Sustainable IT | Ted Samson | TAG: AMD

MORE ENTRIES

TAG: AMD

January 16, 2008 | Comments: (0)

AMD yields more efficiency, Intel more throughput in quad-core CPU showdown

AMD yields more efficiency, Intel more throughput in quad-core CPU showdown In a recent gauntlet of tests comparing AMD's quad-core Opteron processor (Barcelona) to Intel's quad-core Xeon (a.k.a. Tigerton), the Xeon delivered up to 14 percent more throughput, but the Opteron used up to 41 percent less energy.

The series of tests were conducted by Neal Nelson and Associates, an independent consulting firm. If you've been following my blog for a while, that name may sound familiar: Nelson has run similar power and performance tests over the past year, one in July and one in August.

Nelson conducted this series of tests using similarly configured quad-core Xeon and Opteron servers using 1GB memory modules at 4GB, 8GB, and 16GB main memory sizes. He also used one- and two-socket configurations at speeds of both 2.0GHz and 2.33GHz.

Cutting to the chase, Nelson determined the following in his tests:

-- When the sizes of the database working sets were small enough to fit in the servers’ kernel disk buffer cache, such that there was virtually no physical disk I/O, the Xeon-based servers delivered up to 14 percent higher throughput than the Opteron-based servers.

-- When the sizes of the database working sets were too large to fit in the kernel disk buffer cache, which forced substantial physical disk I/O, the Xeon-based servers delivered up to 3 percent higher throughput than the Opteron-based servers

-- When the servers were subjected to various identical levels of transaction arrival rates, the Opteron-based servers consumed up to 32 percent less power than the Xeon-based servers.

-- When the systems were idle and waiting for transactions to process, the Opteron-based servers consumed up to 41 percent less power than the Xeon-based servers. ("The power consumption at idle is particularly significant since studies have shown that many servers are powered on, but idle, 80 percent of the time," Nelson notes.)

"By themselves, the Intel processor chips may use less power, but all current Intel Xeon servers require the use of fully-buffered memory modules [FB-DIMM]. These FB-memory modules appear to consume more power than the DDR-II memory modules used by the AMD-based servers. The result is that in many cases an Opteron-based server actually uses less total power than a Xeon-based server," says Nelson in a written statement.

A better green benchmark?
Nelson reached his conclusions by employing what's he's dubbed Neal Nelson's Power Efficiency Benchmark. The benchmark works as follows: Nelson simulates users from 32 separate computers submitting individual transactions to similarly configured servers running Apache2 Web server, the MySQL relational database, and Novell's Suse Linux Enterprise Server O. He measures the throughput and power usage of the systems in increments of 50 users, from 100 to 500, over half-hour sessions. "The benchmark has a complex multi-user load with a large memory footprint, a high volume of context switches, significant network traffic, and substantial amounts of physical disk I/O," according to Nelson.

In addition to sharing his conclusions for his test, Nelson has made an effort to differentiate his power-efficiency benchmark from the one recently unveiled by SPEC. "The SPECPower test has a single-client machine feeding batches of 1,000 transactions to a small number of Java-based application programs," says Nelson. "[It also] has a small memory footprint, a low volume of context switches, simple network traffic, and it performs no physical disk I/O. The SPEC test was created by a committee of computer vendor employees, and SPEC offers no guarantee that their numbers will correlate to a customer's real-world experiences."

Nelson's test results can be viewed in their entirety on his Web site.

Ted Samson is a senior analyst at InfoWorld and author of the Sustainable IT blog. Subscribe to his free weekly Green Tech newsletter.

Posted by Ted Samson on January 16, 2008 11:50 AM

December 06, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Xerox, AMD garner recognition for reducing GHGs

Xerox and AMD garnered special recognition from the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) this week for recently achieving their long-term greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals and for extending their commitment to climate-change management. Xerox and AMD are both participants in the EPA's Climate Leaders initiative, the largest corporate GHG goal-setting program in the United States.

