A Computer hardware and components forum. ComputerBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ComputerBanter.com forum » Processors » AMD x86-64 Processors
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Examining Intel's Woodcrest performance claims on TPC-C, Floating point, Integer, Java, Web, HPC and application



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 8th 06, 10:26 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Examining Intel's Woodcrest performance claims on TPC-C, Floating point, Integer, Java, Web, HPC and application

Examining Intel's Woodcrest performance claims on TPC-C, Floating
point, Integer, Java, Web, HPC and application

Today, former Enron execs were found guilty on charges of fraud, false
statements and conspiracy. Let's revisit Intel's Woodcrest performance
claims. I pointed out that Intel's changing of the Opteron TPC-C
benchmark description from 32 bit x86 to 64 bit x64 was a fraud.

Some of the readers said that Intel simply picked up the highest
reported TPC-C results for two way servers, Woodcrest and Opteron,
regardless of the operating system used. Let's test this assumption on
other benchmarks. Let's look at floating point performance.

For SpecFP_rate_2000, the highest reported score for 2P 2.6GHZ Opteron
285 was 85 under Solaris 10. Guess what? Intel ignored this result,
instead, it uses a lower Opteron result for Linux with a score of 72.9.
The 3GHZ Woodcrest scored 83 under Linux. The 3GHZ Woodcrest (Linux)
was 3% slower than 2.6GHZ Opteron (Solaris). Also, notice that Intel
chose the SPECfp_rate_base2000 scores for comparison. The
SPECfp_rate_base2000 is for conservative optmization of the benchmark,
so it's always lower than the SPECFp_rate_2000 score. For some strange
reason, the DELL 2950 Woodcrest server's optimized SPECfp_rate_2000
score was the same as the conservative SPECfp_rate_base2000 score,
which may indicate that there were some issues with how the benchmark
was done. Any way, Intel was shopping for the lowest Opteron scores.
This clearly shows that Intel knew different configurations lead to
different results. Had Intel chosen the highest score regardless of OS,
the 2.6GHZ Opteron would outperform 3GHZ Woodcrest in SpecFP_rate_2000.

According to this report, the 3GHZ Woodcrest (Xeon 5160) will be the
topmost chip, the next will be the 2.66GHZ Xeon 5150. Intel's topmost
desktop chip the Conroe XE will be at 2.93GHZ. This indicates that a
3GHZ Woodcrest will be a cherry-picked chip. According to this page,
the 2.8GHZ Opteron x90 has been in the wild for quite a while now.

For SpecInt_rate_2000, Intel again changed the OS description of the
systems. The Woodcrest benchmark was done in 64 bit. The Opteron
benchmark was done in 32 bit. This time, Intel changed the Dell
PowerEdge 2950's benchmark description from "Microsoft Windows Server
2003 Enterprise x64 Edition" to just "Microsoft Windows Server 2003",
making it look like the same as the Opteron test. This is just like
Intel's Woodcrest TPC-C performance claim fraud.

Let's look at another example: Intel's page on Java performance. Intel
used an unpublished Woodcrest test result on a Fujitsu Siemens PRIMERGY
server running Windows Server x64 with BEA JRockit 5.0 P26.4.0 JVM. But
for Opteron, Intel decided to use the score from a Tyan S2895 server
with two 2.6GHZ Opteron and a SATA drive, the score was only 54490.
However, from www.spec.org, we can find a Fujitsu Siemens PRIMERGY
server with two 2.4GHZ Opteron 280 (running Linux, JRockit 5.0 P26.0.0)
scoring 61155. Again, Intel was shopping for the lowest Opteron scores.

Let's look at yet another example: Intel's page on web performance. An
IBM 3GHZ Woodcrest server got a SpecWeb2005 score of 9182.
Mysteriously, there is no Opteron scores on this Intel page. However,
going to www.spec.org, we quickly found this 2.4GHZ Opteron 280 server
achieving a score of 8394. The 3GHZ Woodcrest has a 25% clockspeed
advantage but only 9% performance lead over the 2.4GHZ Opteron.

Let's look at one more example: Intel's page on application
performance. For the SunGard ACR test, Intel sent two servers to a
company called Principled Technologies. One was an Intel built Opteron
server and one was a Woodcrest server. Not surprisingly, the Woodcrest
won the benchmark. The details of the benchmark is in this PDF file.
The motherboard Intel chose for the Opteron was an UNIWIDE SS232_128_03
model using Nvidia NF4 chipset. One has to ask why Intel built the
Opteron server themselves instead of using a proven server such as
SUN's X4200 or HP DL385. We know server performance does vary from
system to system. Not only Intel built and configured the Opteron
server, it also provided the Intel compiled test application "SunGard
ACR Intel Demo 2.5". It is unclear how Intel optimized this test
application, but in a previous report (later removed), it was reported
SunGard ACR is significantly faster for Xeon when compiled with Intel
C++ compiler.

