DailyTech - Intel Server Performance Per Watt, Part 1

Submit News

Blog: Hardware Intel Server Performance Per Watt, Part 1
David Kanter (Blog) - November 8, 2006 7:08 PM

E-mail

del.icio.us

7 comment(s) - last by nothingtoseehe.. on Nov 11 at 12:31 AM

Even with "Clovertown" on the horizon, the debate over performance-per-watt benefits on the Core architecture have never been measured accurately in the server space, until now

Since the launch of Woodcrest earlier this year, Intel has been back on the offensive, with higher performance and improved performance/watt. However, the performance/watt advantages have largely been unmeasured, up until now.

In this review, Real World Tech compares the power efficiency of two generations of Intel's dual processor server platform: Dempsey versus Woodcrest. On average we found that using Woodcrest processors to replace Dempsey was roughly twice as power efficient, and typically reduced power draw by around 130 watts for a modestly configured system... quite a coup for a microarchitectural change without a process shrink.

On the other hand, in HPC-environments, the performance-per-watt benefits of Woodcrest were much less pronounced. Detailed accounts of our analysis can be found in the benchmarks section of our article.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Sever

By Suomynona on 11/9/2006 8:05:15 AM , Rating: 2

How about the Intel Decapitate numbers?

RE: Sever

By TomZ on 11/9/2006 8:37:59 AM , Rating: 2

LOL, i.e., David, please fix the typo in the article typo.

Parent

RE: Sever

By TomZ on 11/9/2006 10:33:09 AM , Rating: 2

article typo -> article title.

See, I make typos too.

Parent

Dual 5160 better than P4 3.2Ghz

By hstewarth on 11/9/2006 2:01:26 PM , Rating: 2

I have a dual 5160 system with 8G of Ram, eVGA 7900GT Signature edition, 7 hard drives and Dell 24in monitor. This system consumes about 367watts according to my APC 1200VA UPS.

I have not tested my P4 3.2Ghz system with 7800GS card - but it likely that the P4 uses more watts.

Temps why I consistantly get in lower 30's C for temps - while my P4 3.2Ghz motherboad indicates 60 c.

In Lightwave 3d, my Dual Xeon is 8.5 times faster than my P4. I would have to say on my system, it definely has more performance per watt. Even if my P4 system would only consome 200Watts - the Xeon will have 4 times the power/watt in lightwave 3d

RE: Dual 5160 better than P4 3.2Ghz

By Spivonious on 11/9/2006 4:05:13 PM , Rating: 2

Kind of off topic, but why do you have 7 hard drives? Doesn't it get confusing? I can see myself saying, now where did I put that file, the E drive, or the L drive?

Parent