Intel Xeon 3.6 2MB vs AMD Opteron 252 Database Test
by Jason Clark & Ross Whitehead on February 14, 2005 8:00 AM EST- Posted in
- IT Computing
"Order Entry" Stress Test results
Our Vendor test has received quite a bit of interest from certain processor vendors, rightfully so as the workload is quite difficult to recreate. As you can see from the results below, we have a completely different outcome from the SQL Stress results. The extra 1MB of L2 cache on the Xeon part made a significant difference. In a test formally dominated by the Opteron, the Xeon now takes a 12% lead. This test obviously benefits from the added cache, and the 800MHz front side bus does a much better job of moving the data than the slower bus architectures of the Xeon platform. In a previous article, we tested a 4MB Xeon part, and it barely managed a 3% gain over the Opteron - times have changed.
To give you an idea of the scale of this benchmark, we have graphs of stored procedures calls per second. We decided to focus on Stored Procedures / Second rather than Transactions / Second, as the definition of a Transaction can have a business context or a technical context.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
97 Comments
View All Comments
bob661 - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
#14The difference is the 2xx can go up to 2 CPU's and the 8xx can go up to 8 CPU's. That's it.
Ross Whitehead - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
R3MF, we plan to discuss w/ AMD and Tyan the lack of benefit the 1 GHz HyperTransport provided.Jason Clark - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
ceefka, meager? 3 of the most popular uses of a database? If there is something you think we are missing, please reveal ;).We'll work on a web article asap.
ksherman - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
is it just me, or did you take the best Xeon and put it against a mid range Opteron? what about the 8xx series? what is the difference between 2xx and 8xx?blackbrrd - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
Seems Intel just turned the table again. What about webserver performance?blckgrffn - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
I meant on the desktop, which is why the PM doesn't really count, sorry I wasn't more clear on that...blckgrffn - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
I hope that the upcoming prescotts with 2meg L2 cache show similar improvements across the board - not because I am Intel fan, but really AMD hasn't had much in the way of direct competition from Intel lately (the PM doesn't count)Every benchmark has been: The 3000+ AMD64 is better than nearly any P4 for gaming performance, and if you really want to win all the benches but one or two, shell out for the fx-55... kind of boring, really :)
ceefka - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
However meager the benchies, it proofs my point that a company should mix and match according to their needs and not just stick with one or the other because their supplier says they shoud buy this or that.We have lots of financial data and scans, tables etc. going here, so a 4-way Opteron can be justified to sit between a few Xeon boxes for other apps. Unfortunately we're in the Intel comfort zone and browsing through accounts, scans and tables is therefore tedious.
R3MF - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
just because i'm awkward -i'd like to see a comparison between a:
> FX55 (2.6GHz) & O252 (2.6GHz)
> nF4 Ultra & nF4 Pro (abit wln8+)
> 2x 512MB DDR500
> 2x 300GB Max10 NCQ
> 6800 Ultra
in order to see whether the core enhancements in the new Opteron make a difference........?
am i asking for too much? :p
gordon151 - Monday, February 14, 2005 - link
Yeah, this article needs to be re-written because the Opteron doesn't crush Xeon. These numbers are dubious!