Power Consumption

The most power hungry 2.93GHz Nehalems are sold in the desktop market (130W TDP), while the "greenest" ones are sold in the server market (95W). It is clear that Intel understands that performance alone is not good enough and the performance/watt metric is getting more popular each day. A direct power comparison was not possible, as the servers are too different: different power supplies, form factors, and so on. Therefore, we tested in a different way. First, we tested the server with two CPUs. Second, we tested the server with one CPU, while we kept the number of DIMMs the same. That way we could subtract both numbers and calculate the difference that one CPU made. It is not very accurate, but it's good enough to get a rough idea. The CPUs were running at about 80% CPU load, running the DVD-store benchmark for 10 minutes. Below you find the average power consumption.
 
Power Consumption

The method we used does not allow us to determine the absolute idle power numbers very accurately, but it seems that Xeon X5570 consumes 8W to 10W less when running at idle. Again, all these numbers have a pretty high margin of error, but they are accurate enough to say that the Opteron 2384 consumes quite a bit less at full load while the latest Xeon is clearly the winner when you are running idle. If your application is running close to idle most of the time, with a few spikes at some parts of the day, the Xeon is the performance/watt champion.

The only question is what happens if the server is running most of the time at relatively high load (for example thanks to virtualization)? Then we have to remember that the CPU is only part of a complete server. Let us assume that the Nehalem server consumes 320W (which is close to what we measured). A similar AMD Opteron server can then save about 18W per CPU, and 1W per DIMM as high speed DDR3 is a bit more power hungry than DDR2 (which runs at a lower speed). We assume that we use six DIMMs per CPU.

Power Comparison
  Power consumption Performance Performance/Watt
Intel X5570 2.93GHz 320 116399 363.7469
AMD 270 70034 259.3852

We could say that the Nehalem is winning by a margin of about 40%. Now, it is clear that the absolute winner is difficult to determine; it all depends on your applications. Still, it is clear that when you compare the best Intel and AMD CPUs, the best performance/Watt figures come from Intel by pretty large margin.

HPC Market Pricing
Comments Locked

44 Comments

View All Comments

  • usamaah - Monday, March 30, 2009 - link

    Is it me or is page 2 of this article missing some information? The title of that 2nd page is "What Intel and AMD are Offering," but in the body of the text there are only descriptions of Intel's Xeon chips? Perhaps a new title to reflect the body, or add AMD info?
  • JohanAnandtech - Monday, March 30, 2009 - link

    I moved the AMD vs Intel pricing data to the back of the article as the pricing info is more interesting once you have seen the results. But forgot to change the title.. fixed. Thanks.
  • usamaah - Monday, March 30, 2009 - link

    Cool, thank you. Next time I'll finish reading the article before I make a comment, sorry ;-) Anyway wonderful article.
  • Ipatinga - Monday, March 30, 2009 - link

    Very nice to see a comparison over some generations of Xeon platform, including the new one (yet to be released).

    I would like to see a new article with Core i7 vs Xeon 5500... to check out if my Core i7 @ 3,7GHz is good enough in Maya 2009 (Windows XP 64bit, 12GB DDR3), or if a Xeon 5500 (each at 2,4GHz, for instance) in dual processor configuration will be a much better buy.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now