Thread: Postgres database performance on 6 core Opteron vs 4 core Xeon
Has anyone seen any performance metrics comparing the Opteron 6-core Istanbul class processor aginst the 4-core Xeon e5500 series processor, esp running a dataase? Or has anyone compared these 2 processor options before ordering a Postgres server? The 6 core processor should offer a clear edge but these AMD processors are cited for relatively slow L3 cache speeds compared to their Intel counterparts. 4-Core Intel Xeon E5520 (2.26 GHz) Processor VS 6-Core AMD Opteron Model 2425 HE (2.1GHz} Processor Any comments?
Has anyone seen any performance metrics comparing the Opteron 6-core Istanbul class processor aginst the 4-core Xeon e5500 series processor, esp running a dataase? Or has anyone compared these 2 processor options before ordering a Postgres server? The 6 core processor should offer a clear edge but these AMD processors are cited for relatively slow L3 cache speeds compared to their Intel counterparts. 4-Core Intel Xeon E5520 (2.26 GHz) Processor VS 6-Core AMD Opteron Model 2425 HE (2.1GHz} Processor Any comments?
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Postgres User <postgres.developer@gmail.com> wrote: > Has anyone seen any performance metrics comparing the Opteron 6-core > Istanbul class processor aginst the 4-core Xeon e5500 series > processor, esp running a dataase? Or has anyone compared these 2 > processor options before ordering a Postgres server? > > The 6 core processor should offer a clear edge but these AMD > processors are cited for relatively slow L3 cache speeds compared to > their Intel counterparts. > > 4-Core Intel Xeon E5520 (2.26 GHz) Processor VS > 6-Core AMD Opteron Model 2425 HE (2.1GHz} Processor I'm running the 2.2GHz AMD part in production in a 12 core server and it's quite fast as a pgsql server. Sadly, I have no Nehalem processor to compare it to.
Postgres User wrote: > The 6 core processor should offer a clear edge but these AMD > processors are cited for relatively slow L3 cache speeds compared to > their Intel counterparts. > The big problem is that the raw memory speed in the Intel Nehelem designs (with 3-channel DDR3 1333MHz) is so superior to AMD's right now (dual-channel DDR2-800) that even two extra cores can't pull them ahead in a lot of tasks. And Intel's hyperthreading support on the new processors is really effective, so you're actually evaluating an 8-core Intel solution vs. a 6-core AMD one. Take a look at http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3571&p=5 for example, which is a pretty realistic database benchmarking app where AMD gets spanked. At this point, the new Opterons close a lot of gap against Intel's designs, but the gap is still there. It can be easy to justify AMD purchases anyway on a cost/power basis, as Intel's stuff is still expensive and might run hotter for some workloads. But make no mistake: if you want the best possible performance without going completely crazy price-wise, Intel still owns that category, for one or two processor installs at least. Some of AMD's redesign aims to help in larger servers with 4 processors instead, the "HT Assist" feature. See http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2009/06/they-might-be-profitable-amds-six-core-istanbul-reviewed.ars for an intro. I'm not optimistic for AMD here though either. By the time we start seeing those, Intel will have their Nehalem-EX chips out, which given Intel's track record I expect will return them to crushing AMD at the high-end again. Returning to the real world of database performance, every dollar spent on your processors and expensive memory is one you can't spend on disks instead, so in reality AMD's cost effectiveness can make for a better overall database system at the same price point. If you really need a lot of disks to make your app performance well, better to focus on that rather than trivia like how fast stuff moves around the memory bus. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support greg@2ndQuadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.com
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
Returning to the real world of database performance, every dollar spent on your processors and expensive memory is one you can't spend on disks instead, so in reality AMD's cost effectiveness can make for a better overall database system at the same price point. If you really need a lot of disks to make your app performance well, better to focus on that rather than trivia like how fast stuff moves around the memory bus.
If I might add something from my experience, the CPU itself doesn't make much difference, but memory, is a big part of IO - and so it makes a difference , huge one between 800 and 1333 mhz bus there.
as for the rest, I second - all money spent on CPU are not spent on better discs. And that's a waste in DB world.
I suppose, the best interpretation of that would be - never go for faster CPU, but the bus, and memory is as much important as discs, controller, etc.
as for the rest, I second - all money spent on CPU are not spent on better discs. And that's a waste in DB world.
I suppose, the best interpretation of that would be - never go for faster CPU, but the bus, and memory is as much important as discs, controller, etc.
--
GJ