Xerox managed to reduce its emissions by 18 percent from 2002 to 2006. The company is now aiming to lower its total global GHG emissions by 25 percent from 2002 to 2012.

Xerox reports that is managed to shrink its GHG production by reducing fuel usage of cars and trucks driven by sales and service employees. The company also curbed its natural gas consumption and electricity usage. Through its efforts, Xerox says it prevented the emissions of 87,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide last year and saved $18 million in energy expenses.

Looking ahead to its 2012 goal, Xerox plans to design more products that use its EA toner, which the company says is grown by a chemical process and uses 25 percent less energy to produce than does traditional toner made by the grinding method. Moreover, the company says it's adjusting climate control equipment to reap higher energy savings.

Meanwhile, AMD achieved its initial goal by reducing emissions by 53 percent per manufacturing index (unit of production) from 2002 to 2006. The chipmaker is now pledging to reduce its global GHG emissions by 33 percent per manufacturing index from 2006 to 2010.

Ted Samson is a senior analyst at InfoWorld and writer of the Sustainable IT blog. Subscribe to his free weekly Green Tech newsletter.

Posted by Ted Samson on December 6, 2007 01:34 PM

September 13, 2007 | Comments: (0)

AMD lays down a green chip in Barcelona

Company bets on extreme efficiency with Barcelona -- that's textbook green advancement

I've always wanted to visit Spain. Catedrales. Museos. Tapas. Siestas. What's not to like? But while I may not be running with the bulls anytime soon, I have enjoyed this week's tour of Barcelona, AMD's newly minted quad-core processor. While InfoWorld's tests of the chip's capabilities are still under way, this little piece of silicon has the potential to make the green-tech-conscious datacenter operator cheer, "Ole!"

For all the facts and features I've absorbed in my briefings about Barcelona -- including a video interview with the company's director of server operations Bruce Shaw -- one stands out most for me: The chip delivers more than twice the combined integer and floating-point performance of its two-core predecessor at the same thermal envelope, according to AMD's SPEC tests. That's to say, despite the power boost, it effectively uses the same amount of energy and produces the same amount of heat as a two-core. One of the ways AMD accomplishes this feat: The cores are capable of powering down, or off, when they're not being used.

That, to me, is a textbook example of a green technological advancement. It means AMD has minted a processor with significantly higher performance per watt than its predecessor, a metric that's becoming increasingly important to datacenter operators compared to just raw speed. It would be like a car company unveiling an engine with twice the horsepower but the same gas mileage.

But Barcelona's green promise doesn't end there: Consider, also, that AMD designs its chips such that you can easily swap out an old one -- in this case, a two-core Opteron -- pop in a new four-quad, tweak the BIOS, and poof, you've got an upgraded machine. Not only is that a significant time-saver for upgrading your machines, but it means you can essentially double the overall processing power of your server farm without having to recycle or dispose of a single piece of otherwise-useful hardware. Therein lies another ecofriendly boon.

Rounding out the array of Barcelona's green-tech benefits: It's primed for virtualization. According to Shaw, AMD worked closely with the major virtualization vendors, including Microsoft, VMWare, and Xen to hone and accelerate the quad-core's virtualization capabilities. For example, the chip has a new feature called Rapid Virtualization Indexing, which, according to AMD, transfers to the chip some of the virtualization functionality previous performed by the software. The payoff: AMD claims the chip can deliver 79 percent more virtual machines that can its fastest dual-core processor. (That's a very conservative estimate, Shaw notes.)

Now, if the numbers AMD is sharing are correct, there's cause indeed for excitement for datacenter operators who are feeling the pressure of limited datacenter space and high energy bills. When you combine the performance boost of the chip alone and add in the virtualization boost, you're looking at a ton of potential to get far more work out of your machines.

