With two Intel Quad-Core Clovertown processors and eight sticks of Kingston FB-DIMM DDR2 Phoronix set out to see the level of memory performance in an octal-core environment. Phoronix has tested the memory in single, dual, and quad memory channel configurations. Read the article to see how the Intel Xeon 5300 performs in various Fully Buffered Dual Inline Memory Module configurations.
and the fsb and non die mounted mmu still bites them in the a$$.
Even with the best of those numbers its only a 25% improvement, and none of the benchmarks were typical uses for a server. Start a few large transfers of data from disk to ram or disk to network and then do the same benchmarks and see if the benchmarks still hold up.
Everyone is raving about Intel dual core and core duo chips but where are the server type benchmark records?
Well doesnt seem like amd is doing any better now are they? You haeve to consider that with the ‘outdated’ fsb stuff Intel has the perofrmance crown no matter what way you slice it…whereas AMD does have the integrated MMU and the Hypertransport. Kind of amazing to think what numbers the Intel architecture would be pusing out if it did go MMU and CSI…
Well doesnt seem like amd is doing any better now are they?
perhaps you missed http://www.sun.com/x64/benchmarks/ over 100 word record benchmarks for AMD cpus.
Edited 2006-12-17 21:26
Hey nice link man. Never saw that. Are there any Sun hardware running on Intel quad core processors? I would sure like to see the numbers from them!
No. Sun are an Opteron & SPARC-only shop.
As for the article, there’s nothing unexpected in it – Intel craps on AMD for floating point performance; AMD craps on Intel for memory bandwidth. Clovertown doesn’t change a thing – it just makes it more polar.
I have to agree about the FSB. IMHO this should be junked ASAP. The Memory to CPU bottlneck is Intel’s biggest problem.
The raw CPU is fine but they are going to get hammered in late 2007 by the superior data shifting ability of AMD with their Hypertransport.
Server do a lot of bulk data shifting. At the present time, the biggest use of Quad Cores will be in the Server Market (Software Licenses permitting that is…) If you can’t get the data in and out of the CPU quicker that your main competitor then you are going to have real problem.
It’s ok for the likes of IBM & HP though as they have the resources to design good motherboards but for the rest of us, I see little or no gain over the current conroe CPU’s.
I have to agree about the FSB. IMHO this should be junked ASAP. The Memory to CPU bottlneck is Intel’s biggest problem. The raw CPU is fine but they are going to get hammered in late 2007 by the superior data shifting ability of AMD with their Hypertransport.
In reality AMD CPUs with superior data shifting ability get hammered by QX6700
http://www.hothardware.com/printarticle.aspx?articleid=911
In reality AMD CPUs with superior data shifting ability get hammered by QX6700
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?page=8&articleid=911
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?page=10&articleid=911
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?page=11&articleid=911
Basically, you have to buy a QX6700 to get anything that is significantly better than comparable AMDs, and you then have to ask yourself if it’s actually worth the money to get it. I suppose that’s the key question.
Additionally, Intel still don’t have anything comparable to Hypertransport which works better as memory size grows which is important servers. That’s why Intel have had to come up with FB-DIMMS, which AMD are somewhat less than keen on obviously. They also still don’t have on-die memory controllers either.
As far as servers are concerned, AMD’s architecture is just plain better. From a desktop and workstation (and servers – previous Xeons were terrible) point of view then Intel have improved significantly in performance from the rubbish they were producing before, but considering that Intel are still more expensive than AMD the question many people should ask is “Is it worth it?”
I have to admit your post sums it up quite well.
Intel do have a competitior to AMD’s hypertransport, CSI, technologically there is nothing wrong with it, the problem is, however, its not going to be released until 2008, which quite frankly, is unacceptable given what changes AMD have announced for their future line up.
With that being said, one wonders why Intel feel the need to go with CSI – NIH syndrome I guess; because given the across-industry support, hypertransport would be a nice fit for what Intel needs.
With that being said, there was a good article on the merits and downside of a integrated memory controller – although I understand Intel wish to avoid the pitfalls of one vs. the other, their responsiveness, outside the laptop space, to AMD’s product line up, has be quite pathetic to say the least.
Quite frankly, considering that the Core Duos are a whole revision further on than AMD in terms of their die size and on 65nm, and AMD have reached their absolute limit with 90nm, those results are nothing short of an embarrassment for Intel.
I fail to understand your point. How is Intel advantage with technological process is embarrasment for Intel?
Basically, you have to buy a QX6700 to get anything that is significantly better than comparable AMDs
Surely, you have to buy quad Intel cpu to get anything that is significatly better that quad AMD cpu. What did you expect?
, and you then have to ask yourself if it’s actually worth the money to get it. I suppose that’s the key question.
Sure it is, considering that quad AMD offerings are slower, more expensive (look at the Xeon vs Opteron or QX6700 vs FX series prices), and hotter (look at the QuadFX power consumption – twice as comparable Intel).
Additionally, Intel still don’t have anything comparable to Hypertransport which works better as memory size grows which is important servers.
In theory, yes. In practice, as shown in multiple reviews, Core2-based platform is clearly ahead of Opteron or QuadFX one. In addition, there are NUMA coherency issues which requires fine-tuned VM and can significantly affect performance.
but considering that Intel are still more expensive than AMD the question many people should ask is “Is it worth it?”
It’s cheaper or comparable. Check the prices.
How is Intel advantage with technological process is embarrasment for Intel?
Basically, because if their architectures really are that much better, moving to 65nm should have left AMD way, way, way behind on everything. Sadly for Intel, it hasn’t, and their cheaper CPUs are not showing as much as they should be. You’re going to have to buy the top end Core to get anything that is head and shoulders above an Opteron or even an Athlon.
Surely, you have to buy quad Intel cpu to get anything that is significatly better that quad AMD cpu.
Nope. Intel’s CPUs are based on a 65nm process. They should be able to do several fold the work of what the AMDs can do.
In practice, as shown in multiple reviews, Core2-based platform is clearly ahead of Opteron or QuadFX one.
The reviews simply don’t show that, including the one quoted. That was the point.
In addition, there are NUMA coherency issues which requires fine-tuned VM and can significantly affect performance.
Mmmmmm. No.
It’s cheaper or comparable. Check the prices.
The day you can show me a chip that Intel produces that is as cheap as the Sempron, Athlon or Opteron is the day I might consider an Intel CPU. As it is, Intels are still ridiculously overpriced.
Basically, because if their architectures really are that much better, moving to 65nm should have left AMD way, way, way behind on everything.
And it actually did.
Nope. Intel’s CPUs are based on a 65nm process. They should be able to do several fold the work of what the AMDs can do.
??? Smaller technological process doesnt improve performance directly, but allows higher frequencies and lower TDP.
The day you can show me a chip that Intel produces that is as cheap as the Sempron,
$40 Sempron, $40 Celeron. Who cares? Anyway, talk is about quad core not low-end stuff.
Athlon or Opteron is the day I might consider an Intel CPU. As it is, Intels are still ridiculously overpriced.
OK, let’s look at the facts:
E6400 box $215
X2 4200+ box $215
(Intel is faster and cooler)
Opteron 285 $630
Xeon 5140 $470
(Intel is faster and cooler)
Opteron 2220 $750
Xeon 5150 $670
(Intel is faster and cooler)
QX6700 2.66Ghz $1000
2 x FX-74 3Ghz = $1000
(Intel is faster and twice as cooler)
As it is, Intels are still ridiculously overpriced.
🙂
In practice, as shown in multiple reviews, Core2-based platform is clearly ahead of Opteron or QuadFX one.
The reviews simply don’t show that, including the one quoted. That was the point.
Maybe you need to re-read the reviews?
