Server processor choice: Intel Xeon 5500 or AMD Opteron 2400 ?

H

HDClown

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 30, 2004
Messages
222
HP servers, dual socket boxes (such as 380G6/385G6). Servers all running VMware. I Can go either way between Intel or AMD here. New environment from ground up.

So far I've come up with the following:

Intel
-Quad-Core
-DDR3-1066 RAM = 50% more memory bandwidth over AMD
-more max RAM per box (192g in a 380G6)
-more expensive processor cost
-uses more power = more costly to run
-better performance PER core and more efficancy PER core

AMD
-6-Core = the 2436 2.60ghz proc is about 30% more GLOPS than Intel's 2.66ghz X5570
-DDR2-800 RAM
-lass max RAM capacity per box (128g in a 385G6)
-cheaper processor cost at a
-uses less power = cheaper to run
-recommended by HP's server configuration for every server type with high concurrent count
-makes up for lack of PER core efficiancy with 2 extra cores

The figures quote about are based on tests done with Intel X5570 and AMD 2435. To give an example of cost difference, the raw proc purchased online for AMD 2435 are about $1000/ea, and and the Intel X5570 is about $1500. When translated into the cost of an actual server with these products, you end up paying about 40% more on the total cost of the SERVER to get the Intel proc's, which is a hefty difference.

The Nehalem is the more advanced processor in general, with more memory bandwidth, but 2 extra core's in AMD's proc makes it better for RAW CPU calculation

General concensus and idea today seems to be that it's probably splitting hairs for a VMware platform, but I'm looking for as much info and opinions I can get from people.

Thoughts?
 
Information not enough. Base on your generic description, it seems you maybe willing to load up the units (desc on 192GB RAM). When you are preparing on this level, there are many additional things to consider, pardon me I am not a native english speaker, for lack of proper term, your "overall scheme"

For example, there are at least two different ideas. One or two fully protected super server/s, or multiple lighter servers protecting each other. Your storage and backup recovery environment and methods are items that require early attention.

We can deduce number, but it will not be enough without some idea of your intended software usage. Outside of enterprise environment, the relevant industry expert at doing this kind of analysis are some reputable large scale hosting providers, especially those doing vps. They earn their living utilizing the server to the max with reasonable service level handling volatile customers that may go anytime on a short notice and generally paying on monthly basis
 
lightp2,

You are referring to many things that do not have a large factor in CPU choice. Server sizing would be the only thing relevant item, but backup and storage are not relevant to CPU choice. I'm not looking for input on the virtual environment as a whole, but rather specifically CPU choice.

Referring to your server sizing question, I do not have plans to max our RAM in a server because 8g sticks of RAM are way to expensive, and likely will be for some time. Maxing out a box with 4g sticks would be easily doable and probably common. As ND40oz mentions, RAM (and I/O) are always the biggies for virtual environments, and my experience matches that. You can easily chew up 8-12gigs of RAM on a light use (100 user Exchange server VM). So where my mention of RAM comes into place is # of slots. On rackmount servers I am currently looking into, AMD boxes I'd be looking at only have 12 slots which is 48gigs of RAM w/4g sticks, vs 18 slots in an Intel box equating to 72g of RAM. That provides a favorable advantage for Intel based on current setup. I'm sure AMD's new CPU's due out in 2010 will allow for more RAM, and thus more slots and ability to use more of the less expensive 4g sticks. If I look at blade servers, it's a different ballgame. The big beffy BL600c's have 32 DIMM slots in them for AMD procs.

I also try to plan for contingencies. So, as an example, while I might want 6 leight weight servers, reality might mean that if I had 3 existing boxes with capacity for faster CPU's and more RAM, that I end up beefing those up for cost, time, or some other reasons I cannot forcase for.
 
Last edited:
I do not know where to start so i have to start somewhere. This is purely academic with no actual measurement and analysis so please don't take my guess and post too seriously.

All prices are reference and you definitely will get business discount if you asked around properly and your company appears to be serious long-term customer with big potential, therefore I said there are many factors in consideration, not necessary clock-speed. :)

System 1 - HP DL380G6
2 x Xeon X5550 2.66GHz TB/HT
64GB RAM DDR3-10600 Registered
2 x 72 GB 2.5" SAS (system disk, assume external storage)

System 2 - HP DL385G6
2 x Opteron 2435
64GB RAM DDR2-800 Registered
2 x 146 SAS 3.5" (System Disk, assume external storage)

Pricing reference
Opteron unit 1 - 0.5
Opteron unit 2 - 0.5
Xeon unit 1 - 0.9

i got the relative figure by going to HP US website and generate desired config. I understand HP has so many ways you can fine-tune proposal and admit I may not be choosing the most optimal config. This is an academic discussion.

In a VM environment. If I knew I had little additional resource,control or cooperation from anybody, I will deploy Opteron. I will also deploy Opteron for many concurrent environment where top speed is not needed, which is usually the case. In uncontrolled VM environment, there tend to be good ones and also headache cases, mirroring real life. The ability to carve a niche for corner cases without major impact to everybody is important for me. i did this for Linux/unix special environment setup. I understand you can set resource limit on VMware. I prefer (lesser number VM/slower core) rather than (higher number VM/powerful core.)

In a more controlled environment with everything reverse and software works where you can clearly see Xeon's benefit, I would then consider the Xeon setup. I think there must be a lot of valid cases, judging from Xeon's revenue. However I unfortunately cannot give you example here. I do agree Xeon is good and I would not hesitate to get one if I have budget and good usage cases.

Edit 1: To be frank, unscientific, but I do not think 64GB is beneficial on the Opteron setup in this case. More than 48GB, it should split into another server. Anyhow I do not have actual experience using such huge-mem server so ask other enterprise users with real data.

Edit 2 : Before anybody shoot me down with post about where's the CPU performance as requested by OP? Without knowing the exact software situation I simply suggest the 2-units of Opteron will match with the Xeon setup. With Opteron more on total throughput, and the Xeon better on software which demand faster immediate response than possible by Opteron, aka the IPC and clock-speed advantage.
 
Last edited:
software load is a microsoft environment. Domain Controllers, File/Print Servers, IIS Servers, SQL Servers, etc. That's the bulk of the environment. Scales to support the need.

There will be random applications running on 2008 R2 boxes, like blackberry server, anti-virus, etc., the usuall culprits for any business.

It's unknown what CRM will be, in-house or with salesforce.com, that's the only potential biggie I cannot account for today. Same for the accounting system. Not sure what it will be, but we might be talking 20-30 users on an accounting system at most.

But as a whole, the environment will be a fairly well controlled environment, using all main-stream software.

Pricing on the Opteron 2435 is vastly superior to the Intel X5550, which is it's best competitor at a clock-for-clock Ghz speed. However, if you step to the E5540 at 2.53ghz, which runs at 1066 mem speed instead of 1333, and slightly less QPI over the X5550, the actual processor cost of 2435 vs E5540 become almost identical. This method of comparison does incorporate a performance hit when compared to the 2435's.

I read the AnandTech articles linked and they provide a lot of good information and speculation as to how things may change. AMD is not poised to put out much more than a slightly revised 6-core Opteron for 2010, but Intel will have a 5500 series 6-core proc (Westmere-EP), and their new Nehalem-EX 8-core proc. It's expected the Nehalem-EX will beat out AMD's current 8-core proc, which is king of proc's right now. Likewise, Intel's 6-core Westmere-EP (built on Nehalem architecture), should easily out-perform AMD 6-core proc, and it's supposed to be reasonbly priced, similar to AMD's Opteron 2400's.

So it seems like Intel may be the same bet through 2010, based on what is coming. In 2011, AMD is poised to drop their 12-core procs, but Intel may be onto 16-core procs by then. It's certainly a flip-flop game. But based on info I can collect today, it seems like for the year 2010, Intel is the smart move in terms of technology and power. It may just mean a small price premium, but probably less premium then you pay today.
 