There's a lot more to Barcelona, and I suggest you not only watch my video interview with Shaw but also check out Tom Yager's analysis. He's been immersed in information about the chip for quite some time now, plus he's testing it to see if it's all that AMD claims. (He's also put together a comparison of Intel's and AMD's respective four-quad CPUs right here.)

AMD has suffered some financial difficulty recently, and some analysts suggest that Barcelona is coming to the table too late to give the chipmaker the boost it needs. From my green-tech perspective, though, AMD appears to have created a piece of silicon that is very, very well suited for a day and age in which companies are becoming highly conscientious of their power consumption and limited datacenter space (not to mention their carbon footprints). This is an important piece of green technology, one that certainly warrants at least a close look from the enterprise.

Posted by Ted Samson on September 13, 2007 03:00 AM

September 13, 2007 | Comments: (0)

In the chip race, efficiency beats speed

Following is essentially the content of today's Green Tech Newsletter. I generally don't post the newsletter verbatim in my blog, but it seemed important enough in the context of my piece about Barcelona. The newsletter, by the way, is free. You can subscribe here.

AMD and Intel have been locked in fierce races for quite a while now, the latest being the race to first deliver a quad-core processor. Intel managed to win by a nose there, unleashing Tigerton a few days before AMD presented Barcelona.

But speed alone won't be the determining factor as to which of these two processors will reign in the datacenter. Driven by customer demand for more energy-efficient hardware, both companies are talking up the importance of a less-familiar metric called performance per watt (PPW). As Intel tells it, "performance per system watt is calculated by taking the performance score from a benchmark or application and dividing it by the average system power usage (AC power from the wall)."

At a press meeting with Randy Allen, VP in charge of AMD's server and workstation division, Allen confirmed that there's been a shift in what customers want from hardware. "The traditional buying criterion has been peak performance. People would buy at the highest peak performance they could or they would buy on performance per dollar. ... This emergence of performance per watt has been dramatic over the last two years."

The problem with PPW is it's difficult to measure. To draw on a familiar example, what's a better performer: a hybrid or a pickup? The hybrid will certainly deliver more miles to the gallon if you're using it to get around town for work or play, but if the task is hauling lumber or heavy equipment, you'll get better results with the truck. Then again, if speed truly is what you need, gas costs be darned, maybe that Porsche is right for you.

Back to servers, then, how does a datacenter operator go about assessing whether Machine A or Machine B will deliver better PPW for, say, the company's accounting application? In my interview with Bruce Shaw, director of server operations at AMD, he told me the best approach is to load up your app on your server, then measure it at the wall.

Sure, that's not as simple as being able to look at the vendor-provided figures and know for certain which machine is the best overall performer for your specific needs. Then again, the exercise is a valuable one, given that filling your racks with the machines that gives you the best PPW will save you money in the long run -- just like filling your corporate fleet with hybrid trucks just might make more sense economically and ecologically than a fleet of Segways.

Posted by Ted Samson on September 13, 2007 03:00 AM

August 30, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Power-efficiency test reveals respective strengths of AMD and Intel

In its latest round of power-efficiency tests pitting the AMD Opteron against the Intel Xeon, independent consulting firm Neal Nelson and Associates found that AMD's offering outperformed Intel's in 36 of 57 cases.

The results are by no means cut and dry. While the AMD appears to once again have an edge in terms of raw power effienecy, factors such as memory size, transaction type, and transcation loads made for notable and interesting differentiators.

Nelson performed this gauntlet of tests on servers -- one equipped with the Opteron 2222 and the other with the Xeon (Woodcrest) 5160 -- configured with two, four, six, and eight gigabytes of main memory at various transaction-processing load levels.

Overall, Nelson found that for certain configurations and at certain load levels, the Intel Xeon based server was 2.4 to 11.7 percent more power efficient while in other cases the AMD Opteron based server was 9.2 to 23.1 percent more power efficient.

