Results 1 to 25 of 60
Thread: Sempron 3100+ vs Xeon 2.8GHZ
-
05-04-2005, 05:53 PM #1Temporarily Suspended
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Posts
- 371
Sempron 3100+ vs Xeon 2.8GHZ
I previously posted a message speculating that a Sempron 3100 Socket 754 platform should outpeform Xeon 2.8GHZ due to tis architectural superiority. The socket 754 semprons has
1) Direct Connect Architecture with FSB running at CPU frequency 1.6GHZ
2) Embedded memory controller that reduce memory latency
3) Data Execution prevention with NX bit
The sempron share the traits of Opteron, but has less cache. However, it uses faster unbuffered ram(though it's single channel).
I don't have a sempron 3100+ machine. Could anyone with these cuties run some tests and post some scores?
Two tests
1) OpenSSL
you run it by typing
openssl speed rsa
at the command prompt
2) mysql becnchmark
You may have to download it from
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/mysql-benchmarks.html
-
05-04-2005, 06:46 PM #2Managed Hosting Expert
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Location
- North Yorkshire, UK
- Posts
- 4,164
This under an x32 or x64 environment?
Dan█ Dan Kitchen | Technical Director | Razorblue
█ ddi: (+44) (0)1748 900 680 | e: dkitchen@razorblue.com
█ UK Intensive Managed Hosting, Clusters and Colocation.
█ HP Servers, Cisco/Juniper Powered BGP Network (AS15692).
-
05-04-2005, 06:57 PM #3Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2000
- Location
- Washington, USA
- Posts
- 5,990
The Xeon is likely to be faster, as the Sempron is rated in comparison to a Celeron. However, the performance difference isn't likely to be very much.
-
05-04-2005, 07:04 PM #4Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
- Location
- Switzerland
- Posts
- 1,307
The Sempron sucks. I am using a sempron 2800+ to post this message. I prefer a PIII instead!
Enterprise Consultant
CCNP Enterprise - CCNP Security
.:. Travels From West to East .:.
-
05-04-2005, 07:09 PM #5Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2003
- Location
- Indiana, US
- Posts
- 1,355
Originally posted by edelweisshosting
The Sempron sucks. I am using a sempron 2800+ to post this message. I prefer a PIII instead!
This under an x32 or x64 environment?
Dan
-
05-04-2005, 07:17 PM #6Newbie
- Join Date
- May 2005
- Posts
- 13
I'm sure many people are aware of this but just in case. There will be certain applications where the Xeon outperforms the Sempron or vice versa. Generally, when choosing a large server I vary between AMD and Intel depending on my application needs. Benchmarks involving openssl and mysql are going to be biased as that isn't a complete overall comparision of either processor architecture.
Last edited by Snipz; 05-04-2005 at 07:21 PM.
-
05-04-2005, 07:55 PM #7Managed Hosting Expert
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Location
- North Yorkshire, UK
- Posts
- 4,164
Originally posted by HstCreations
The 2800+ and the 3100+ are completely different sockets. How your 2800+ performs is irrelevant to this thread.
I wasn't aware either of the processors were 64-bit capable?
A Sempron is actually comparable to a P4, especially in the lower numbers (not HT etc), but I wouldn't go head to head with a Xeon. In this case much as I love my AMD's, I think the Xeon will probably win█ Dan Kitchen | Technical Director | Razorblue
█ ddi: (+44) (0)1748 900 680 | e: dkitchen@razorblue.com
█ UK Intensive Managed Hosting, Clusters and Colocation.
█ HP Servers, Cisco/Juniper Powered BGP Network (AS15692).
-
05-04-2005, 08:21 PM #8Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
- Location
- Switzerland
- Posts
- 1,307
The 2800+ and the 3100+ are completely different sockets. How your 2800+ performs is irrelevant to this thread.
In my office, I have a P4 2.8 Ghz, a sempron 2800+ and PIII 500 Mhz, this last with Windows 98. I order these machines [all with 512 MB RAM] from the faster to the slowest:
The P4 2.8 Ghz
The PIII 500 Mhz
The Sempron 2800+Enterprise Consultant
CCNP Enterprise - CCNP Security
.:. Travels From West to East .:.
-
05-04-2005, 08:42 PM #9Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2000
- Location
- Washington, USA
- Posts
- 5,990
Something must be messed up with your Sempron box then. I've got a 2600+ and it smokes a P4 2.0Ghz with ease.
As for the Semprons, they make both socket 462, and 754 models. Those models do overlap to some extent at various rated speeds.
-
05-04-2005, 09:28 PM #10Junior Guru
- Join Date
- Jun 2002
- Location
- sydney.au
- Posts
- 248
The socket 754 Semprons are based on the Opteron architecture, but with reduced cached and with 64-bit mode disabled. Socket A semprons are Athlons; I don't remember which exact version of the core.
The Sempron 3100+ is a 1.8GHz chip. While I'd definitely take a 1.8GHz Opteron over a 2.8GHz Xeon; the Sempron with it's much smaller cache might be a wash.
