual | 3.2GHz | Santa Rosa | 2x 1MB | - | 1000 MHz DDR | 10.6GB/s | 119W | $2149 |
| Opteron 8222 | Dual | 3GHz | Santa Rosa | 2x 1MB | - | 1000 MHz DDR | 10.6GB/s | 95W | $1514 |
| Opteron 8220 | Dual | 2.8GHz | Santa Rosa | 2x 1MB | - | 1000 MHz DDR | 10.6GB/s | 95W | $1165 |
| Opteron 8218 | Dual | 2.6GHz | Santa Rosa | 2x 1MB | - | 1000 MHz DDR | 10.6GB/s | 95W | $873 |
| Opteron 8218 HE | Dual | 2.6GHz | Santa Rosa | 2x 1MB | - | 1000 MHz DDR | 10.6GB/s | 68W | $1019 |
First of all, it is worth noting that the old Tulsa Xeons remain very expensive and are not even worth considering as they only offer half the performance of Tigerton. The same can be said about the Opteron 82xx series. These CPUs are clocked a lot higher which is interesting for applications that scale badly and need excellent single threaded performance, but nobody is going to buy a 4S machine for such an application. It will be interesting to see if AMD lowers the prices of these CPUs or not.
Back to Barcelona, it also has to face the newly launched Tigerton (of which we are preparing a review). It seems that AMD's CPUs might conquer the high performance blade market easy: AMD offers 55W (68W TDP) quad-cores for about $700-$900, while Intel wants no less than $2300 for their lower power 4S quad-core. Our first tests indicate that a 1.9GHz Barcelona should outperform a 1.86GHz Tigerton, but more testing is needed. For now, we can only conclude that Intel has priced itself out of the 4S blade market. Then again, pricing doesn't always seem to be the primary concern with blades.
AMD also positions the 2GHz 8350 against the Tigerton 2.13GHz, which should allow them to defend the new found territory: AMD has no less than 56% of the 4S market in the US. Basically, we can conclude that AMD's pricing in the 4S market should be quite competitive.
2-Way Market
The 4S market has some great profit margins, but 75%-80% of the server market is 2S. Below is AMD's pricing for this very popular market.
So how does AMD's pricing compare to Intel's?
| Intel 2S Processors | |||||||||
| Quad Core CPUs | |||||||||
| Quad/ Dualcore | Clock | Codename | L2 | L3 | FSB | Mem bandwidth | TDP | Price | |
| Xeon X5365 | Quad | 3GHz | Clovertown | 2x 4MB | - | 333 MHz Quad | 21GB/s | 120W | $1172 |
| Xeon E5355 | Quad | 2.66GHz | Clovertown | 2x 4MB | - | 333 MHz Quad | 21GB/s | 120W | $744 |
| Xeon E5345 | Quad | 2.33GHz | Clovertown | 2x 4MB | - | 333 MHz Quad | 21GB/s | 80W | $455 |
| Xeon E5335 | Quad | 2GHz | Clovertown | 2x 4MB | - | 333 MHz Quad | 21GB/s | 80W | $316 |
| Xeon E5320 | Quad | 1.86GHz | Clovertown | 2x 4MB | - | 266 MHz Quad | 17GB/s | 80W | $256 |
| Xeon L5335 | Quad | 2GHz | Clovertown | 2x 4MB | - | 333 MHz Quad | 21GB/s | 50W | $380 |
| Xeon L5320 | Quad | 1.86GHz | Clovertown | 2x 4MB | - | 266 MHz Quad | 17GB/s | 50W | $320 |
| Dual Core CPUs | |||||||||
| Xeon DP 5160 | Dual | 3GHz | Woodcrest | 4MB | - | 333 MHz Quad | 21GB/s | 80W | $851 |
| Xeon DP 5150 | Dual | 2.66GHz | Woodcrest | 4MB | - | 333 MHz Quad | 21GB/s | 65W | $690 |
| Xeon DP 5148 | Dual | 2.33GHz | Woodcrest | 4MB | - | 333 MHz Quad | 21GB/s | 40W | $519 |
| AMD 2S Processors | |||||||||
| Quad Core CPUs | |||||||||
| Quad/ Dualcore | Clock | Codename | L2 | L3 | HT | Mem bandwidth | TDP | Price | |
| Opteron 2350 | Quad | 2GHz | Barcelona | 4x 0.5MB | 2MB | 1000 MHz DDR | 10.6GB/s | 95W | $389 |
| Opteron 2347 | Quad | 1.9GHz | Barcelona | 4x 0.5MB | 2MB | 1000 MHz DDR | 10.6GB/s | 95W | $316 |
| Opteron 2347 HE | Quad | 1.9GHz | Barcelona | 4x 0.5MB | 2MB | 1000 MHz DDR | 10.6GB/s | 68W | $377 |
| Opteron 2346 HE | Quad | 1.8GHz | Barcelona | 4x 0.5MB | 2MB | 1000 MHz DDR | 10.6GB/s | 68W | $255 |
| Opteron 2344 HE | Quad | 1.7GHz | Barcelona | 4x 0.5MB | 2MB | 1000 MHz DDR | 10.6GB/s | 68W | $209 |
| Dual Core CPUs | |||||||||
| Opteron 2224 SE | Dual | 3.2GHz | Santa Rosa | 2x 1MB | - | 1000 MHz DDR | 10.6GB/s | 119W | $873 |