The more we examine Intel's presentations, the more problems we find.
Looking at Intel's HPC performance page, pay attention to the fluid
dynamics results (Fluent). Intel used a Woodcrest 3GHZ (2530.44)
against an IBM 2.2GHZ LS20 Opteron blade (2014.34) , with the Woodcrest
having 36.4% clockspeed advantage and 26% performance lead. However, if
you go to the Fluent full results page, you can see there are quite a
few Opteron results better than the 2.2GHZ IBM LS20 Opteron blade. In
fact, there is a 2.6GHZ IBM LS20 Opteron blade scoring 2404.72. Using
this result for 2.6GHZ Opteron, the 3GHZ Woodcrest would have only 5%
performance advantage, despite 15% clockspeed advantage. Actually, both
results show that Woodcrest being 10% slower than Opteron clock for
clock, in agreement with our previous analysis. One can imagine Intel
tabulated the Fluent benchmark results, and decided to use AMD's entry
level 2.2GHZ Opteron 275 for comparison against the topmost Woodcrest
3GHZ (Xeon 5160). On the same HPC performance page, for "Finite Element
Analysis for Crash Simulation", Intel also picked a low score for
Opteron, despite existence of better Opteron results (see user
comments).

So, why did Intel change the Opteron TPC-C description from x86 (32
bit) to x64 (b4 bit)? Why did Intel consistently choose the lower
Opteron scores for comparison?

The answer is obvious, to create a false impression that the Intel CPU
is much better.

Fraud: Any act, expression, omission, or concealment calculated to
deceive another to his or her disadvantage. (Merriam-Webster's
Dictionary of Law, 1996).

/////////////////////////////////////////////
emspan style="font-size:85%;"/span/em
span style="font-size:85%;"iExamining Intel's Woodcrest performance
claims on TPC-C, Floating point, Integer, Java, Web, HPC and
application/i
/span
Today, former Enron execs were found guilty on charges of fraud, false
statements and conspiracy. Let's revisit Intel's Woodcrest performance
claims. I pointed out that a
href="http://sharikou.blogspot.com/2006/05/intel-woodcrest-performance-claim.html"Intel's
changing of the Opteron TPC-C benchmark description from 32 bit x86 to
64 bit x64 was a fraud/a.

Some of the readers said that Intel simply picked up the highest
reported TPC-C results for two way servers, Woodcrest and Opteron,
regardless of the operating system used. Let's test this assumption on
other benchmarks. Let's look at a
href="http://www.intel.com/performance/server/xeon/fpthru.htm"floating
point performance/a.

For SpecFP_rate_2000, the a
href="http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2006q1/cpu2000-20060306-05756.html"highest
reported score for 2P 2.6GHZ Opteron 285 was 85/a under Solaris 10.
Guess what? Intel ignored this result, instead, it uses a a
href="http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2006q1/cpu2000-20060306-05758.html"lower
Opteron result for Linux with a score of 72.9/a. a
href="http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2006q2/cpu2000-20060501-05939.html"The
3GHZ Woodcrest scored 83 under Linux/a. The 3GHZ Woodcrest (Linux)
was 3% slower than 2.6GHZ Opteron (Solaris). Also, notice that Intel
chose the SPECfp_rate_base2000 scores for comparison. The
SPECfp_rate_base2000 is for conservative optmization of the benchmark,
so it's always lower than the SPECFp_rate_2000 score. For some strange
reason, the DELL 2950 Woodcrest server's optimized SPECfp_rate_2000
score was the same as the conservative SPECfp_rate_base2000 score,
which may indicate that there were some issues with how the benchmark
was done. Any way, Intel was shopping for the lowest Opteron scores.
This clearly shows that Intel knew different configurations lead to
different results. Had Intel chosen the highest score regardless of OS,
the 2.6GHZ Opteron would outperform 3GHZ Woodcrest in SpecFP_rate_2000.

According to a href="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31990"this
report/a, the 3GHZ Woodcrest (Xeon 5160) will be the topmost chip,
the next will be the 2.66GHZ Xeon 5150. Intel's topmost desktop chip
the Conroe XE will be at 2.93GHZ. This indicates that a 3GHZ Woodcrest
will be a cherry-picked chip. According to a
href="http://www.american-computer.com/supercomputing/viper.htm"this
page/a, the 2.8GHZ Opteron x90 has been in the wild for quite a while
now.

For SpecInt_rate_2000, Intel again a
href="http://www.intel.com/performance/server/xeon/intthru.htm"changed
the OS description of the systems/a. a
href="http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2006q2/cpu2000-20060501-05940.html"The
Woodcrest benchmark/a was done in 64 bit. The a
href="http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2006q1/cpu2000-20060306-05697.html"Opteron
benchmark was done in 32 bit/a. This time, Intel changed the Dell
PowerEdge 2950's benchmark description from "Microsoft Windows Server
2003 Enterprise x64 Edition" to just "Microsoft Windows Server 2003",
making it look like the same as the Opteron test. This is just like a
href="http://sharikou.blogspot.com/2006/05/intel-woodcrest-performance-claim.html"Intel's
Woodcrest TPC-C performance claim fraud/a.