Anyway, Anandtech reports a Sempron 3100+ doing 364.9 1024-bit RSA signs per second, so if you can find someone with a Xeon 2.8...
edelweisshosting: If your Sempron 2800+ really is running slower than a PIII 500, it's not the chip's fault, since even an Athlon 500 will beat a PIII 500. There's something screwed up with that machine.
-
05-04-2005, 11:51 PM #11Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Jul 2003
- Posts
- 332
The Sempron would get wasted by the Xeon.
You cannot compare AMD's budget chip to Intel's top of the line server chip. The Xeon has like what... 4 times the amount of cache? That would kill in database environments.
-
05-05-2005, 12:36 AM #12Temporarily Suspended
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Posts
- 371
Ok, I found some benchmarks here
http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2170
Sempron 3100+ does mysql select in 378 seconds
Sempron 3100+ does 364 1024 bit RSA signs per second
Now, how about Xeon 2.8 GHZ?
From http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showth...4&pagenumber=4
Dual Xeon 2.8GHZ produced 480 1024 bit RSA signs/second.
I can deduce that one 2.8GHZ Xeon will do about 240 signs/second.
from
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/200...#database_test
Xeon 2.8GHZ finishes the MySQL select test in 595 seconds.
Conclusion:
Sempron is faster than xeon 2.8GHZ in openssl RSA tests
Sempron 3100+ (socket 754) is decisively faster than Xeon 2.8GHZ in MySQL tests. Sempron took 378 seconds to finish, Xeon 2.8 took 595 seconds.
(Note although different mysql version is used, however, the tests themselves are the same)
To compete with Sempron 3100+ (32 bit, 1.8GHZ, socket 754, 1.8GHZ FSB), you will need at least a XEON 3.6GHZ EM64T running 64 bit Linux.
Guys, numbers don't lie!
-
05-05-2005, 12:44 AM #13Temporarily Suspended
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Posts
- 371
I can explain why Sempron 3100+ trashes Xeon 2.8GHZ in all meaningful server benchmarks,
1) Sempron has Direct Connect Architecture
2) Sempron has hypertransport running at 800MHZ
3) Sempron FSB 1.8GHZ
4) Sempron has only 12 stage pipeline
Xeon is slow
1) shared bus of 533MHZ to 800MHZ
2) 31 stages of pipe line, one branch misprediction, you waste 31 clock cycles...
-
05-05-2005, 01:06 AM #14Junior Guru
- Join Date
- Jun 2002
- Location
- sydney.au
- Posts
- 248
Originally posted by wm2100
Xeon is slow
1) shared bus of 533MHZ to 800MHZ
2) 31 stages of pipe line, one branch misprediction, you waste 31 clock cycles...
-
05-05-2005, 02:08 AM #15Junior Guru
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Posts
- 203
You could've just looked at your other post. Your conclusions are incorrect. Rethink you experiment and try again and try to base your conclusions on REAL data. People may believe what you are stating as fact.
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showth...5&pagenumber=1
Dual Xeon
sign verify sign/s verify/s
rsa 512 bits 0.0003s 0.0000s 2981.2 35243.0
rsa 1024 bits 0.0017s 0.0001s 581.9 11931.4
rsa 2048 bits 0.0100s 0.0003s 99.5 3577.8
rsa 4096 bits 0.0661s 0.0010s 15.1 1008.8
Standard 2.8 Ghz w. HT
Multi-Threaded Results
sign verify sign/s verify/s
rsa 512 bits 0.0007s 0.0001s 1506.0 17543.9
rsa 1024 bits 0.0034s 0.0002s 291.5 5970.1
rsa 2048 bits 0.0201s 0.0006s 49.7 1787.3
rsa 4096 bits 0.1323s 0.0020s 7.6 504.6
-
05-05-2005, 03:48 AM #16Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2000
- Location
- Sheffield, South Yorks
- Posts
- 3,627
You can't go round comparing machines from different benchmarks, it's just not accurate at all, the machines need to be as identical as possible. i.e. Same speed RAM, same disk subsystem, same graphics card, same addon cards etc. etc. The only thing that should change, is the motherboard and the CPU, nothing else, it should all be absolutely identical. As for deducing that a Single Xeon will get half the signs as a Dual Xeon, that is just plain wrong, everyone and his dog knows you don't get a 100% increase in performance in moving from Uni to Dual Processor, if you're lucky it'll be around 60-70% but it all depends on the application in question.
Whilst you may think you're doing AMD some good by singing their praises, by using a poor methodology, you're giving everyone the impression you're just an AMD fan-boy without much clue (I'm not saying you are, it's just the impression you give with poor methodology).Karl Austin :: KDAWS.com
The Agency Hosting Specialist :: 0800 5429 764
Partner with us and free-up more time for income generating tasks
-
05-05-2005, 04:45 AM #17WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Posts
- 161
Despite the fact that I'm also consider myself as an AMD fan I was quite surprised by the comparison and the way it was performed.
You need to compare Xeon vs. Opteron, as the Sempron is a value processor built to compete against Celeron.
