AMD Opteron 248 vs. Intel Xeon 2.8: 2-way Web Servers go Head to Head
by Anand Lal Shimpi & Jason Clark on December 17, 2003 9:15 AM EST- Posted in
- IT Computing
AMD Updates their 2xx Series
When the Opteron was launched back in April, it was launched at 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8GHz speeds with support for up to two processors and DDR333 memory. Since then, as we’ve already mentioned, 4-way setups have been announced (Opteron 8xx series) and higher clock speeds have debuted as well. More recently, support for DDR400 has been announced so that the Opterons are no longer running any slower or with fewer features than the Athlon 64 FX.
The Opteron’s naming system can be a little confusing at first, so let’s revisit that given the current batch of CPUs out there.
With the Opteron, AMD introduced their first-ever 3-digit naming system for server/workstation CPUs. The first digit indicates whether the CPU was designed for 1-way, 2-way or 4- to 8-way operation. For example, the Opteron 100 series is only validated for use in uniprocessor configurations while the Opteron 200 series is validated for use in uni- and dual processor configurations. Finally, the Opteron 800 series is validated for use in up to 8 processor configurations.
Note that we used the phrased “validated for use” because there is very little stopping an Opteron 100 CPU from being used in a dual processor environment (an Opteron 100 is identical to an Opteron 200 and an Opteron 800). As far as we know at this point, AMD has not prevented CPUs from being used in configurations in which they weren’t intended to be used. Although, it wouldn’t be too hard for them to prevent it in the future if it becomes a problem.
The second two digits in the Opteron name are what determine the “performance” of the part and currently, the remaining two digits of Opteron 1xx, 2xx and 8xx series processors are comparable to one another.
Currently, the Opteron is available in clock speeds ranging from 1.40GHz to 2.20GHz in 200MHz increments, which correspond to the following parts:
Opteron 140, 240, 840 = 1.4GHz
Opteron 142, 242, 842 = 1.6GHz
Opteron 144, 244, 844 = 1.8GHz
Opteron 146, 246, 846 = 2.0GHz
Opteron 148, 248, 848 = 2.2GHz
Just recently, the x48 parts were launched, and with them, the Opteron gained support for DDR400 memory. Support for DDR400 has trickled down to all members of the Opteron family, but only certain revisions of the CPUs support DDR400. To tell whether or not a CPU has DDR400 support, you will have to look at the last two digits of its part number. If they are “AL”, “AK” or “AM”, then the CPU is a Rev C0 CPU and it supports DDR400. If the part number ends in “AH”, “AG” or “AI”, then the CPU is an older revision and does not support DDR400 memory.
For this review, we are only comparing Opteron 248 and 244 parts. We will take a look at the performance of the new 8xx parts in a 4-way configuration in our upcoming database server performance shootout.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
43 Comments
View All Comments
Blackbrrd - Wednesday, March 3, 2004 - link
It would be nice to see how the Xeon 2,8GHz DP 533mhz bus (no L3 cache) does against the Opteron 242 set up, as the price for these are about the same. As it is the fastest Intel CPU I can buy from for instance DELL is a 3,2GHz DP with 1MB L3 cache.As it is, we will be buying an Opteron server quite soon, based on the outcome of these benchmarks.
About using a ramdisk: what they have actually tested is how a java webserver performs on the different CPU's. I am working in a small company that uses a java webserver with quite a bit of business logic, not just db inserts updates and selects. This test was about as spot on as you can get.
Happy to see a site that isn't only doing game pc benchmarking :)
Ben98SentraSE - Sunday, January 11, 2004 - link
First off, GREAT article. I check this site several times a day to see when the next review(s) in this area come out! :)I am the IS Manager at a medium-sized credit union and we are converting our core processing application from one that runs on an overpriced Unisys A-Series mainframe (good riddance) to one that runs on Oracle and Windows Server 2003. From Anandtech's articles (as well as a few other reviews around the web) I plan on purchasing Opteron servers to run this new system. Today I can run 32-bit and be fast, and tomorrow when Oracle's AMD64 version of 9i comes out of developer release and either when the AMD64 version of Server 2003 comes out or we become comfortable enough with Linux+Oracle, we can be faster. The point of stating this is just another prop to Anandtech's team that their IT Computing reviews are affecting purchasing in the real world at places like where I work that can purchase the best equipment for the job and for the price, regardless of brand. (thankfully!)