You have valid points. That's why I said there are so many potential factors when you have passed certain budget level point, those start to come into picture. I apologies for the following rambling :)

Just so we can have some common understanding, once your project is big enough, financial and political issues come into place. Unless you are absolutely engineering focus such as running data centre, normal SME usually works like this. I only have $X, I want A/B/C/D/E. I need G-ms response on zillion transactions, if possible, give me SLA, I will ask all the software vendors to come in to implement but usually internal people will have minimal advanced knowledge of their arrival and how it works. What? you do not agree and you want to extend their stay so we can agree with the final spec? $ZZ/day consulting fee. Over budget? more money? where's your superior? complaint about outside source? would you consider doing it yourself with no additional benefits? Save cost from other area? You want to let HP/Dell/EMC/NetApp deal with the problem or you want to contribute your engineering time working on your own with X-users and company business on the line? user resentment, problematic software? deal with it, Finance says I understand your grave concern but I can only give you this amount $X, No? ok lets cancel your project and give it to others, the list goes on. :)

So under certain circumstances, sometimes admin will engage defensive measure possible within their own domain, RAM is the number one choice because it can mask or reduce impacts on many technical areas. RAM is expensive but it is not as expensive as teams of outside consultant/software expert lurking around in your compound daily trying to optimize things for you. :) Having buffer CPU cycle or easy route for improvement is important because top management will not give you a whole new setup again in Y years. Hence your points on the CPU choice.

The Opteron 2400 series will be the last DDR2 generation after that I think they plan to move to DDR3 soon. If you switched to E5540 for reduced cost, performance will drop a bit but it should still be fine and I agree RAM should have higher priority. However, just in case your budget is cut in half and expectation remains, the guesstimate figures may help.

To summarise
1. Intel Xeon is known better performance-wise under majority cases, Intel expects you to pay premium for the benefits.
2. The key point is to what extend are you willing to pay for the premium. There are surprisingly varied potential factors relevant in searching for a conclusion.

Edit 1 : slight update and add summary

cheers
 
Last edited:
The X5550 TDP is 95w while the Opteron 2435 TDP is 75W so we are only talking about a +/- 40 TDP for both. That decision should not hold you back unless you are talking about a huge data center.

As HDClown stated, you could go with the E5540 and get an 80W TDP to make the cpu almost even.

I personally would go for the Intel Xeon system. More available ram expansion and good upgrade path for future processors. Also very good VM performance if you move more applications that way.
Turbo Mode will also help speed up processing time when other loads are light.
 
I made the decision to go with Intel Xeon proc's. Another person I have been talking with made the comment about new processors being drop-in replacements, something I had not thought about.

The public roadmap from Intel for 2010 shows the 6-core Westmere-EP being Xeon 5500 series and using the same 5520 chipset the current quad-core Xeon 5500's use. That should mean I could drop in those 6-core proc's into any existing Xeon 5500 box, as long as the manufacturer proides a BIOS update, which there is no reason for them not too. These new 6-core proc's are also supposed to be "affordable", supposedly being priced to match the revised 6-core Opteron's coming out (see next paragraph).

The revised AMD 6-core Opteron's for 2010 will be moving to DDR3, which means new chipset and new motherboards, so a drop-in upgrade to the new gen 6-core Opteron's will not be possibly. Moving them to DDR3 also increases the overall cost to buy Opteron's, as the cost of DDR2 and a DDR2 system is part of the cost savings of an Opteron.

Once I factored this into everything else, it made the most sense to go with Intel. I'm trying to budget in a dual E5540 box (the X5550 is just too expensive), but the numbers are stupid to push the limits. I may end up with a dual E5520 box instead, which will be fine for this particular server as a starting point. Any future box I had to get prior to Intel 6-core procs being available ideally be X5550's, but E5540's would also be a fine choice as well, consideing the big cost savings.
 
The only difference between th 5500 & 5520 chipset that I am aware of is the additional pci-e lanes.
Both chip sets should be compatible with the 6 core cpus out in 2010.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top