SPECjbb2005
SPECjbb2005 from SPEC (Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation) evaluates the performance of server side Java by emulating a three-tier client/server system with emphasis on the middle tier. Instead of testing with a possible disk intensive database system, SPECjbb uses tables of objects, implemented by Java Collections, rather than a separate database. A longer description can be found here.
Again, it is not our objective to show the best possible scores. Very few people will take the time to fully tune the JVM and take the risk that some of the ultra aggressive optimizations backfire. So we tested with some decent but rather generic tuning that we could use on all systems. The JVM is Sun's version 1.5.0_08, which allows us to compare scores with previous results.
We tested SPECjbb2005 with four application instances. Using NUMActl, a clever utility written by Andi Kleen, we were able to bind each Java application to each node on our Tyan server. We didn't bind instances to CPUs on the Intel platforms (though it is possible with taskset) as it gives worse performance. The parameters in bold show the actual JVM optimizations.
On the Opteron we used:
The impact of binding each instance to a specific node is less dramatic as what we have seen before, but still, the Opteron scored only 42254 without the use of numactl. The Opterons are in a neck-and-neck race with the dual core Intel's. As this kind of transactional Java application depends quite a bit on the memory interface, the slightly lower integer power of the Opteron is hidden by its faster access to the memory. Nevertheless, it is the Xeon E5345 which wins this race as the use of 4 instances allows the Xeon 53xx to scale well.
SPECjbb2005 from SPEC (Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation) evaluates the performance of server side Java by emulating a three-tier client/server system with emphasis on the middle tier. Instead of testing with a possible disk intensive database system, SPECjbb uses tables of objects, implemented by Java Collections, rather than a separate database. A longer description can be found here.
Again, it is not our objective to show the best possible scores. Very few people will take the time to fully tune the JVM and take the risk that some of the ultra aggressive optimizations backfire. So we tested with some decent but rather generic tuning that we could use on all systems. The JVM is Sun's version 1.5.0_08, which allows us to compare scores with previous results.
We tested SPECjbb2005 with four application instances. Using NUMActl, a clever utility written by Andi Kleen, we were able to bind each Java application to each node on our Tyan server. We didn't bind instances to CPUs on the Intel platforms (though it is possible with taskset) as it gives worse performance. The parameters in bold show the actual JVM optimizations.
On the Opteron we used:
numactl --cpunodebind=$node --membind=$node -- java -cp jbb.jar:check.jar -Xms2g -Xmx2g -Xmn1g -Xss128K -XX:+AggressiveOpts -XX:+UseParallelOldGC -XX:+UseParallelGC spec.jbb.JBBmain -propfile SPECjbb.props -id $xjava -classpath jbb.jar:check.jar -Xms2g -Xmx2g -Xmn1g -Xss128K -XX:+AggressiveOpts -XX:+UseParallelOldGC -XX:+UseParallelGC spec.jbb.JBBmain -propfile SPECjbb.props -id $xThe impact of binding each instance to a specific node is less dramatic as what we have seen before, but still, the Opteron scored only 42254 without the use of numactl. The Opterons are in a neck-and-neck race with the dual core Intel's. As this kind of transactional Java application depends quite a bit on the memory interface, the slightly lower integer power of the Opteron is hidden by its faster access to the memory. Nevertheless, it is the Xeon E5345 which wins this race as the use of 4 instances allows the Xeon 53xx to scale well.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
30 Comments
View All Comments
2ManyOptions - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
... for most of the benchmarks Intel chips performed better than the Opterons, don't know why Intel should get scared from these, they can safely wait for Barcelona. Didn't really understand why you have out it as AMD is still in game with these in the 4S space.baby5121926 - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
intel got scared because they dont want to see the real result from AMD + ATI.the longer intel lets AMD lives, the more dangerous intel will be.
that's why you guys can see Intel is attacking AMD really really hard at this meantime... just to kick AMD out of the game.
Justin Case - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
What are the units in the WinRAR results table?coldpower27 - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
Check Intel own pricing lists, and you will see that Intel has already pre-empted some of these cuts with their Xeon X5355 at $744 or Xeon E5345 at $455 and the "official" Xeon X5365 should be cout soon if not already...http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pricelist/proce...">http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pric...rice_lis...
TheOtherRizzo - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
I know nothing about 4S servers. But what's the essence of this article? Surely not that NetBurst is crap? We've known that for years. Is the real story here that Intel doesn't really give a s*** about 4S, otherwise they would have moved on to the core 2 architecture long ago? Just guessing.coldpower27 - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
Xeon 7300 Series based on the Tigerton core which is a 4 Socket Capable Kentsfield/Clovertown derivatives is arriving in Sepetember this year, so Intel does care in becoming more competitive in the 4S space, but it is just taking some time.They decided to concentrate on the high volume 2S sector is all first, since Intel has massive capacity, going for the high volume sector first makes sense.
mino - Monday, August 13, 2007 - link
Yes and no, actually to have two intel quads running on a single FSB was a serious technical problem.Therefore they had to wait for 4-FSB chipset to be able to get them out the door. Not to mention the qualification times which are a bit onger for 4S platforms that 2S.
AMD does not have these obstacles as 8xxx series are essentially 2xxx series from stability/reliability POW.
Calin - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
The 5160 processor is Core2 unit, not a NetBurst one. Also, the 5345 is a quad core based on Core2jay401 - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
People built 3.0GHz - 3.33GHz E4300 & E4400 systems six months ago that cost roughly $135 for the CPU. Others went for an E6300 or more recently an E6320, both again under $200.They were all relatively easy overclocks.
Why does anyone with any skill in building their own computer care about an $800+ CPU again?
Calin - Monday, August 6, 2007 - link
Why don't Ford Mustangs use a small engine, overclocked to hell? Like an inline 4 2.0l with turbo, and a high rpm instead of their huge 4+ liter engines?Why do trucks use those big engines, when they could get the same power from a smaller, gasoline, turbocharged engine?
People pay $800+ for processors that work in multiprocessor systems (your run of the mill Athlon64 or E4300 won't run). Also, they use error checking (and usually error correcting) memory in their systems - again, Athlon64 doesn't do this. They also use registered DDR in order to access more memory banks - your Athlon64 again falls short. On the E4300 side, the chipset is responsible with those things, so you could use such a processor in a server chassis - if the socket fits.