| Opteron 2222 | Dual | 3GHz | Santa Rosa | 2x 1MB | - | 1000 MHz DDR | 10.6GB/s | 95W | $698 |
| Opteron 2220 | Dual | 2.8GHz | Santa Rosa | 2x 1MB | - | 1000 MHz DDR | 10.6GB/s | 95W | $523 |
| Opteron 2218 | Dual | 2.6GHz | Santa Rosa | 2x 1MB | - | 1000 MHz DDR | 10.6GB/s | 95W | $377 |
| Opteron 2218 HE | Dual | 2.6GHz | Santa Rosa | 2x 1MB | - | 1000 MHz DDR | 10.6GB/s | 68W | $450 |
AMD positions the 2350 2GHz between the 2.13 and 2.33GHz quad-core Xeon. The 1.9GHz version squarely targets the 2GHz E5335. AMD has no answer to the X5365 and E5355, but currently those CPUs are offered in a higher power consumption band, so this is not the really the end of the world. The 3.2GHz and 3GHz Opterons might still make sense for some hard to scale applications if AMD lowers the prices significantly.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
46 Comments
View All Comments
Phynaz - Monday, September 10, 2007 - link
Isn't this intentionally crippling the system?JohanAnandtech - Monday, September 10, 2007 - link
No. Just check what Intel and other companies do when they submit Specjbb scores for example. With HW prefetch on, you get about 10% lower scores.nj2112 - Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - link
Was HW prefetching off for all tests ?lplatypus - Monday, September 10, 2007 - link
I thought that 2x00 series CPUs only supported one coherent hypertransport link, so would this mean that the "Dual Link" feature involving two HT links would require 8300 series CPUs?mino - Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - link
Well, maybe the changed that and all links are active (to enable setups like this) and the CPU just refuses to comunicate more than one coherent hopa away..mino - Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - link
Well, maybe the changed that and all links are active (to enable setups like this) and the CPU just refuses to comunicate more than one coherent hopa away..MDme - Monday, September 10, 2007 - link
Let the games begin!Viditor - Thursday, September 13, 2007 - link
Are you going to be re-doing the review with the shipping version (stepping BA) anytime soon?I'm most curious to see if the improvement of 5%+ claims are true...
MDme - Monday, September 10, 2007 - link
I think Barcelona will be a success in the server world. It's performance is around 20% faster than equivalently clocked xeons with the exception of certain programs like fritz and the linpack intel library where it is around 5-10% slower. But since it scales better than the xeon chips it should negate that and increase it's lead on others as core/sockets increase. add to that it's power efficiency tweaks and aggressive pricing, AMD will be able to hold off intel in the server world.....maybe.With 2.5Ghz Barceys coming up that would be equivalent to around 3-3+ Ghz xeons. So AMD was right that they need to get to 2.6 Ghz....AMD needs to ramp up clock to get the highest-end performance crown, but for now, their offering offers a nice balance of performance and power efficiency for the price.
Now time for the Phenom to get it's act together.
TA152H - Monday, September 10, 2007 - link
The article should have mentioned the performance penalty Intel chips are suffering from with regards to FB-DIMMS. While it's true they should be benchmarked in servers with with memory, it's also widely rumored that they are going to be offering choices in the near future. This memory has a really big impact on a lot of benchmarks, so when looking towards the future, or desktop, it's important to keep in mind the importance of Intel using different memory. I don't think even Intel is stubborn enough to stick with this seriously slow, and power hungry memory. Maybe as a choice it's fine, but it must be clear to them that offering something else as well as FB-DIMMs is very desirable in the server space. Then again, look at how long they stuck with Rambus.