Let's look at another example: a
href="http://www.intel.com/performance/server/xeon/java.htm"Intel's
page on Java performance/a. Intel used an unpublished Woodcrest test
result on a Fujitsu Siemens PRIMERGY server running Windows Server x64
with BEA JRockit 5.0 P26.4.0 JVM. But for Opteron, Intel decided to use
the score from a Tyan S2895 server with two 2.6GHZ Opteron and a SATA
drive, the score was only 54490. However, from a
href="http://www.spec.org"www.spec.org/a, we can find a a
href="http://www.spec.org/jbb2005/results/res2006q1/jbb2005-20060214-00074.html"Fujitsu
Siemens PRIMERGY server with two 2.4GHZ Opteron 280 (running Linux,
JRockit 5.0 P26.0.0) scoring 61155/a. Again, Intel was shopping for
the lowest Opteron scores.

Let's look at yet another example: a
href="http://www.intel.com/performance/server/xeon/web.htm"Intel's
page on web performance/a. An IBM 3GHZ Woodcrest server got a
SpecWeb2005 score of 9182. Mysteriously, there is no Opteron scores on
this Intel page. However, going to a
href="http://www.spec.org"www.spec.org/a, we quickly found this a
href="http://www.spec.org/web2005/results/res2006q2/web2005-20060508-00025.html"2.4GHZ
Opteron 280 server achieving a score of 8394/a. The 3GHZ Woodcrest
has a 25% clockspeed advantage but only 9% performance lead over the
2.4GHZ Opteron.

Let's look at one more example: a
href="http://www.intel.com/performance/server/xeon/app.htm"Intel's
page on application performance/a. For the SunGard ACR test, Intel
sent two servers to a company called a
href="http://www.principledtechnologies.com/"Principled
Technologies/a. One was an Intel built Opteron server and one was a
Woodcrest server. Not surprisingly, the Woodcrest won the benchmark.
The a
href="http://www.principledtechnologies.com/clients/reports/Intel/WSunGard_ACR_0506.pdf"details
of the benchmark is in this PDF file/a. The motherboard Intel chose
for the Opteron was an UNIWIDE SS232_128_03 model using Nvidia NF4
chipset. One has to ask why Intel built the Opteron server themselves
instead of using a proven server such as SUN's X4200 or HP DL385. We
know server performance does vary from system to system. Not only Intel
built and configured the Opteron server, it also provided the Intel
compiled test application "SunGard ACR Intel Demo 2.5". It is unclear
how Intel optimized this test application, but in a previous report
(later removed), it was reported SunGard ACR is significantly faster
for Xeon when compiled with Intel C++ compiler.

The more we examine Intel's presentations, the more problems we find.
Looking at a
href="http://www.intel.com/performance/server/xeon/hpcapp.htm"Intel's
HPC performance page/a, pay attention to the fluid dynamics results
(Fluent). Intel used a Woodcrest 3GHZ (2530.44) against an IBM 2.2GHZ
LS20 Opteron blade (2014.34) , with the Woodcrest having 36.4%
clockspeed advantage and 26% performance lead. However, if you go to a
href="http://www.fluent.com/software/fluent/fl5bench/flbench_6.2/fullres.htm"the
Fluent full results page/a, you can see there are quite a few Opteron
results better than the 2.2GHZ IBM LS20 Opteron blade. In fact, there
is a 2.6GHZ IBM LS20 Opteron blade scoring 2404.72. Using this result
for 2.6GHZ Opteron, the 3GHZ Woodcrest would have only 5% performance
advantage, despite 15% clockspeed advantage. Actually, both results
show that Woodcrest being 10% slower than Opteron clock for clock, in
agreement with a
href="http://sharikou.blogspot.com/2006/05/3ghz-woodcrest-against-26ghz-opteron.html"our
previous analysis/a. One can imagine Intel tabulated the Fluent
benchmark results, and decided to use AMD's entry level 2.2GHZ Opteron
275 for comparison against the topmost Woodcrest 3GHZ (Xeon 5160). On
the same HPC performance page, for "Finite Element Analysis for Crash
Simulation", Intel also picked a low score for Opteron, despite
existence of better Opteron results (see user comments).

So, why did Intel change the Opteron TPC-C description from x86 (32
bit) to x64 (b4 bit)? Why did Intel consistently choose the lower
Opteron scores for comparison?

The answer is obvious, to create a false impression that the Intel CPU
is much better.

strongFraud/strong: emAny act, expression, omission, or
concealment calculated to deceive another to his or her disadvantage.
(Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, 1996)./em
em/em
Intel's behaviour satisfies the above legal defintion 100%.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 ComputerBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.