Performance question: Opteron Dual core vs Xeon

I can't find any reference off hand. But a 2.2GHz Opteron is about at par
with a 3.0GHZ Xeon because of the architectural differences. Operton has its
memory and L2 cache right 'on the processor' whereas Xeon has some overhead
with its southbridge/northbridge etc. So in your case, DL585 can give you
more processing room because you can go dual cores.
Also, you can actually get faster processors on DL585, approximately 2.4GHz
for dual cores and 2.8GHz for single cores.
But whether or not you choose DL585 or DL580 depends on the requirements and
growth forecast of your application. It's possible that DL580 may be
sufficient for your particular app.
Linchi
"Bastian" wrote:

> Hello,
> we are looking for new systems to run SQL20005 on Windows 2003 64-bit.. Ou
r
> supplier made a proposal of two machines.
> Number one:
> HP Proliant DL585 (R01) with 4x Opteron - 2.2 Ghz - 1 MB cache and 8 GB
> memory
> Number two:
> HP Proliant DL580 (G3) with 4x Xeon - 3 Ghz - 2 MB cache and 8 GB memory
>
> The advantage of box one is that it can hold up to eight cpu's, but my
> question is about the CPU power. What are the relative performance
> statistics between a slower (2.2 Ghz) dual core machine and a faster (3.0
> Ghz) single core Xeon machine and especially when running SQL2005.
> tia,
> Bastian
>
>Hello,
we are looking for new systems to run SQL20005 on Windows 2003 64-bit.. Our
supplier made a proposal of two machines.
Number one:
HP Proliant DL585 (R01) with 4x Opteron - 2.2 Ghz - 1 MB cache and 8 GB
memory
Number two:
HP Proliant DL580 (G3) with 4x Xeon - 3 Ghz - 2 MB cache and 8 GB memory
The advantage of box one is that it can hold up to eight cpu's, but my
question is about the CPU power. What are the relative performance
statistics between a slower (2.2 Ghz) dual core machine and a faster (3.0
Ghz) single core Xeon machine and especially when running SQL2005.
tia,
Bastian|||I can't find any reference off hand. But a 2.2GHz Opteron is about at par
with a 3.0GHZ Xeon because of the architectural differences. Operton has its
memory and L2 cache right 'on the processor' whereas Xeon has some overhead
with its southbridge/northbridge etc. So in your case, DL585 can give you
more processing room because you can go dual cores.
Also, you can actually get faster processors on DL585, approximately 2.4GHz
for dual cores and 2.8GHz for single cores.
But whether or not you choose DL585 or DL580 depends on the requirements and
growth forecast of your application. It's possible that DL580 may be
sufficient for your particular app.
Linchi
"Bastian" wrote:

> Hello,
> we are looking for new systems to run SQL20005 on Windows 2003 64-bit.. Ou
r
> supplier made a proposal of two machines.
> Number one:
> HP Proliant DL585 (R01) with 4x Opteron - 2.2 Ghz - 1 MB cache and 8 GB
> memory
> Number two:
> HP Proliant DL580 (G3) with 4x Xeon - 3 Ghz - 2 MB cache and 8 GB memory
>
> The advantage of box one is that it can hold up to eight cpu's, but my
> question is about the CPU power. What are the relative performance
> statistics between a slower (2.2 Ghz) dual core machine and a faster (3.0
> Ghz) single core Xeon machine and especially when running SQL2005.
> tia,
> Bastian
>
>|||FYI - (my $.02 )
My experience has been that a DL585 at 2.0Ghz performs slighter better
than a DL580 running 3.0Ghz processors(on Win2k adv & SQL2000 Ent). I
am a little surprised that the supplier is limiting your config to 8GB
as memory would have equal (or more) impact as processor speed to SQL
performance. (What size DB's?)
I think with X64/SQL2005 the AMD architecture will widen the
performance gap. For myself I would go with 2.2 dual-core (now at
2.6Ghz if you have the $$$) and 16GB in PC3200 RAM in 2GB modules
upgradeable to 32GB total.
You will pay the same licensing as the single core and you can disable
them at the SQL level if you want to see four processor performance
(slightly inflated as OS will use all cores).
-Kismif
Linchi Shea wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> I can't find any reference off hand. But a 2.2GHz Opteron is about at par
> with a 3.0GHZ Xeon because of the architectural differences. Operton has i
ts
> memory and L2 cache right 'on the processor' whereas Xeon has some overhea
d
> with its southbridge/northbridge etc. So in your case, DL585 can give you
> more processing room because you can go dual cores.
> Also, you can actually get faster processors on DL585, approximately 2.4GH
z
> for dual cores and 2.8GHz for single cores.
> But whether or not you choose DL585 or DL580 depends on the requirements a
nd
> growth forecast of your application. It's possible that DL580 may be
> sufficient for your particular app.
> Linchi
> "Bastian" wrote:
>|||Oh, forgot.
One correction both the DL585 & DL580 are 4-way servers.
Both can be purchased with dual core processors (e.g. 8 cores) neither
is a true 8-way server.
-Kismif
Kismif wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> FYI - (my $.02 )
> My experience has been that a DL585 at 2.0Ghz performs slighter better
> than a DL580 running 3.0Ghz processors(on Win2k adv & SQL2000 Ent). I
> am a little surprised that the supplier is limiting your config to 8GB
> as memory would have equal (or more) impact as processor speed to SQL
> performance. (What size DB's?)
> I think with X64/SQL2005 the AMD architecture will widen the
> performance gap. For myself I would go with 2.2 dual-core (now at
> 2.6Ghz if you have the $$$) and 16GB in PC3200 RAM in 2GB modules
> upgradeable to 32GB total.
> You will pay the same licensing as the single core and you can disable
> them at the SQL level if you want to see four processor performance
> (slightly inflated as OS will use all cores).
> -Kismif
> Linchi Shea wrote:|||FYI - (my $.02 )
My experience has been that a DL585 at 2.0Ghz performs slighter better
than a DL580 running 3.0Ghz processors(on Win2k adv & SQL2000 Ent). I
am a little surprised that the supplier is limiting your config to 8GB
as memory would have equal (or more) impact as processor speed to SQL
performance. (What size DB's?)
I think with X64/SQL2005 the AMD architecture will widen the
performance gap. For myself I would go with 2.2 dual-core (now at
2.6Ghz if you have the $$$) and 16GB in PC3200 RAM in 2GB modules
upgradeable to 32GB total.
You will pay the same licensing as the single core and you can disable
them at the SQL level if you want to see four processor performance
(slightly inflated as OS will use all cores).
-Kismif
Linchi Shea wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> I can't find any reference off hand. But a 2.2GHz Opteron is about at par
> with a 3.0GHZ Xeon because of the architectural differences. Operton has i
ts
> memory and L2 cache right 'on the processor' whereas Xeon has some overhea
d
> with its southbridge/northbridge etc. So in your case, DL585 can give you
> more processing room because you can go dual cores.
> Also, you can actually get faster processors on DL585, approximately 2.4GH
z
> for dual cores and 2.8GHz for single cores.
> But whether or not you choose DL585 or DL580 depends on the requirements a
nd
> growth forecast of your application. It's possible that DL580 may be
> sufficient for your particular app.
> Linchi
> "Bastian" wrote:
>|||Oh, forgot.
One correction both the DL585 & DL580 are 4-way servers.
Both can be purchased with dual core processors (e.g. 8 cores) neither
is a true 8-way server.
-Kismif
Kismif wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> FYI - (my $.02 )
> My experience has been that a DL585 at 2.0Ghz performs slighter better
> than a DL580 running 3.0Ghz processors(on Win2k adv & SQL2000 Ent). I
> am a little surprised that the supplier is limiting your config to 8GB
> as memory would have equal (or more) impact as processor speed to SQL
> performance. (What size DB's?)
> I think with X64/SQL2005 the AMD architecture will widen the
> performance gap. For myself I would go with 2.2 dual-core (now at
> 2.6Ghz if you have the $$$) and 16GB in PC3200 RAM in 2GB modules
> upgradeable to 32GB total.
> You will pay the same licensing as the single core and you can disable
> them at the SQL level if you want to see four processor performance
> (slightly inflated as OS will use all cores).
> -Kismif
> Linchi Shea wrote: