The new Opteron 6300: Finally Tested!
by Johan De Gelas on February 20, 2013 12:03 AM ESTSKUs and Pricing
Before we start with the benchmarks, we first have to check what you get for your money. Let's compare the AMD chips with Intel's offerings.
| AMD vs. Intel 2-socket SKU Comparison | ||||||||||
|
Xeon E5 |
Cores/ Threads |
TDP |
Clock (GHz) |
Price | Opteron |
Modules/ Integer cores |
TDP |
Clock (GHz) |
Price | |
| High Performance | High Performance | |||||||||
| 2680 | 8/16 | 130W | 2.7/3/3.5 | $1723 | ||||||
| 2665 | 8/16 | 115W | 2.4/2.8/3.1 | $1440 | 6386 SE | 8/16 | 140W | 2.8/3.2/3.5 | $1392 | |
| 2660 | 8/16 | 95W | 2.2/ | $1329 | ||||||
| 2650 | 8/16 | 95W | 2/2.4/2.8 | $1107 | ||||||
| Midrange | Midrange | |||||||||
| 6380 | 8/16 | 115W | 2.5/2.8/3.4 | $1088 | ||||||
| 2640 | 6/12 | 95W | 2.5/2.5/3 | $885 | 6378 | 8/16 | 115W | 2.4/2.7/3.3 | $867 | |
| 6376 | 8/16 | 115W | 2.3/2.6/3.2 | $703 | ||||||
| 2630 | 6/12 | 95W | 2.3/2.3/2.8 | $639 | ||||||
| 6348 | 6/12 | 115W | 2.8/3.1/3.4 | $575 | ||||||
| 2620 | 6/12 |
|
2/2/2.5 | $406 | 6234 | 6/12 | 115W | 2.6/2.9/3.2 | $415 | |
| High clock / budget | High Clock / Budget | |||||||||
| 2643 | 4/8 | 130W | 3.3/3.3/3.5 | $885 | ||||||
| 2609 | 4/4 | 80W | 2.4 | $294 | 6320 | 4/8 | 115W | 3.0/3.3/3.6 | $293 | |
| 2637 | 2/4 | 80W | 3/3.5 | $885 | 6308 | 2/4 | 115W | 3.5 | $501 | |
| Power Optimized | Power Optimized | |||||||||
| 2630L | 8/16 | 60W | 2/2/2.5 | $662 | 6366HE | 8/16 | 85W | 1.8/2.3/3.1 | $575 | |
We tested two AMD Opterons: the 6376 and the 6380. The 6380 competes against the octal-core 2GHz 2650, the 6376 targets the six-core 2630 at 2.3GHz. There is more than list prices of course. At the end of the day, most of us do not buy trays of processors, we buy server systems. As Dell's website is still the easiest to use, we configured very similar systems on the DELL US site. All systems include:
- Two 500GB SATA drives
- 64GB of 1600MHz RDIMMs
- A PERC H700/710 with 512MB of NV RAM
- iDRAC Express and all other "cheap" options (no OS, Single PSU...)
Below you can find the total price, when configuring such a system in the beginning of February 2013.
| AMD vs. Intel System Price | |||||||||
| Model | CPU | Memory | Other | Price | |||||
| Dell R720 | Dual Xeon E5-2630 |
8x8GB |
Perc H710 512MB NV | $5008 | |||||
| Dell R720 | Dual Xeon E5-2660 | 8x8GB | Perc H710 512MB NV | $6778 | |||||
| Dell R715 | Dual Opteron 6376 | 8x8GB | Perc H700 512MB NV | $4225 | |||||
| Dell R715 | Dual Opteron 6380 | 8x8GB | Perc H700 512MB NV | $5339 | |||||
The Intel based systems have a small advantage as they have two additional hard disk bays, but that difference can be ignored as that will hardly make the system significantly more expensive. The reason why we upgraded the R720 to an 8-bay chassis is that we wanted all the servers to have 2.5-inch bays and thus similar storage systems; 2.5-inch drives are now more common anyway.
A Dell R715 with a dual Opteron 6376 costs $500 less than a similarly configured Dell R720 with Dual Xeon E5-2630, despite the fact that the listed price of the Opteron is slightly higher. This might be a result of AMD offering larger discounts, but it's probably also a result of keeping the platform the same. As the Opteron 6100, 6200 and 6300 use the same socket and motherboard infrastructure, validation costs are very low for the OEMs.
If the Opteron 6376 can beat or even match the Xeon E5-2630 in performance/watt, it can offer a cost advantage. If the Opteron 6380 can come close to an E5-2660, it can offer a significant cost advantage. The latter Opteron must however defeat the E5-2630 clearly to be attractive to the server buyers. After all, most people buy AMD for a cost or performance bonus (preferably both).
