Opteron 12 Core Vs Xeon 6 Core in Cinebench/Blender

[meleseDESIGN]

2,2GHz is a bit odd for a workstation, but it seems AMD has made a nice CPU for Server's.
AMD still can´t follow Intel's newer Workstation CPU's (Socket 1366).

Nice Review by the way!
Thanks for the Links!

;)

[olson]

Cool article. For those who don't follow AMD's business, it's 80% as fast as the Intel system but it'll cost less than 80% of the Intel system. Got to love the underdog! Thanks for the news. Cheers!

[mattmos]

The interesting thing for me in that article was the performance under linux, which suggests that the linux os is much better suited to handling large number of threads rendering at once - keeping more cores working at 100% for longer than in a windows environment. So amd and linux could be a great combination for render farms.

[meleseDESIGN]

For those who don't follow AMD's business, it's 80% as fast as the Intel system but it'll cost less than 80% of the Intel system!

Agreed! But don´t forget most daily tasks are still single threaded and a 2,2GHz CPU probably isn´t good enough for an respectable workflow in any 3D package. So in the end it´s not the price what counts. If AMD would make an 12Core CPU with each Core running at least around 3GHz, then it's definitly a good step to use them in a Workstation.

But those Opterons are only good for Server/Renderfarm, cos through the limited power for single threaded tasks with this 12 Core processors.


;)

[The4thAggie]

Getting off into the server farm OS debate, when you don't have to pay the enormous fee for Server 2008R2 you can afford better processors. Gotta love Linux being free.

[olson]

Agreed! But don´t forget most daily tasks are still single threaded and a 2,2GHz CPU probably isn´t good enough for an respectable workflow in any 3D package. So in the end it´s not the price what counts. If AMD would make an 12Core CPU with each Core running at least around 3GHz, then it's definitly a good step to use them in a Workstation.

But those Opterons are only good for Server/Renderfarm, cos through the limited power for single threaded tasks with this 12 Core processors.


;)
True in some cases, though there's a lot of applications out there that would benefit from the extra cores. Compositing, lighting (rendering), dynamics and simulations, and applications specific features like ICE and VOPS. Its not as useless as you make it seem for a workstation. Cheers!

[olson]

Getting off into the server farm OS debate, when you don't have to pay the enormous fee for Server 2008R2 you can afford better processors. Gotta love Linux being free.

Word. Plus its much easier to administrate on a large scale. :deal:

[meleseDESIGN]

True in some cases, though there's a lot of applications out there that would benefit from the extra cores. Compositing, lighting (rendering), dynamics and simulations, and applications specific features like ICE and VOPS. Its not as useless as you make it seem for a workstation. Cheers!

I'm not saying it's useless!
Sure, 12 Cores on only one chip, that's a hugh step for AMD and they are further ahead as Intel in this case. But if I had to choose between an AMD Phenom II X4 965 and those 2,2GHz 12 Core Opterons for a Workstation, probably I would take the Phenom, same is for an i7 9XX, I would prefer those before 2,2GHz 12Core Opterons, but this is only for a WS.

Talking about Servers/Renderfarms is another discussion. Therefor probably I would go for those 12 Core Opterons if the price for them is lower as Xeon 5500 Serie CPU's. But first I would like to know the price for an 12 Core CPU. It seems they will be very expansive, because of the high production costs. Like it was the case for the Istanbul's, those are still very expansive.

And by the way, 12 cores need very much energy to, compared to Intels 6 Cores with HT.
Just imagine the Xeon's would have 12 physical cores + HT, they would be twice as fast.

But like I said, in the end speed is primarily more important in most situations.

;)

[olson]

I'm not saying it's useless!
Sure, 12 Cores on only one chip, that's a hugh step for AMD and they are further ahead as Intel in this case. But if I had to choose between an AMD Phenom II X4 965 and those 2,2GHz 12 Core Opterons for a Workstation, probably I would take the Phenom, same is for an i7 9XX, I would prefer those before 2,2GHz 12Core Opterons, but this is only for a WS.