-
05-05-2005, 05:23 AM #18Junior Guru
- Join Date
- Jun 2002
- Location
- sydney.au
- Posts
- 248
Originally posted by secureserver
Despite the fact that I'm also consider myself as an AMD fan I was quite surprised by the comparison and the way it was performed.
You need to compare Xeon vs. Opteron, as the Sempron is a value processor built to compete against Celeron.
Celerons and Xeons are the same chip, just with varying levels of cache and FSB speed (and hyperthreading disabled on the Celeron).
Semprons (the socket 754 ones) and Opterons are likewise the same, with varying levels of cache and FSB speed (and 64-bit mode disabled on the Sempron).
Larger cache is very necessary in dual/multi-processor systems because it frees up the FSB (particularly for Xeons with their shared FSB). How much it helps for a single processor depends on the application.
If you benchmark a Sempron and a Xeon with your application (or something similar to it) and the Sempron is faster, then the Sempron is faster. The fact that it is much cheaper is irrelevant.
-
05-05-2005, 06:51 AM #19Temporarily Suspended
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Posts
- 371
Numbers don't lie!
The same MySQL selects, Sempron 3100 finish it in 300+ seconds, Xeon 2.8 does it in 500+ seconds.
Sempron does 300+ rsa signs in one second, Xeon does 200+.
Do we blindly believe Xeon is better simply because it's priced higher and labeled as a server chip by INTEL?
Those Xeons needs bigger cache, why?
Because its architecture is oudated, its FSB and memory interface so slow, and its pipeline so long, it has to have big cache, otherwise the core will be stalled.
Xeon has 31 stage pipe, meaning one instruction takes 31 clock cycles to finish.
Sempron and Opteron has 12 stage pipe, one instruction takes 12 clock cycles to finish.
Pentium-M has 10 stage pipe, ans we see dothan 2GHZ faster than 3.6GHZ P4.
Itanium has 8 stage pipe, so 1.6GHZ Itanium is faster than 3.8 GHZ xeon.
But Itanium is slower than Opteron, because Opteron has direct connect architecture.
INTEL can no longer play the frequency trick, because it has hit a ceiling....
-
05-05-2005, 06:59 AM #20Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2000
- Location
- Sheffield, South Yorks
- Posts
- 3,627
Question for you, what memory did the Xeon have? The Sempron? Disk? If they aren't the same, then it isn't a valid comparisson.
Karl Austin :: KDAWS.com
The Agency Hosting Specialist :: 0800 5429 764
Partner with us and free-up more time for income generating tasks
-
05-05-2005, 07:04 AM #21Temporarily Suspended
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Posts
- 371
In Anandtech's Sempron benchmark, Sempron 3100+ has 1GB of ram (2 x 512MB).
In Toms test, Xeon 2.8 also has 1GB of ram, 4x256MB
-
05-05-2005, 07:07 AM #22Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2000
- Location
- Sheffield, South Yorks
- Posts
- 3,627
Type of memory? Disk?
Also the SQL Select is only one specific type of benchmark, you can't conclusively say one CPU is better than the other in general terms without having a comprehensive suite of tests on machines with as similar specification as possible. The only time you can ignore the rest of the spec is with the SpecInt tests etc. which measure $/transaction.Karl Austin :: KDAWS.com
The Agency Hosting Specialist :: 0800 5429 764
Partner with us and free-up more time for income generating tasks
-
05-05-2005, 10:21 AM #23Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2000
- Location
- Washington, USA
- Posts
- 5,990
Karl is right. The benchmarks need to be have comparable hardware.
Also, the Xeon and Sempron will go back/forth in benchmarks. AMD vs. Intel has always done that, each CPU has it's strong points.
-
05-05-2005, 11:55 AM #24Junior Guru
- Join Date
- Jun 2002
- Location
- sydney.au
- Posts
- 248
Originally posted by KDAWebServices
Type of memory? Disk?
Also the SQL Select is only one specific type of benchmark, you can't conclusively say one CPU is better than the other in general terms without having a comprehensive suite of tests on machines with as similar specification as possible. The only time you can ignore the rest of the spec is with the SpecInt tests etc. which measure $/transaction.
-
05-05-2005, 01:47 PM #25Temporarily Suspended
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Posts
- 371
Originally posted by ikeo
You could've just looked at your other post. Your conclusions are incorrect. Rethink you experiment and try again and try to base your conclusions on REAL data. People may believe what you are stating as fact.
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showth...5&pagenumber=1
Dual Xeon
sign verify sign/s verify/s
rsa 512 bits 0.0003s 0.0000s 2981.2 35243.0
rsa 1024 bits 0.0017s 0.0001s 581.9 11931.4
rsa 2048 bits 0.0100s 0.0003s 99.5 3577.8
rsa 4096 bits 0.0661s 0.0010s 15.1 1008.8
Standard 2.8 Ghz w. HT
Multi-Threaded Results
sign verify sign/s verify/s
rsa 512 bits 0.0007s 0.0001s 1506.0 17543.9
rsa 1024 bits 0.0034s 0.0002s 291.5 5970.1
rsa 2048 bits 0.0201s 0.0006s 49.7 1787.3
rsa 4096 bits 0.1323s 0.0020s 7.6 504.6