We'll compare our new Opterons with two Xeon configurations: the Xeon 2660 and a Xeon 2660 with two cores disabled. To be competitive, the Opteron 6376 should beat the Xeon 2660 with two cores disabled. If the 6380 can offer about 90% of the performance of the 2660 and consume a similar amount of energy, it can become a very attractive alternative as well. So the goals are clear and set for the AMD Opterons. Let us see if they can pull it off.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
55 Comments
View All Comments
Sivar - Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - link
Please go away. You don't add any new information to the discussion.Your writing is of a teenager who knows nothing of processor architecture, the brilliant engineers at both AMD and Intel, or the competitive landscape.
You present no data, only misinformed opinion. You reduce the quality of this discussion, and have shown no interest in improving your knowledge.
JamesAnthony - Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - link
In the article it mentions you were using the E5-2660 CPU (8 core 2.2 GHz) 95W, in a Dell PowerEdge R720 serverIt may have been a lot more useful to also have included the E5-2680 (8 core 2.7 GHz) and the E5-2690 (8 Core 2.9 GHz) as while they are 130W parts, they are ones that are often used in the PowerEdge R720 and from what we find in a lot of server sales the higher performance ones are very popular for transactional database servers and payment processing servers.
If you want to go head to head on Intel's top part vs AMD's top part, then it would seem it should be the E5-2690 vs 6386 SE
JohanAnandtech - Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - link
We all know that when you want top performance, Intel is the way to go. So I don't really see the point, even AMD will tell you that the 6376 and 6380 are their most competitive parts.. It is pretty obvious that the E5-2690 2.9 GHz will be faster and consume less than a 6386SE. I don't think our readers really need to see numbers on that.And I really doubt that the E5-2690 are sold that much. Most reports say that the top bins with the highest TDP are less than 5% of the total sales.
lwatcdr - Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - link
Wow this is about the most gibberish I have seen in a post ever.Good heavens you are an idiot.
Let's just tear this post bits so this person will NEVER post on here again.
1"No, it's worth per dollar that you have paid to buy Intel based servers. Intel is more reliable because it has Hyperthreading so you can reduce the latencies that will occur in every workloads."
Hyperthreading has nothing to do with reliability. So that was a waste of bandwidth.
"Unlike AMD's engineers who can not design a microprocessor properly. It was AMD's own fault why AMD did not have money like Intel"
My I introduce you to Titan http://www.olcf.ornl.gov/titan/ The worlds most powerful computer and powered by AMD cpus. AKA yea I think that AMD can actually do pretty well at designing CPUs so this part of your post is also pure manure.
"Look 99% Bank's in the world uses Intel based ATM as Intel processor can send information without any error." And here we can see that you understand nothing about digital theory or communications. Again a waste of bandwidth.
"That is why IBM itself does not use Power based processors for its ATM machine because its CEO has admitted that its engineers are not capable to design a lower power processor. So, IBM uses Intel as the standard processor to exchange information between ATM machine to server, so every digits that sent will come in exact same digits when it has been received."
The IBM power line is for high end systems not for ATM machines. Odds are good that many banks use Power based system for handling ATM transactions. IBM uses Intel or AMD because it is cheap and you can get standard boards. As to the every digit sent nonsense. IT IS DIGITAL you MORON. The communications links have error checking and correction not the CPUs. Please NEVER WASTE OUR TIME AGAIN, YOU KNOW NOTHING OF VALUE ON THIS SUBJECT.
toyotabedzrock - Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - link
Something is wrong with the LZMA benchmarks.Can you do a realworld test? There are scripts out there to do this.
LZMA is built around the idea that decompression is supposed to be much faster than compression.
JohanAnandtech - Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - link
From the 7zip manual:"The benchmark shows a rating in MIPS (million instructions per second). The rating value is calculated from the measured speed, and it is normalized with results of Intel Core 2 CPU with multi-threading option switched off. "
So that is the reason why the compression MIPS values are in the same order as the decompression. The decompression "MB/s" values are indeed about 10x and more higher than compression.
Oldboy1948 - Thursday, February 21, 2013 - link
It is an interesting bench and if cache and memory are fast decompress and compress will be very close. It looks better for Bulldozer in this:http://www.7-cpu.com/
ARM has a long way to go if it will be a server one day.
extide - Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - link
Can we PLEASE get folding@home benches?! musky on the hardocp forums has come up with a system where you can run repeatable benchmarks. Myself as well as many others would really love to see F@H benches on systems like this!JohanAnandtech - Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - link
Ok, Link? :-)alpha754293 - Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - link
Because of the way that the current Opteron architecture is (1 FPU per module), did you run with the number of LS-DYNA processes equal to the number of FPUs on chip or did you run it based on per "core" (i.e. 2 processes per module)?