Talking about Servers/Renderfarms is another discussion. Therefor probably I would go for those 12 Core Opterons if the price for them is lower as Xeon 5500 Serie CPU's. But first I would like to know the price for an 12 Core CPU. It seems they will be very expansive, because of the high production costs. Like it was the case for the Istanbul's, those are still very expansive.

And by the way, 12 cores need very much energy to, compared to Intels 6 Cores with HT.
Just imagine the Xeon's would have 12 physical cores + HT, they would be twice as fast.

But like I said, in the end speed is primarily more important in most situations.

;)

See the Opteron 6100 series pricing.

http://www.amd.com/us/products/pricing/Pages/server-opteron.aspx

My guess is either the 6136 (8 cores at 2.4 GHz) or the 6168 (12 cores at 1.9 GHz) will be the sweet spot. So for about $1500 you can get either 16 cores at 2.4 GHz or 24 cores at 1.9 GHz (plus motherboard and the rest like usual). That's pretty cool if you ask me. :beer:

EDIT: Those also work in the quad socket boards. :deal:

[meleseDESIGN]

EDIT: Those also work in the quad socket boards. :deal:

So you mean something like this:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270529337772

Ouch!


Anyway, i'm looking forward as usual!
Thanks for the Link, Luke.

;)

[olson]

So you mean something like this:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270529337772

Ouch!


Anyway, i'm looking forward as usual!
Thanks for the Link, Luke.

;)

Not bad considering it comes with 128GB of memory. ;)

Quad socket G34 systems will be available for much less than that in the near future when other manufacturers get their products out there. Either way its better than paying $30,000 for 16 cores and 16GB of memory only a year or two ago (e.g. BOXX Apexx 4).

[meleseDESIGN]

I would like to see some benchmarks for those 4-way systems.
Faster then 10 Istanbuls - nice.
It seems in the highend Server segment AMD is now on the first place after a long time again.

What about Intel's 4-way systems?
Anything comparative on the market?

;)

[Szos]

Even for those that wouldn't buy an AMD-based system, it is still very encouraging to see AMD offering Intel some competition.

Back in the day, Intel was notoriously stingy with the performance updates and those would cost you dearly. AMD was the one that forced Intel to be more competitive by offering nearly as fast performance for a fraction of the price. I used to be a big AMD fan, but honestly ever since the Core-line of chips have come out from Intel, I have not given them much interest.

Hopefully with AMD's recent infusion of cash, they will try once again to wrestle the performance title away from Intel and do it for much less money.

[meleseDESIGN]

Hopefully with AMD's recent infusion of cash, they will try once again to wrestle the performance title away from Intel and do it for much less money.


They compared an 12 core CPU with an 6 Core CPU and the 6 Core has even won the race, that speaks words.

;)

[Bullit]

Just to make a caveat, this tests are done by "civilians" ;) means not people that know how 3D apps behave and know from intuiition something is wrong with setups.

[olson]

Just to make a caveat, this tests are done by "civilians" ;)

I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I read that, like we all have some kind of license. :arteest:

[Bullit]

Aha the joys of regulated world. In the past, middle ages your reputation was by word of mouth not by some paper :beer: .

[mustique]

Remind you, the twelve core Opterons were superior in the linux Blender rendering tests.
So if you have appropiately threaded apps on appropiately threaded OS'es go for AMD.

[imashination]

Remind you, the twelve core Opterons were superior in the linux Blender rendering tests.
So if you have appropiately threaded apps on appropiately threaded OS'es go for AMD.

Take a look at what theyre benchmarking with. In every test the 6 core xeon chips beat the 12 core opterons by a huge margin over and over again. Only in a single test did the opterons win: unfinished/unoptimized alpha software which is primarily developed for linux, where none of the available compilers are particularly great at making code that handles hyper threaded cpus very well.

Basing advice off a single flawed test when the other 99 tests all show the opposite is a terrible idea.

[mustique]

Well if the thread poster doesn't use the app and the OS in question I assume that he's smart enough to make the right choice.

The blender test on Anand, is a good test that shows raw power in apps that do not have optimized code favoring any cpu maker. 12 physical cores will surpass the Xeon architecture in every similar test environment, once price and performance per watt counts in.

From an end user POV though, I'd choose the Xeon for my current needs too, since none of us lives and works in a test environment.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.