Software Configuration
Windows Tests
Windows 2003 Enterprise 64-bit was used for the tests along with SQL Server 2005 64-bit.

Linux Tests
CentOS 4.2 x86_64 was used along with MySQL 5.0.18 x86_64.

Hardware Configuration
Intel Paxville System
Quad 3.0 GHz Paxville Dual Core Processors (667Mhz FSB / 2x2MB L2)
E8500 (Twin Castle 4S) Xeon MP Truland Platform
16GB DDR2
8 x 18GB 15,000RPM Ultra320 SCSI drives in RAID-0
LSI Logic 320-2 SCSI Raid Controller

HP DL585 Opteron System
HP Proliant DL585 System
Quad Opteron 880 Dual Core Processors
16GB DDR
8 x 18GB 15,000RPM Ultra320 SCSI drives in RAID-0
LSI Logic 320-2 SCSI Raid Controller

Benchmark Configuration

Many of you will notice that we've finally transitioned our benchmark platform to 64-bit. It's been a long road getting there; we were constantly trying out builds of SQL 2005 64-bit as it was in development, and had mixed results. The final build produced viable numbers, and we've fully transitioned to SQL 2005 for all future benchmarks.

Our goal throughout the tests was a constant CPU usage of 80-90%; we didn't want to reach the point of system saturation, nor did we want the systems to have too many idle cycles. Each test was first verified and then run 3 times. The standard deviation for the tests is 3-4%. We then averaged the set of three runs to produce the final result.

Linux MySQL Tests

SysBench 0.4.3 was used for the MySQL tests. We ran 4 different tests for each platform. The first two tests consisted of accessing 1M rows in a read-write scenario, and 1M rows in a read-only scenario. The second tests were the same only with 10M rows.

MSSQL Forum Test

The forum benchmark is a standard mid-tier OLTP test, which was made by replicating live query data from our forum database during peak hours. We took those queries and then record them in an XML file, with random row ID generators to handle keeping the test as real-world as possible. We wrote a C# application which takes the test and plays it back using several threads to stress the database to a desired level.

Dell DVD Store

The DVD Store Version 2 (DS2) is a complete online e-commerce test application, with a backend database component, a web application layer, and driver programs. The goal in designing the database component as well as the mid-tier application was to utilize many advanced database features (transactions, stored procedures, triggers, referential integrity) while keeping the database easy to install and understand. The DS2 workload may be used to test databases or as a stress tool for any purpose. The test is maintained by Dave Jaffe and Todd Muirhead from Dell. We configured the test to hit the database directly, instead of using a web-tier; we're testing database performance, and that removes any unneeded complexity and possible discrepancies.

Technology Outlook Benchmark Results
Comments Locked

35 Comments

View All Comments

  • massimor - Friday, April 28, 2006 - link

    I swear this is not to inject some IBM marketing into this valuable discussion (I have technical role myself within IBM and have very little to do with marketing) but I was wondering if you have evaluated running the same test on a system with a NON-vanilla Intel 8500 chipset. IBM develops its own X3 chipset to power the XEON MP servers in the x366 and x460 servers and that is supposed (actually known) to be much better than the Intel base kit.

    More info here:
    http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RW...">http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RW...

    ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/eserver/benchmarks/wp_X...">ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/eserver/benchmarks/wp_X...


    It would have been interesting to see how the AMD based system would compare to an X3 based system. On other benchmark it's usually a head-to-head.

    Massimo.
  • bjbrock - Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - link

    is mostly true. One thing that has come out from an AMD consurtium is the Hypertransport v3. This will definitely affect the multi-processor server issue. From clusters to SMP.
  • Art - Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - link

    Would it be possible to provide details on memory configuration of both systems?
    Performance may depend significantly on the specific configuration. So, the test results without this type of detail don't make much sense.

    Important details for Intel system:
    1) Number of memory boards (this is equivalent to memory channels used)
    2) Number of DIMMs per memory board
    3) Memory mode (Max Performance, Max Compatibility, RAID, Mirroring)
    4) Agjacent Cache Line Prefetch (enabled or disabled)
    5) Hardware Prefetcher (enabled or disabled)

    Important details for AMD system:
    1) Memory speed (DDR400, DDR333, or DDR266)
    2) ECC disabled or enabled
    3) Chip Kill disabled or enabled

    Thanks,
    Artem

  • johnsonx - Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - link

    Also, is the memory on the Opteron running node-interleaved or NUMA? Any comparitive benchmark numbers between the two modes?
  • deathwalker - Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - link

    "AMD is reported to have 81.5% of the US retail PC market with Intel sitting at 18.5%". A very interestng statistic. How much bigger would the margin be if the World wide leader in PC sales "Dell" would crack open the door for AMD? Alas though, that will not happen as long as Intel keeps Dell executives and board members pockets padded.
  • tygrus - Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - link

    You said,
    quote:

    How much bigger would the margin be if the World wide leader in PC sales "Dell" would crack open the door for AMD?

    US Retail does not include Dell's direct sales, thus no inherant change in US retail sales figures.
    It's a part of a part of a part of the total world-wide microprocessor sales.

    Inte have trouble sharing FSB amongst more points. It's easier when it's on CPU but it's not for free. When they first went to dual-core they used 800MHz FSB instead of the EE 1066MHz and was first available for only single socket systems. This pattern continues as Intel introduces new products with limited FSB speed.
  • trivik12 - Monday, April 24, 2006 - link

    Intel does not seem to care on MP side. Only Tulsa (last release in netburst?) with insane amount of cache is releasing. They will not be competitive until Tigerton releases mid-2007. I guess cancellation of whitefield is the culprit.
  • peternelson - Monday, April 24, 2006 - link


    "AMD is completely quiet about anything other than a socket and memory controller change;"

    Yes we heard that new Opteron 1xx would be on AM2 and Opteron 2xx and 8xx would be on the new socket F.

    We hear plenty about the AM2 launch (including being brought forward, and motherboards).

    Things have gone quiet on the socket F. What is the latest news Anandtech? Because if everything is moving to DDR2 we ought to buy Opterons AFTER the migration rather than before. And what sort of motherboards are going to be launched to support it? Hoping to see some interesting offerings from the usual suspects like Tyan, Iwill etc.

    It just would be nice to hear the odd Anandtech story to confirm things are still on some kind of schedule. If it were not for the upcoming migration I would have bought a cluster of Opterons already.
  • themelon - Monday, April 24, 2006 - link

    Did the DL585 you guys used run the memory at 266MHz? The one that I have does but it is about 2 years old so they may have changed the specs on it.
  • GrammatonJP - Monday, April 24, 2006 - link

    Coming from a long time enterprise xeon user, its sad that intc can't even keep up.. its even sadder that my infrastructure is already setup and I can't get one of these AMD machines in till we hit our load on the current xeons.. :(

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now