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTIzMywxLCxoZW50aHVz…
http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2772
In addition, there are NUMA coherency issues which requires fine-tuned VM and can significantly affect performance.
Mmmmmm. No.
Mmmmmm. Yes. When CPUs operate within the same address space (NUMA) each CPU should address the memory of other process via HT bus to other socket. So if the data is located in the memory of other CPU, the latency of the corresponding operation will be significantly higher than in case the data were in the processor’s own memory. The more sockets you add, the worse situation becomes, because it falls back to being limited by the number of HT connections and you have to multi-jump between sockets. So with multi-threaded loads where all threads work the same data (most cases) AMD NUMA implementation wouldnt perform much better than FSB because there is only one pipe to the memory on both the NUMA and the FSB model.
And it actually did.
Whatever. You can spend over the odds to get what you believe to be a significant performance increase. Even the reviews quoted say otherwise. Like I said – you need to buy a QX6700 to really get ahead of any of the AMDs. Not convincing when I’m looking for a good server CPU at the lowest price.
Smaller technological process doesnt improve performance directly, but allows higher frequencies and lower TDP.
Well yer (in theory – just ask any Macbook or laptop owner ;-))- and they still have nothing that will move right ahead of an AMD performance-wise apart from the QX6700. And guess what? It ain’t cheaper or even level.
Additionally, over the years AMD have quoted a maximum TDP and Intel a typical TDP – and they still do. You’ll find various differences around those figures with various benchmarks and reviews. A Core processor still eats over 20 watts at idle.
$40 Sempron, $40 Celeron. Who cares?
Intel simply have nothing to compare with the Sempron, or even the Athlons at the low-end.
E6400 box $215
X2 4200+ box $215
(Intel is faster and cooler)
Opteron 285 $630
Xeon 5140 $470
(Intel is faster and cooler)……..
And so on and so forth. I’m just wondering why you’re having to pull woefully slanted comparisons out of your ass and why you’re having to buy two FX-74s :-).
Let’s have a fair comparison of price. Here in the UK (prices pulled off nearest site and both with tax just to make it a bit realistic for someone to buy):
AMD Socket F Opteron 2216 2.4GHZ: £276.99 (545.596 USD)
Intel Xeon 5148 Active 2.33GHz Socket 771 4MB: £341.99 (673.663 USD)
I’m being fair and nice by picking that as well, and comparing both clock speed and the fact that both are Dual Core. Depending on what I pick Intels are at least twice the price the higher the spec I go for, and no Intel anywhere gets down to the price of that Opteron, combined with its power.
This price trend has been reflected for years now, all the way through Pentium 4s, Athlons, Xeons and Opterons. There’s a reason why gamers largely pick AMD and why Opteron became so popular – they’re very fast and just plain cheaper. The only difference is that Intel have now got their finger out and are producing the kind of performance they really should have been pushing out years ago for the ridiculous prices they charge. Not exactly headlines.
Mmmmmm. Yes. When CPUs operate within the same address space (NUMA) each CPU should address the memory of other process via HT bus to other socket. So if the data is located in the memory of other CPU, the latency…
I won’t dignify it with a response, since it’s pulled out of Intel’s marketing literature.
Suffice it to say that after years of usage, Opteron’s on-die memory controller and large memory usage is another area that has left Intel behind. FSB is widely known to suck so much ass it isn’t believable, particularly when compared with symmetric NUMA which is important here. If you don’t know that by now, well, can’t help you mate……. Might I suggest Google?
Like I said – if I want a server to use large amounts of memory, to be good and performant at handling multi threading and processing and to be cheap then it simply isn’t an Intel. Even now that Intel have shot some bolts by going with a 65nm die and pointing to every review under the sun it hasn’t changed a thing, or any of their shortcomings.
I also don’t really want a processor that eats over 20 watts at idle either, compared to around 7 watts for an AMD Brisbane processor. However, both companies produce a load of rubbish on an awful lot of TDP figures.
