Federico Lucifredi wrote: > Any nice comparison of per-core performance between AMD and Intel?
Do you literally want a comparison that looks at the performance of an individual core, in isolation? The comparisons I've seen uses the usual benchmarks, which attempt to emulate real-world usage, and thus they're impacted by the imperfect way tasks are distributed to multiple cores, and memory bandwidth, etc. What's your application? > Because, looking at the FX processors six and eight core prices, they > are nowhere near what a 6 core Intel chip costs… so i'd like to educate > myself on the why. The short answer is they're cheaper because they perform considerably worse. At least that's what I've read. I don't recall a specific comparison, but at some point I read one at Anandtech or Tom's Hardware. Here's one: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested Last year's launch of AMD's FX processors was honestly disappointing. The Bulldozer CPU cores that were bundled into each Zambezi chip were hardly power efficient and in many areas couldn't significantly outperform AMD's previous generation platform. Look beyond the direct AMD comparison and the situation looked even worse. In our conclusion to last year's FX-8150 review I wrote the following: "Single threaded performance is my biggest concern, and compared to Sandy Bridge there's a good 40-50% advantage the i5 2500K enjoys over the FX-8150. ..." Here's a thread linking to reviews comparing the FX-6300 to the i3: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-1623327/6300-gaming.html The problem with these sites is that they review with desktop or gaming performance in mind. What I wanted to know about was VM performance. Can, for example, you attain better performance per dollar running 8 VMs on an AMD 8-core CPU than you can on a 4-core i7? In other CPU news, I see... Calxeda's ARM server tested http://www.anandtech.com/show/6757/calxedas-arm-server-tested At first sight, the relatively low performance per core of ARM CPUs seems like a bad match for servers. The dominant CPU in the server market is without doubt Intel's Xeon. The success of the Xeon family is largely rooted in its excellent single-threaded (or per core) performance at moderate power levels (70-95W). Combine this exceptional single-threaded performance with a decent core count and you get good performance in almost any kind of application. [...] Having four 32-bit Cortex A9 cores, each with 32 KB instruction and 32 KB data L1 per-core caches, the processor block is somewhat similar to what we find inside modern smarphones. One difference is that this SoC contains a 4MB ECC enabled L2 cache, while most smartphone SoCs have a 1MB L2 cache. [...] A dual Xeon E5 or Opteron 6300 server has much more processing power than most of us need to run one server application. That is the reason why it is not uncommon to see 10, 20 or even more virtual machines running on top of them. [...] Each server node has one quad-core Cortex A9 with 4MB of L2 cache and 4GB of RAM. With that being the case, the question "what can this server node cope with?" is a lot more relevant. [...] The ARM based server is a pretty bad choice right now for memory intensive workloads. Even with four cores and DDR3-1333, the useable bandwidth is less than one sixth of what one Xeon core can sustain. In a similar vein, the ECX-1000 is not capable of providing more bandwidth than an Atom system equipped with DDR2-667. However, both the Atom and ARM cores are pretty bad when it comes to bandwidth. [...] Clock for clock, the out-of-order Cortex-A9 inside the Calxeda EXC-1000 beats the in-order Atom core. A single A9 has no trouble beating the older Atoms while likewise coming close to the much higher clocked N2800. The N2800 and ECX-1000 perform similarly. [...] Looking at both decompression and compression, it looks like a quad ARM A9 is about as fast as one Xeon core (without Hyper-Threading) at the same clock. We need about six A9 cores to match the Xeon core with Hyper-Threading enabled. The quad-core ECX-1000 1.4GHz is also close to the dual-core, four-threaded Atom at 1.86GHz. This bodes well for Calxeda as the 6.1W S1240 only runs at 1.6GHz. [...] We created 24 virtual machines on top of the Xeon server. ... [Calxeda's] server gets the same workload, but instead of using virtual machines, we used the 24 physical server nodes. [...] At the low concurrencies, the Intel machine leverages turboboost and its exceptionally high per core performance. At the higher web loads, the total throughput of the 96 (24x quad-core SoCs) ARM A9 cores is up to 50% higher than the low power 32 thread/16 core (2x Octal core) Xeons. Even the mighty 2660 cannot beat the herd of ARM SoCs. [...] ...each server needs about 8.3W (200W/24), measured at the wall. That is exactly what Calxeda promised: about 6W (at 1.4GHz) per server node (measured internally), up to 8.5W measured at the wall (again at 1.4GHz). That is nothing short of amazing if you consider the performance numbers. [...] Let's be clear: most applications still run better on the Xeon E5. Our CPU benchmarks clearly indicate that any application that accesses the memory frequently or that needs high per thread integer processing power will run better on the Xeon E5. Compiling and installing software simply feels so much faster on the Xeon E5, there is no need to benchmark. (See the article for lots more details.) The 8-core AMD parts may be useful in a similar way to the ARM parts, except the AMD parts tend to get dinged for power consumption, even compared to the higher performing Intel parts. So even if they do make sense in this context, it won't be long before the ARM servers take over that space. -Tom _______________________________________________ Hardwarehacking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/hardwarehacking