Memory once again proved an important variable. In general, larger main memory sizes resulted in higher transaction throughput and higher power efficiency. Further, in cases where Intel outperformed AMD in power efficiency, the servers were configured with smaller larger memory sizes. "There was a visible trend that as the memory size increased that there was an increasing shift of power-efficiency toward the Opteron," Nelson notes the white paper outlining his testing.

Importantly, Nelson discovered differences in power-performance depending on what type of work the servers were doing. At the maximum throughput, based on transactions per watt hour, the Intel system delivered better power-efficiency by 5.0 to 5.5 percent for calculation intensive workloads. For disk I/O intensive workloads, AMD delivered better power efficiency by 18.4 to 18.6 percent.

In addition, when the systems were idle and waiting for transactions to process, the AMD server was 30.4 to 53.1 percent more power efficient.

He put the machines through two different tests. One employed the Neal Nelson Transaction Benchmark, in which simulated Web clients present transaction requests to the server. As soon as the server responds to a request, the client submits a new request.

In the second test, employing the Neal Nelson Power-Efficiency Benchmark, he presented the servers with a set number of transactions, then measured the power expended for each transaction arrival rate.

For the loads, he simulated over-the-Web credit card transactions on the servers from RTE (Remote Terminal Emulator) nodes to the machines, which were running Apache2.

You can read the white paper outlining the testing and results here on the Neal Nelson and Associates Web site.

Posted by Ted Samson on August 30, 2007 05:24 PM

August 06, 2007 | Comments: (0)

In AMD-Intel square-off, memory proves key

In a follow-up gauntlet of tests pitting Intel Xeon processors against AMD Opterons, independent research company Neal Nelson and Associates found the Opteron generally -- but not always -- delivers superior raw energy efficiency. Interestingly, server memory proved a key factor.

Nelson tested the Opteron against the Xeon last month and determined AMD to be, hands down, the more power-efficient chip. His tests and results sparked plenty of discussion, including in my blog, prompting him to perform follow-up tests.

The most significant difference between this and the previous test is that he used an Opteron 2222 CPU rather than the 8222. He stuck with the Xeon 5160. In his tests, he once again compared the energy efficiency of a couple of similarly equipped servers, both configured with 4GB and 8GB of memory, as they processed Web transactions at a variety of load levels.

When machines were configured with 4GB of main memory, the Intel Xeon-based server proved between 1.4 and 5.1 percent more efficient. However, at 8GB, the Opteron server was between 6.1 and 12.7 percent more power efficient.

"It appears that when Intel chips are installed in Intel motherboards and sold as Intel servers, the Intel claim of superior power efficiency is not supported by the empirical data," said Nelson in a written statement.

Notably, the AMD server equipped with 4GB of memory proved 33.3 percent more power-efficient in idle than the Intel; with 8GB, it was 43.4 percent more so.

Power consumption is relevant in idle mode, Nelson notes in a release about this round of tests, "since many servers spend most of their time waiting for work." He cites Robert Frances Group's finding that the average utilization of most processors in a datacenter is between 15 and 20 percent.

In the previous test, the AMD-based server consumed 7.3 to 15.2 percent less power at five different user load levels and 44.1 percent less power while the systems were idle and waiting for work, Nelson reported.

Nelson used the same testing benchmarks in this test as he did in the previous one: He processed a series of Web transactions on both servers, which were running Suse Linux Enterprise Server from Novell, Apache2 Web server software, and MySQL relational database.

However, in this series of tests, he used an Opteron 2222 instead of the 8222 as in the previous matchup. "AMD offers a '2 socket' version of the Opteron as a model 2222. It has the same cache and frequency specifications as the model 8222, but the 2222 is limited to motherboards with a maximum of 2 sockets, and it is less expensive than the model 8222," according to Nelson's test report.

The performance differences between the two were negligible; generally, the 8222 was around 1.5 percent more efficient than the 2222.

