The Intel Xeon 5670: Six Improved Cores
by Johan De Gelas on March 16, 2010 3:39 PM EST- Posted in
- IT Computing
Final Words
In a few weeks, there will be new dual CPU offerings from both AMD and Intel. We will need to start over again, so any conclusion we make today has a very short lifespan. For those of you who did not find the right benchmark among the ones we presented here, we will add more benchmarks then. Power consumption is also on our to do list. Our first power tests show there is little difference between the power consumption of the same server whether it contains 32 nm six-core X5670 or 45 nm quad-core X5570 CPUs.
So what can we conclude so far? Add two cores and a few tweaks to a server CPU architecture which already has the fastest cores on the market and you’ll get very impressive results. Right now, the six-core Xeon wins every comparison with a similar dual CPU configuration. The interesting thing to note is that the margin varies heavily with the type of application.
ERP applications and OLTP databases benefit a lot from the increased L3-cache, hyperthreading and the extra cores. The result is that those applications show absolutely stunning results for Intel: the dual CPU platform is just as fast as AMD best quad CPU configurations. With twice the amount of performance per core there is simply no other option than Intel.
The a similar picture appears for the well scaling native applications such as OLAP or DSS databases. The Xeon 5670 did not slaughter the competition there, but it was still significantly ahead. Be aware though that many native applications will only scale well in certain scenarios. Database size, usage patterns, disk performance and other factors must all be considered. It is not because your application runs on Oracle or SQL Server that it will automatically make good use of the extra cores and threads. A single six-core Xeon will be fast enough in a lot of cases and a second CPU might only add 30% or so.
The only server of which the performance almost always scales well with extra cores is a virtualized one, providing there are no other hardware bottlenecks of course. If you are shopping around for a server which has to house lots and lots of light VMs (VDI comes to mind), the VMmark results point only in one direction: the new six-core Xeon. At the other end of the performance spectrum is our own “heavy duty” virtualization benchmarking. Running 8 very heavy VMs requiring 24 virtual CPUs runs still best on the Intel Xeon on ESX. When it comes to Hyper-V, the difference is a lot smaller. So for those of you who want to consolidate on Hyper-V, we would advise you to wait a few more weeks. Octal cores from Intel and AMD and twelve-cores from AMD will make the next server CPU comparison much more tense.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
40 Comments
View All Comments
Wireloop - Saturday, March 27, 2010 - link
After watching vApus' result for both Intel and AMD gear, the natural conclusion drawn is that Hyper-V is more optimized for the Opteron architecture than ESX since the latter achieves a lower Geometric Mean VM rate (on that platform).I guess it has something to do with maneuver of data into the L3 cache which is a critical condition for high multithreaded performance on the AMD platform. If so, my kudos to Microsoft.
mgbell - Friday, March 19, 2010 - link
Hey Anand,I think you should do set up a test pitting the Xeon line against their perspective i7 counterparts and run some workstation type tests. I would be very interested in any testing that had to do with video encoding/rendering. I am a video editor and would love to see a side by side comparison with a xeon sytem of the same speed against a core i7 system. Also just for fun turn off the second processor or turn it on so we can see what kinds of rendering benefits a second processor with 4/6 cores (8/12 threads) would gain.
Thanks
MB
lemonadesoda - Sunday, March 21, 2010 - link
I very much agree. It would be interesting to run a typical "enthusiast" or "workstation" application/benchmark just to see how it compares.I would like to see a Cinebench R10 comparison, a Everest PhotoWorxx, and a Fritz Chess Benchmark. Possibly a video encoding benchmark too.
A lot of enthusiasts run dual Xeons as workstations... you cant predict what software they will be running, but the above 3 tests are good general comparatives.
There are also servers providing other services like OCR or PDF generation. These Oracle database benchmarks are useful, but represent only one type of server/workstation use.
damianrobertjones - Thursday, March 18, 2010 - link
I'm sitting here at the end of and ADSL line with a fresh WIndows XP machine, all updates, new Kaspersky install.While waiting for an app to install I've visited this page....
Bang. Kaspersky popped up with a warning
Trojan downloader.java.agent.aw from www.googleadsenstats.ru/useralexey/files/gsb50.jar/Appletx.class
Do you have something against ie8 as this doesn't happen with Opera?
PLEASE MAKE YOUR SITE SAFE!
itsmeagain - Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - link
Any chance you could throw a couple of these in a mac pro and give us a preview?Shadowmaster625 - Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - link
The E5503 looks like the most reasonable and appealing server processor for those of us that live in the real world. Yet there are no benchmarks...Lukas - Thursday, March 18, 2010 - link
The 550x CPUs are crap. They don't have HyperThreading or TurboBoost. The only reason they exist is for a cheap entry price tag. If you don't need a lot of CPU (e.G. unvirtualized LOB software), better go with a 34xx series Xeon. A lot cheaper than the 55xx series.majortom1981 - Tuesday, March 23, 2010 - link
they also exist for government and public service contracts . We got a z600 with 4 gig ram ,1 5504 xeon, and an 80 gig 10k rpm enterprise sata drive (also nvida gpu) for $700. For just $239 i can add another 5504 .pvdw - Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - link
How come only Windows servers are being used. What about RHEL with a Tomcat or JBOSS bench (surely such exists).Lukas - Thursday, March 18, 2010 - link
Probably because the benchmarkers are not familiar with those platforms? Doing benchmarks on a platform about which you don't know enough will not give you any usable results.