Bulldozer for Servers: Testing AMD's "Interlagos" Opteron 6200 Series
by Johan De Gelas on November 15, 2011 5:09 PM ESTIntroducing AMD's Opteron 6200 Series
When virtualization started to get popular (ca. 2005-2007), there was a fear that this might slow the server market down. Now several years later, the server market has rarely disappointed and continues to grow. For example, IDC reported a 12% increase in revenue when comparing Q1 2010 and Q1 2011. The server market in total accounted for $12 billion revenue and almost two million shipments in Q1 2011, and while the best desktop CPUs generally sell for $300, server chips typically start at $500 and can reach prices of over $3000. With the high-end desktop market shrinking to become a niche for hardcore enthusiasts--helped by the fact that moderate systems from several years back continue to run most tasks well--the enterprise market is very attractive.
Unfortunately for AMD, their share of the lucrative server market has fallen to a very low percentage (4.9%) according IDC's report early this year (some report 6-7%). It is time for something new and better from AMD, and it seems that the Bulldozer architecture is AMD's most server-centric CPU architecture ever. We quote Chuck Moore, Chief Architect AMD:
By having the shared architecture, reducing the size and sharing things that aren’t commonly used in their peak capacity in server workloads, “Bulldozer” is actually very well aligned with server workloads now and on into the future. In fact, a great deal of the trade-offs in Bulldozer were made on behalf of servers, and not just one type of workload, but a diversity of workloads.
This alginment with server workloads can also be found in the specs:
|
Opteron 6200 "Interlagos" |
Opteron 6100 "Magny-cours" |
Xeon 5600 "Westmere" |
|
| Cores (Modules)/Threads | 8/16 | 12/12 | 6/12 |
| L1 Instructions | 8x 64 KB 2-way | 12x 64 KB 2-way | 6x 32 KB 4-way |
| L1 Data | 16x 16 KB 4-way | 12x 64 KB 2-way | 6x 32 KB 4-way |
| L2 Cache | 4x 2MB | 12x 0.5MB | 6x 256 KB |
| L3 Cache | 2x 8MB | 2x 6MB | 12MB |
| Memory Bandwidth | 51.2GB/s | 42.6GB/s | 32GB/s |
| IMC Clock Speed | 2GHz | 1.8GHz | 2GHz |
| Interconnect | 4x HT 3.1 (6.4 GT/s) | 4x HT 3.1 (6.4 GT/s) | 2x QPI (4.8-6.4 GT/s) |
The new Opteron has loads of cache, faster access to memory and more threads than ever. Of course, a good product is more than a well designed microarchitecture with impressive specs on paper. The actual SKUs have to be attractively priced, reach decent clock speeds, and above all offer a good performance/watt ratio. Let us take a look at AMD's newest Opterons and how they are positioned versus Intel's competing Xeons.
| AMD vs. Intel 2-socket SKU Comparison | |||||||||
| Xeon |
Cores/ Threads |
TDP |
Clock (GHz) |
Price | Opteron |
Modules/ Threads |
TDP |
Clock (GHz) |
Price |
| High Performance | High Performance | ||||||||
| X5690 | 6/12 | 130W | 3.46/3.6/3.73 | $1663 | |||||
| X5675 | 6/12 | 95W | 3.06/3.33/3.46 | $1440 | |||||
| X5660 | 6/12 | 95W | 2.8/3.06/3.2 | $1219 | |||||
| X5650 | 6/12 | 95W | 2.66/2.93/3.06 | $996 | 6282 SE | 8/16 | 140W | 2.6/3.0/3.3 | $1019 |
| Midrange | Midrange | ||||||||
| E5649 | 6/12 | 80W | 2.53/2.66/2.8 | $774 | 6276 | 8/16 | 115W | 2.3/2.6/3.2 | $788 |
| E5640 | 4/8 | 80W | 2.66/2.8/2.93 | $774 | |||||
| 6274 | 8/16 | 115W | 2.2/2.5/3.1 | $639 | |||||
| E5645 | 6/12 | 80W | 2.4/2.53/2.66 | $551 | 6272 | 8/16 | 115W | 2.0/2.4/3.0 | $523 |
| 6238 | 6/12 | 115W | 2.6/2.9/3.2 | $455 | |||||
| E5620 | 4/8 | 80W | 2.4/2.53/2.66 | $387 | 6234 | 6/12 | 115W | 2.4/2.7/3.0 | $377 |
| High clock / budget | High clock / budget | ||||||||
| X5647 | 4/8 | 130W | 2.93/3.06/3.2 | $774 | |||||
| E5630 | 4/8 | 80W | 2.53/2.66/2.8 | $551 | 6220 | 4/8 | 115W | 3.0/3.3/3.6 | $455 |
| E5607 | 4/4 | 80W | 2.26 | $276 | 6212 | 4/8 | 115W | 2.6/2.9/3.2 | $266 |
| Power Optimized | Power Optimized | ||||||||
| L5640 | 6/12 | 60W | 2.26/2.4/2.66 | $996 | |||||
| L5630 | 4/8 | 40W | 2.13/2.26/2.4 | $551 | 6262HE | 8/16 | 85W | 1.6/2.1/2.9 | $523 |
The specifications (16 threads, 32MB of cache) and AMD's promises that Interlagos would outperform Magny-cours by a large margin created the impression that the Interlagos Opteron would give the current top Xeons a hard time. However, the newest Opteron cannot reach higher clock speeds than the current Opteron (6276 at 2.3GHz), and AMD positions the Opteron 6276 2.3GHz as an alternative to the Xeon E5649 at 2.53GHz. As the latter has a lower TDP, it is clear that the newest Opteron has to outperform this Xeon by a decent margin. In fact most server buyers expect a price/performance bonus from AMD, so the Opteron 6276 needs to perform roughly at the level of the X5650 to gain the interest of IT customers.