If I could ask for ANY changes to Anandtech.com's reviews, I'd request a larger focus to IT computing. It is hard for me to find sources of information on server-type performance benchmarks in as much depth as Anandtech goes into them.
Jason Clark - Saturday, December 20, 2003 - link
There we go :) Less confusing zuni = jason clark.Zuni - Saturday, December 20, 2003 - link
Trog, sure I did Zuni = Jason Clark I'll change my nic to my real name shortly as it is confusing. I co-wrote the article with anand.Visual,trog:
The database side of this equation is coming, we're just waiting on some cabling for our u320 drive chasis.
Visual - Saturday, December 20, 2003 - link
Zuni, thanks for responding, whoever you are ;)Seems you'll need to run some DB benches on those cpus, or even DB and webserver at once, for this review to be complete... as for me, I'm curious about how much better the A64 can be in 64bit mode :)
I'm eager to see your next articles, and I want to say thanks to the whole AnandTech team for the great site you're making :)
TrogdorJW - Friday, December 19, 2003 - link
Ugh... I feel like we keep talking past each other. I know and understand that the database was not being used as part of *this* benchmark. My point is that database operations are often a pretty major part of many web servers out there, so, I am curious as to what performance is when you're running the database and web server and everything else together on one system. Consider it a request for a future benchmark, not a fault with the present case.As an example, say you have some business that doesn't have a whole lot of money to spend on a server, so they're looking at a Linux box running Apache web server and PHP/MySQL. Certainly, this setup on a single system will not be able to handle a huge amount of traffic, like the Anandtech.com web site. However, I would like to see how much traffic such a system *can* handle. And how does the Athlon 64/FX compare to the Pentium 4 in such an arena? Is disk I/O more of a factor, or does the Athlon architecture actually do better?
Any chance of getting such a benchmark done? Not necessarily with those specific applications, of course, but something similar? Or, if that's a pointless benchmark, please give reasons... maybe it's already been tested by others? Whatever.
Thanks for the responses, though. And you never answered: is "Zuni" Anand or Jason, or is it someone else who just worked with those two on the article?
Zuni - Friday, December 19, 2003 - link
Essentially using a ramdisk allowed neither cpu to have a limit on its scalability. That's what we were after, and doing that without having expensive raid arrays that are only used when we run a server test. It provided no benefit to either manufacturer it just allowed neither to be limited in any fashion. It worked well, and the numbers show that. I sure hope we can run itanium, we're trying to get ahold of one for you guys.Cheers, and everyone have a great holiday!.
Falco. - Friday, December 19, 2003 - link
Zuni, thanks for all the replies, and please keep in mind that most of the replies are not from me, but from a friend of mine that knows ALOT more about this then i do :-)Abraxas - Friday, December 19, 2003 - link
trogdorjw, in the article it states that the database WAS a bottleneck as you've pointed out, however, it does say "particularly with the opteron." to me this is saying that the database was not a bottleneck with the xeon servers and moreso with the opteron, ie the opteron was only maxed out when using the ramdisk and did not have as much of a performance advantage without it. this would not mean that the opteron had NO advantage over intel with a more normal disk setup. the article also pointed out that even the lower-end opterons (240) would have an advantage over the fastest xeons. this would be even more true under your suggested "real world" setting.i can't wait to see the itanic vs opteron comparison :)
Zuni - Friday, December 19, 2003 - link
Thanks for the feedback, appreciate it. If you have further suggestions or applications you feel could be tested post them here.Cheers