Intel Xeon X7460 (24 cores) or AMD Opteron 8380 (32 cores)

[kingofgames999]

I need to make a recomendation between getting 4 - 6 core intel x7460 (24 total cores) processors or 8 opteron 8380 4 core (32 total cores) processors. i dont know alot about the interworkings of processors the intel xeon's seems to be all around better, and have alot more cache

L1Cache – 384KB
L2 Cache – 9mb
L3 Cache – 16mb

VS

L1Cache: 512KB
L2 Cache: 2MB
L3 Cache: 6MB

but i dont know if they are 8 or more cores worth of better (sorry for my lack of knowledge). this will be running a SQL 2005 Database and thats about it. I've read that cache is pretty important in database server but again is it 8 cores worth of better. Right now i'm leaning heavly towards the intels. if anyone could provide there recommendatoins i would appreciate it.

 

[cjl]

Honestly, I wouldn't get either, unless you need it immediately. Intel is coming out with their 4P setups with the new Nehalem cores soon, and those are the way to go.

 

[khallodah]

what is it for? Workstation or Database?
this might help other readers!!

I recommend Opteron for Database. Amd's CPUs has better Architecture and results for data and I/O transfer.

Best wishes

 

[AKM880]

+1, to what clj said.

 

[BadTrip]

link please?

 

[cjl]

Specifically, you want this:
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20090526comp.htm

 

[BadTrip]

when I said link, I meant for opteron having better architecture.

 

[cjl]

I know - I just found that page though, and it seemed relevant

As for better architecture, the lower memory latency, higher memory bandwidth, and higher floating point power do give the Opteron an advantage over the older Core 2 based Xeons in most server/HPC situations.

 

[smithereen]

Wait for new Nelhalems, maybe even Mangy-Cours.

 

[kingofgames999]

what is it for? Workstation or Database?
this might help other readers!!

I recommend Opteron for Database. Amd's CPUs has better Architecture and results for data and I/O transfer.

Best wishes

Its for a database server, hosting a production database. SQL 2005.

Thanks for the input everyone i dont think i will be able to wait but ill check out the new processors you mentioned. So it seems the concencious is Operon so far.

 

[Helloworld_98]

how fast do you need it? because the magny-cours amd 12 cores come out early next year, and with an 8 socket motherboard you'd have 96 cores, whereas even with an intel nehalem 4P setup, you'd only have 24 cores and 48 threads.

 

[BadTrip]

http://it.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=604

 

[Mephistopheles]

+1 to what cjl said about waiting for the Nehalem 4P systems.

Oh, and BTW, it is not immediately obvious that Magny-Cours will be enough to counter the Nehalems, even though Magny-Cours will indeed have +50% cores. Look at what happened with Nehalem vs Istanbul: they compete quite nicely against each other, and nehalem even edges forward in most cases, as far as I can remember (have to read the reviews again, my memory isn't that good anymore). This boils down to the question, "would you rather have X cores with throughput Y or 1.5X cores with the same throughput?"

I bet most people would choose to have faster but fewer cores than more of a slower core. Makes more sense, and poorly (or not at all) multithreaded software will make use of the faster core immediately.

 

[cjl]

how fast do you need it? because the magny-cours amd 12 cores come out early next year, and with an 8 socket motherboard you'd have 96 cores, whereas even with an intel nehalem 4P setup, you'd only have 24 cores and 48 threads.

Actually, Nehalem EX (Beckton, IIRC) supports up to 8 sockets, and a 4 socket would have 32 cores and 64 threads (it has 8 per CPU, not 6). An 8 socket would allow for 64 cores and 128 threads. I wouldn't be all that surprised if the 64c/128t setup would outrun a 96 core magny-cours setup either, considering how thoroughly Intel is flattening AMD in the server area right now.

 

[Devastator_uk]

I would go for the Opterons unless you can wait for the Nehalem or Mangy.

 

[CuriousBeing]

IMPORTANT: Check Single Thread performance to know architectural superiority...

the CoreI7 marginally faster than Opteron the advantage is in the triple channel memory it uses and that motherboards design for it are build for.

Next year both platforms will be quad channel meaning...

24 Nehalem = 48 threads @ 100% = 4800 points
96 Istanbul = 96 threads @ 93% = 9216 points

its nice to talk about the processor but understand the change was in the channels, motherboard, DDR3.

AMD is perfecting there methods in dual channel and keeping up... What happens when both are quad channel and AMD gives more cores for less?

 

[cjl]

IMPORTANT: Check Single Thread performance to know architectural superiority...

the CoreI7 marginally faster than Opteron the advantage is in the triple channel memory it uses and that motherboards design for it are build for.

Next year both platforms will be quad channel meaning...

24 Nehalem = 48 threads @ 100% = 4800 points
96 Istanbul = 96 threads @ 93% = 9216 points

its nice to talk about the processor but understand the change was in the channels, motherboard, DDR3.

AMD is perfecting there methods in dual channel and keeping up... What happens when both are quad channel and AMD gives more cores for less?

First, Nehalem EX is quad channel, not tri channel. Second, as I said, Nehalem will be available with up to 64C/128T. Where are you getting these random "points" scores, by the way? Neither platform is available yet (and a 24C nehalem would be rather odd, as that would be a tri-socket system. It will have 8 cores per CPU on a native 8 core die, not an MCM). Oh, and finally, Nehalem has significantly more going for it than just the tri channel memory. It beats the Opteron for several reasons in single threaded performance, most of which have far more to do with the core itself than the memory controller (although it does have a superior memory controller compared to the Opterons).

 

[smithereen]

He is multiplying the number of cores by relative core-for-core performance.

24X100=4800
96X092=9216

Dunno where he got the core counts from, though. And also, the performance of a single threaded test does not give relative per-thread efficiancy, not at all. Dunno where that came from.

 

[halfountainsr]

I'm replying to Kingofjames99 "I need to make a recomendation between getting 4 - 6 core intel x7460 (24 total cores) processors or 8 opteron 8380 4 core (32 total cores) processors. i dont know alot about the interworkings of processors the intel xeon's seems to be all around better, and have alot more cache"


Instead of 8 4 core Opterons how about 4 12 core opterons. Yes they have 12 core Opterons that are ready to be shipped to a select few.