Edited 2006-12-19 22:45
Even the reviews quoted say otherwise
I really don’t understand why you continue to insist on that, but I’ll quote two summaries from reviews:
“Performance Summary: Throughout our entire suite of benchmarks, a system powered by Intel’s quad-core Core 2 Extreme QX6700 processor outpaced all of the QuadFX-based systems. The Intel-powered system also generally scaled better moving from two to four cores in the multi-threaded benchmarks.”
http://www.hothardware.com/printarticle.aspx?articleid=911
“The Intel Xeon 5160, a.k.a. Woodcrest, will simply be the most powerful server CPU this year. As our extrapolated calculations show, even a 2.6 GHz Woodcrest will outperform the current Opteron 285 with a 5 to 55% margin, nothing short of impressive.
Intel Xeon 5160 (Woodcrest)
Advantages:
* Best server performance across all applications
* Best Performance/Watt in the high end”
http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2772
Like I said – you need to buy a QX6700 to really get ahead of any of the AMDs
No, you need to buy QX6700 to get ahead of any of the quad-core AMDs. Any Core2-duo system will outperform any comparable Athlon X2 by significant margin. If you continue to disagree, please quote the exact benchmarks, because it seems you still havent read them.
And so on and so forth. I’m just wondering why you’re having to pull woefully slanted comparisons out of your ass and why you’re having to buy two FX-74s :-).
Because QX6700 is quad core and FX74 is dual-core and is being sold in pairs for QuadFX platform.
AMD Socket F Opteron 2216 2.4GHZ: £276.99 (545.596 USD)
Intel Xeon 5148 Active 2.33GHz Socket 771 4MB: £341.99 (673.663 USD)
You are comparing low-voltage Xeon 5148 with 40W TDP (which is significatly more expensive that 5140 with 65W TDP) versus standart Opteron 2216 with TDP 95W. Compare it against the Xeon5140 which is ~480USD, faster than a 2216, while still being cooler. Or compare the Xeon5148 agains 2216HE which is significatly more expensive and slower.
You can examine the benchmarks comparing Xeon vs Socket-F Opteron here: http://tweakers.net/reviews/646/16
There’s a reason why gamers largely pick AMD and why Opteron became so popular – they’re very fast and just plain cheaper
You seems to be stuck in 2005. Intel is the gamers CPUs of choice today, because Core2 CPUs are much faster and cost the same (re-read my E6400 vs Athlon X2 4600 example)
The only difference is that Intel have now got their finger out and are producing the kind of performance they really should have been pushing out years ago for the ridiculous prices they charge. Not exactly headlines.
I really suggest you to go and compare the real prices and performance figures.
Mmmmmm. Yes. When CPUs operate within the same address space (NUMA) each CPU should address the memory of other process via HT bus to other socket. So if the data is located in the memory of other CPU, the latency…
I won’t dignify it with a response, since it’s pulled out of Intel’s marketing literature. FSB is widely known to suck so much ass it isn’t believable, particularly when compared with symmetric NUMA which is important here.
(sigh) No, it’s not from Intel’s marketing literature. It’s just how NUMA works. Here is a good guide if you don’t believe me: http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/cpu/rmma-numa.html
Notice the symmetric NUMA issues such as a need for
NUMA-aware os and optimized multithreading applications.
If you don’t know that by now, well, can’t help you mate……. Might I suggest Google?
Sure, please google the Opteron vs Woodcrest benchmarks so you can find who are leading in terms of performance and scaling (hint: it’s Xeon, for instance look the anandtech article)
Edited 2006-12-20 03:52
I really don’t understand why you continue to insist on that, but I’ll quote two summaries from reviews:
I pointed out several comments ago that I don’t care about the reviews. I care about the actual specific benchmarks, several of which tell me that anything apart from a QX6700 does not beat an AMD to justify the price – especially on multi-threading.