Judging from the current positioning, the high-end is a lost cause for now. First, AMD needs a 140W TDP chip to compete with the slower parts of Intel's high-end armada. Second, Sandy Bridge EP is coming out in the next quarter--we've already seen the desktop Sandy Bridge-E launch, and adding two more cores (four more threads) for the server version will only increase the performance potential. The Sandy Bridge cores have proven to be faster than Westmere cores, and the new Xeon E5 will have eight of them. Clock speeds will be a bit lower (2.0-2.5GHz), but we can safely assume that the new Xeon E5 will outperform its older brother by a noticeable margin and make it even harder for the new Opteron to compete in the higher end of the 2P market.
At the low-end, we see some interesting offerings from AMD. Our impression is that the 6212 at 2.6-2.9GHz is very likely to offer a better performance per dollar ratio than the low-end Xeons E560x that lack Hyper-Threading and turbo support.
Okay, we've done enough analyzing of paper specs; let's get to the hardware and the benchmarks. Before we do that, we'll elaborate a bit on what a server centric architecture should look like. What makes server applications tick?
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
106 Comments
View All Comments
Kevin G - Tuesday, November 15, 2011 - link
I'm curious if CPU-Z polls the hardware for this information or if it queries a database to fetch this information. If it is getting the core and thread count from hardware, it maybe configurable. So while the chip itself does not use Hyperthreading, it maybe reporting to the OS that does it by default. This would have an impact in performance scaling as well as power consumption as load increases.MrSpadge - Tuesday, November 15, 2011 - link
They are integer cores, which share few ressources besides the FPU. On the Intel side there are two threads running concurrently (always, @Stuka87) which share a few less ressources.Arguing which one deserves the name "core" and which one doesn't is almost a moot point. However, both designs are nto that different regarding integer workloads. They're just using a different amount of shared ressources.
People should also keep in mind that a core does not neccessaril equal a core. Each Bulldozer core (or half module) is actually weaker than in Athlon 64 designs. It got some improvements but lost in some other areas. On the other hand Intels current integer cores are quite strong and fat - and it's much easier to share ressources (between 2 hyperthreaded treads) if you've got a lot of them.
MrS
leexgx - Wednesday, November 16, 2011 - link
but on Intel side there are only 4 real cores with HT off or on (on an i7 920 seems to give an benefit, but on results for the second gen 2600k HT seems less important)where as on amd there are 4 cores with each core having 2 FP in them (desktop cpu) issue is the FPs are 10-30% slower then an Phenom cpu clocked at the same speed
anglesmith - Tuesday, November 15, 2011 - link
which version of windows 2008 R2 SP1 x64 was used enterprise/datacenter/standard?Lord 666 - Tuesday, November 15, 2011 - link
People who are purchasing SB-E will be doing similar stuff on workstations. Where are those numbers?Kevin G - Tuesday, November 15, 2011 - link
Probably waiting in the pipeline for SB-E base Xeons. Socket LGA-2011 based Xeon's are still several months away.Sabresiberian - Tuesday, November 15, 2011 - link
I'm not so sure I'd fault AMD too much because 95% of the people that their product users, in this case, won't go through the effort of upgrading their software to get a significant performance increase, at least at first. Sometimes, you have to "force" people to get out of their rut and use something that's actually better for them.I freely admit that I don't know much about running business apps; I build gaming computers for personal use. I can't help but think of my Father though, complaining about Vista and Win 7 and how they won't run his old, freeware apps properly. Hey, Dad, get the people that wrote those apps to upgrade them, won't you? It's not Microsoft's fault that they won't bring them up to date.
Backwards compatibility can be a stone around the neck of progress.
I've tended to be disappointed in AMD's recent CPU releases as well, but maybe they really do have an eye focused on the future that will bring better things for us all. If that's the case, though, they need to prove it now, and stop releasing biased press reports that don't hold up when these things are benched outside of their labs.
;)
JohanAnandtech - Tuesday, November 15, 2011 - link
The problem is that a lot of server folks buy new servers to run the current or older software faster. It is a matter of TCO: they have invested a lot of work into getting webapplication x.xx to work optimally with interface y.yy and database zz.z. The vendor wants to offer a service, not a the latest technology. Only if the service gets added value from the newest technology they might consider upgrading.And you should tell your dad to run his old software in virtual box :-).
Sabresiberian - Wednesday, November 16, 2011 - link
Ah I hadn't thought of it in terms of services, which is obvious now that you say it. Thanks for educating me!;)
IlllI - Tuesday, November 15, 2011 - link
amd was shooting to capture 25% of the market? (this was like when the first amd64 chips came out)