Expensive Quad Sockets vs. Ubiquitous Dual Sockets
by Johan De Gelas on October 6, 2009 1:00 AM EST- Posted in
- IT Computing
SAP S&D 2-Tier
| SAP S&D 2-Tier | |
| Operating System | Windows 2008 Enterprise Edition |
| Software | SAP ERP 6.0 Enhancement package 4 |
| Benchmark software | Industry Standard benchmark version 2009 |
| Typical error margin | Very low |
The SAP SD (sales and distribution, 2-tier internet configuration) benchmark is an interesting benchmark as it is a real world client-server application. We decided to take a look at SAP's benchmark database. The results below all run on Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition and MS SQL Server 2005 database (both 64-bit). Every "2-tier Sales & Distribution" benchmark was performed with SAP's latest ERP 6 enhancement package 4. These results are NOT comparable with any benchmark performed before 2009. The new "2009" version of the benchmark obtains scores which are 25% lower. We analyzed the SAP Benchmark in-depth in one of our previous server oriented articles. The profile of the benchmark has remained the same:
- Very parallel resulting in excellent scaling
- Low to medium IPC, mostly due to "branchy" code
- Somewhat limited by memory bandwidth
- Likes large caches (memory latency!)
- Very sensitive to sync ("cache coherency") latency
And here are the results:
Some of you may have already made this analysis: the one year old Quad Xeon platform is outperformed by servers which are three times cheaper. The best dual Xeon makes the Quad Xeon look ridiculous as it outruns the latter by 15%. The Quad Opteron 2389 2.9 is getting a beating too, but his big brother, the Opteron 8435, takes revenge by running circles around the Intel hex-core: it is no less than 50% faster!
While performance is not the only factor to consider, the least you expect from a quad platform is that it offers somewhat better performance than a cheaper dual socket. This is exactly what we have been discussing in our "General IT" blog: the hex-core Opteron may tip the balance back in favor of a quad socket platform for a part of the server market. We are not impressed by the 30% performance advantage of a 24-core over an 8-core, and those looking for the highest raw performance will probably be disappointed. But for a large part of the market, performance is only one of the factors, and the 30% extra may well be good enough to convince people to consider a quad socket platform. Other factors like more memory and expansion slots, slightly better RAS capabilities and less power for the same number of applications might make a quad socket server a better choice for those people.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
32 Comments
View All Comments
Photubias - Wednesday, October 7, 2009 - link
This is surely to be tested, but the Fiorano platform (as this AMD Chipset is called), is yet to be released.solori - Wednesday, October 7, 2009 - link
Fiorano (SR5690/SP5100, et al) are out now for Socket-F and really require an Istanbul to show their stuff (like IOV, etc). With a minor tweak on HT bus speeds, don't expect to see much improvement in memory bandwidth for Fiorano/Socket-F pairings. Where you should see improvement is in power consumption - pairing HE/EE Istanbul parts with Fiorano/Kroner should create a better performance/watt result in virtualization.Collin C. MacMillan
http://blog.solori.net">http://blog.solori.net
bpdski - Tuesday, October 6, 2009 - link
It is pretty amazing how fast the new 55xx chips are. Personally, I am holding out on any new server purchases and deployments until the EX systems come out next year. I am pretty excited about the performance potential of a dual or quad octal-core system. I feel for AMD, but if the EX systems scale as well as they should, they are really going to crush the Opterons.duploxxx - Wednesday, October 7, 2009 - link
2 answers to that, first off all looking at the design EX will be way more expensive creating a gap between 2 socket-4 socket platform even when only deploying 2 octa will be a very expensive baseline due to the motherboard layout. To expensive actually and a lot of focus trying to get risc/sparc marketshare.Second don't you think AMD knows this? The c32 G34 platform launch is much closer then people think, AMD made a clear roadmap and since 45nm all looks like going well on shape, keep in mind the cpu for the new platform is almost ready since it is based on istanbul and the new platform chipset was also released few weeks ago for the socket F platform, you will also see much more OEM activity with this platform due to one brand supplier, no longer need of the old nvidia/broadcom.
EX was delayed-delayed-delayed if it continues like this it will be launched more or less at the same time, so keep the feeling. BTW even if the 55xx sereis would be again a bad performing server part (which it is finally not thank you intel) 75% of the market would be still buying it just for the brand name.....:)
cosminliteanu - Tuesday, October 6, 2009 - link
Many thanks for this article !:)
BrightCandle - Tuesday, October 6, 2009 - link
A dual socket will easily fit in a 1U. But 1.25A is some serious extra cost within a colo.The 2U quad sockets on the other hand are a busting 500W+, again serious extra money in a colo.
The Colo's want you using 0.5A per 1U, there is a major mismatch from these machines to the reality of the power you can actually get. Love the speed, not liking the cost of running them.
sonicdeth - Tuesday, October 6, 2009 - link
Thanks for this. Personally I can't recommend any of the quad socket systems until we see Intels Nehalem-EX early next year. The dual core 55xx series is just fantastic for the price (especially with VMware). We've deployed several HP 380G6's and couldn't be happier.Bazili - Tuesday, October 6, 2009 - link
Great article. Congrats!!!Could you pleas include a software price analysis? I guess it can show huge differences among a 24 core box and a 8 core box.
tobrien - Tuesday, October 6, 2009 - link
these are amazing articles, you guys do such an awesome job with these.thanks a ton!
JohanAnandtech - Wednesday, October 7, 2009 - link
Thanks for the kudos! much appreciated :-)