Any Core2-duo system will outperform any comparable Athlon X2 by significant margin.
I would hope that they would in many scenarios considering that Intel can now do the same or more work in less space on the die with 65nm, but it simply isn’t the crushing victory Intel pretends. Certainly not to justify the price.
You seems to be stuck in 2005. Intel is the gamers CPUs of choice today, because Core2 CPUs are much faster and cost the same
No, they don’t cost the same because you’re simply comparing non-comparable processors with something that will make Intel look cheap. See the real price comparison.
I really suggest you to go and compare the real prices and performance figures.
I have, and I’ve given a real price comparison. It doesn’t add up. People buy AMDs not just because they perform really well but because they’re simply cheaper. All Intel have done is actually started to justify their exhorbitant prices in some small way.
(sigh) No, it’s not from Intel’s marketing literature. It’s just how NUMA works.
Sigh…… That article is just telling me that NUMA works, and works well, especially on a symmetric system performing multi-threading – which is what NUMA was designed for. What you came up with was Intel’s standard “Oh, it isn’t really any better than FSB” line. Put another way, FSB is no better than NUMA at all.
Sure, please google the Opteron vs Woodcrest benchmarks so you can find who are leading in terms of performance and scaling
Like I said – if I want a server to use large amounts of memory, to be good and performant at handling multi threading and processing and to be cheap then it simply isn’t an Intel.
I also don’t want a server system that consumes over 20 watts at idle either, so the power argument is just bogus. Now that AMD have a 65nm chip called Brisbane to ship we can make an effective assessment of both next year.
I care about the actual specific benchmarks, several of which tell me that anything apart from a QX6700 does not beat an AMD to justify the price – especially on multi-threading.
OK, so show that benchmarks.
No, they don’t cost the same because you’re simply comparing non-comparable processors with something that will make Intel look cheap. See the real price comparison.
What part of “E6400 vs 4600+ or QX6700 vs 2xFX-74” price and performance comparison you don’t understand?
People buy AMDs not just because they perform really well but because they’re simply cheaper. All Intel have done is actually started to justify their exhorbitant prices in some small way.
OK, we’ve compared the prices (why did you skip the Xeon vs Opteron example?), we’ve looked at the performance figures, and you are still repeating this “Intel exhorbitant prices” mantra. I honestly don’t know what else could be said besides raw numbers.
Sigh…… That article is just telling me that NUMA works, and works well, especially on a symmetric system performing multi-threading – which is what NUMA was designed for.
Which part of the following quotes you don’t understand?
“Thus, the memory non-uniformity, mentioned in the theoretical section of this article, is evident (of course, not only in latency terms, but also in terms of memory bandwidth). It confirms the necessity of not only NUMA-aware OS, but also of specially optimized multi-threaded applications, where each thread independently allocates memory for its data and works with its memory area.
The situation grows worse in case of non-NUMA-optimized multi-threaded applications that also deploy their data in memory of only one of the processor. This configuration may be even outperformed by traditional SMP modifications — the total throughput will be limited by the throughput of one of the memory controllers; access latencies will be uneven. ”
“Thus, the only adequate usage for Node Interleave is just for non-optimized multi-threaded applications, which will otherwise be limited by the memory bandwidth of one of the memory controllers.”
So you don’t have the universal NUMA mode: each one would either have it’s own drawbacks on a mixed software environment or require optimized applications.
Put another way, FSB is no better than NUMA at all.
Absolutely. More to say, FSB is technically ancient and worse than NUMA. But this doesnt change the facts that: a) NUMA has coherency issues which in many cases lead into significant latency increase. b) FSB is not a real bottleneck for current Xeon CPUs and despite it’s theoretically lower peak bandwith they still manage to perform better than Opterons.
I also don’t want a server system that consumes over 20 watts at idle either, so the power argument is just bogus.