In terms of cost, Nelson estimates that the 8GB configuration of the Xeon server would sell for about $4,651; the Opteron system would cost approximately $4,252. With 4GB of memory, the Xeon machine costs around $4,277 and the Opteron, $3,961.

For more information or to download a copy of the white paper outlining the test and results, go to worlds-fastest.com.

Posted by Ted Samson on August 6, 2007 01:37 PM

April 25, 2007 | Comments: (0)

AMD seeds Dell's 'Plant a Tree for Me' program

AMD seeds Dell's 'Plant a Tree for Me' program Dell has found its first corporate partner for its "Plant a Tree for Me" program: cash-strapped AMD.

AMD, which just recently announced a $611 million first-quarter loss and could soon be facing long-term debt of up to $5.4 billion, has scraped together a $16,000 donation "on behalf of the company's 16,000 worldwide employees" for Dell's tree-planting program, intended to offset the carbon produced by the electronics it sells.

When launched in January, Dell presented its "Plant a Tree for Me" program as a way for its customers to offset the carbon impact of their notebook computer use for an extra $2 and desktop system use for an extra $6. Last month, Dell expanded the program to include an extended portfolio of IT products, plus U.S.-based consumers and businesses could donate to the program without making any product purchases. Dell even goes so far as to let you donate $99 to offset your own carbon usage.

I hate to say it (kind of), but I can't help but draw a rather cynical conclusion when looking at this announcement.

First, consider the sum AMD is pouring into the program. While $16,000 surely can buy plenty of saplings, it strikes me as a rather token donation coming from a Fortune 500 company. A dollar per employee doesn't come close to the $99 per-person carbon cost calculated by Dell.

Second, consider AMD's relationship with Dell. After years of being an Intel-only hardware maker, Dell finally opened its arms to AMD, releasing notebooks, desktops, and servers running AMD processors last year. Having buy-in from one of the world's top PC maker was a huge and significant win for AMD.

Third, consider Dell's "Plant a Tree for Me" program. Although it's a very well-meaning endeavor, there are probably better ways for companies to invest money toward reducing carbon emissions and conserving energy: making energy-efficient power supplies standard on PCs, or investing in alternative-energy research, or installing solar panels on the roof of your datacenter, or developing more sustainable, eco-friendly business practices. That's why carbon-offsetting programs like Dell's "Plant a Tree for Me" garner some criticism: they're viewed in some circles as a way of sidestepping the responsibility of reducing and cleaning up one's carbon footprint.

Also notable: A new study by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Carnegie Institution, and Université Montpellier II confirms that although planting more trees in tropical rainforests could help slow global warming, new forests in mid- to high-latitude locations could actually create a net warming. Thus, the benefits of reforesting are arguably inconclusive anyway.

Now, to Dell and AMD's credit, both companies do seem to have a firm commitment to sustainability. Dell, in fact, has become the green poster child among IT hardware makers for such initiatives as offering free product recycling worldwide, regardless of product purchase.

AMD, meanwhile, has worked to reduce energy consumption, make its wares more efficient, cut back on hazardous waste, and has taken plenty of other direct measures to boost its sustainability and reduce its eco-impact.

In other words, both companies have been taking on the challenge of cutting carbon emissions in very direct ways, but now Dell has come along with this offset program, the benefits of which aren't as concrete.

Yet when presented with the option to donate to the cause, what could AMD do but donate to Dell's green pet project? You'd likely do the same if your manager wandered into your cubicell and asked you to sponsor his son's walk-a-thon to fight diaper rash. Even if you'd already given money and volunteered time for more arguably worthy causes -- and you were a little strapped for money -- you'd still reach into your pocket and fork over a few bucks.

That's my admittedly cynical view. What do you think of Dell's "Plant a Tree for Me" program?

Posted by Ted Samson on April 25, 2007 10:31 AM

Technology White Papers

InfoWorld Technology Marketplace

» Technology White Papers Library

Technology White Papers by Topic

Technology White Papers E-mail Alert