No server would consume 20 watts at idle, because server contains not only CPU, but RAM, PSU, HDD, motherboard chips etc. More to say, servers are usually not in an idle state but doing something. And under load the Intel platform still stays cooler (you can google the brisbane 4200+ vs E6300 power comparison)
Now that AMD have a 65nm chip called Brisbane to ship we can make an effective assessment of both next year.
Brisbane is not in server chips for now, and Intel will have 45nm at the Q2 2007.
Edited 2006-12-21 01:22
and the fsb and non die mounted mmu still bites them in the a$$.
Well, if by “bittes in the ass” you mean significant performance lead over AMD offerings…
Even with the best of those numbers its only a 25% improvement
Yes, and it shows that octal-core Xeon setup is not limited by FSB.
and none of the benchmarks were typical uses for a server. Start a few large transfers of data from disk to ram or disk to network and then do the same benchmarks and see if the benchmarks still hold up.
http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2772
Intel is absolute performance leader in almost all benchmarks.
where are server type benchmarks?
those are all toy benchmarks where the main loop in the code fits in l2 if not l1 cache, and the total working set is only 4GB, so nothing really taxing to anything but the cpu.
where are server type benchmarks?
Well, if SPEC / SSL / Apache/PHP/MySQL / PostgreSQL / Java Webserving are not “server type benchmarks”, I think you need to explain what do you mean by this term.
those are all toy benchmarks where the main loop in the code fits in l2 if not l1 cache
PostgreSQL or Apache core fits in 1-4Mb or 128Kb L1 cache? Man, I wish it were true!
Anyway, code data size has little to do with memory bandwith and latency limitations. So what’s your point?
, and the total working set is only 4GB, so nothing really taxing to anything but the cpu.
I wonder, did you actually read the article? They tested 64bit systems ONLY running 64-bit Linux. WHere did you get this “4GB working set”?
Edited 2006-12-18 05:30
I think you need to scroll past the LMBench benchmarks and look at the server benchmarks in the 2nd half of the document.
What is the point of 8-core system to run single threaded benchmarks?
I suspect what under server workload, the rest of cores actually doing something useful.
Edited 2006-12-18 10:24
Exeptional nice system they throwed the benchmarks against.I’m sure it will be through the code while compiling my ebuilds.
…all the latency that is supposed to be associated with FB-DIMMs? I remember reading a previous Anandtech article about that. I think AMD might have something in the workstation/server space after all to hammer away a new lead with their new K8L end of next year…but it would not surprise me if Intel have already anticipated that possibility and with their tick tock strategy they will go ahead and possibly introduce version 1 of their CSI if not both the integrated MMU and CSI.
Tim Holwerdi
Hi, My name is Tim Holwerdi.
I am gonna tell you my last dream…
I am an Aszzhole in search of Notoriety…
I work in a Website that offers news of IT and Open Source.
I pretend that I do it for the sake of love for IT, but the fact is that, I am expecting good revenues for the
future…
If not, why should I loose my time looking for IT news in other IT Web Sites that offer what I am not able to
offer… for the sake of these IT weirdos geeks and Open source-free computing fanboys…? c’mon…
I think I know more than the rest, of course… and I am always right!
Yes, I know more than anyone of you about Computers, and about anything else you can imagine! even If many people prove me the contrary, I am still right…
Me and my Mac go together everywhere, I even sleep with it, which is somehow problematic, cause as you can imagine, is not easy to have sexual relations tru an USB port, or a FireWire one… but I am in love anyway!…
Anything that is not Mac or commercial, is just wacko rubbish!
And, of course, is not going to offer me anything, because all these Open Source weirdos have no future, and are not gonna advertise in my site, or pay me money… I dont even talk about the FSF retarded hippies!
At best the big companies that now move to Linux, and pretend to be Open Source, worth a little bit, and may be a source of revenues in the future if the have some sucess…
Cheers…
P.S. Apple Rocks… Linux sucks… (MS is very good also, cause they have plenty of money, and are the pattern of our great western Businnes Economic and social system…)