Intel vs. AMD: Does the CPU really matter?
Summary: Intel and AMD are at it again. But does the processor in the box affect the purchase decision?
With the knowledge in hand that AMD was announcing their Opteron 6000 series of CPUs this week in response to last week's release of Intel's 5600 Xeon, I started talking to the folks responsible for actually making the purchasing decisions for a few large SMB customers as well as consultants to Fortune 500-size datacenter customers. I asked them one simple question; does the processor in the box affect the purchase decision?
The answer was a mixed bag, but boiled down to this; maybe.
Unsurprisingly, much of the interest in these two new CPU releases depended upon the point in the equipment replacement cycle of the IT guy I asked. A common thread was the sit back and watch attitude, though everyone was excited, if that is the right word, to move their 1P to 4P servers to these new, higher core count, higher performance, CPUs, when the opportunity presented itself. These folks have the luxury of watching the market and the media and making use of the information that appears about the performance and value of the two platforms over the next few months.
One IT guy I talked to put it very succinctly; "I don't have a dog in this race. My job is to spend my budget as effectively as possible." He didn't care which processor was in the box; he only buys from top tier server vendors and for his area of responsibility, squeezing the last erg of performance out of a server wasn't really the concern; stability, reliability, and meeting the less compute-intensive needs of his business unit were the driving factor.
"My job is to spend my budget as effectively as possible"
Contrast this with the director of a database server computing unit I spoke with. In his case he was a diehard Intel fan and his belief was that even with more cores, the AMD CPUs wouldn't deliver the performance of the new Intel processors, but he was hedging his bets. He did plan to evaluate the offerings from his vendor of choice to determine if the larger number of cores would make a difference in his environment.
Given that AMD seems to have chosen to focus on value and energy efficiency, it is likely that his testing will still show that the Xeon 5600 series will hold an edge, in his application, over the Opteron 6000.
For really serious interest in the potential of the AMD 8 and 12 core processors I had to step out of the large datacenter space to the guys that buy only a few servers at a time. For IT folks supporting smaller server groups they expressed interest in seeing published performance numbers for these new CPUs and a willingness to purchase if they were a good value for their more tightly constrained budgets.
Bigger datacenter managers didn't really focus on the buy-in cost of their new servers. They have far more interest in the ongoing expenses related to the servers, and as most of the ones I know tend to buy from a specific server vendor, they already have an excellent idea of the projected costs of their server platforms over the usable life of the hardware. When viewed from this perspective, the price delta between the Intel and AMD offerings isn't really significant.
Energy utilization in this scenario has the potential to be a purchasing issue, but evaluating the actual energy consumption of the servers in real-world use is going to be a much more difficult metric to define. While the power consumption numbers of the processors are clear, the value of the power vs. workload metric, for any specific user scenario, is rarely easily seen, especially in short term testing.
One group I really haven't been able to get feedback from yet are those that use software with per-core, as opposed to per CPU licensing. Doubling or tripling the number of cores in their servers could have a very deleterious effect on their budget numbers regardless of performance improvements. Users of Microsoft server OSes don't need to worry; their license is per processor, not per core. VMware licenses currently allow up to 12 cores per processor, so for the moment, VMware users are also unaffected. Following up on this for software that is still licensed per core will need to wait for a later post.
It's been a long time since the CPU was the sole deciding choice for a server platform in major business. The package delivered from the server vendor; that combination of price, support, experience, and reliability, is usually much more important than the vendor name that appears on the CPU.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Mix
applications the processor is VERY important - basically we benchtest
one against the other for the application (under simulated load). The
winner then has the application highly tuned for it and deployed on
that. All things being equal. Of course, where a processor needs very
specific tuning (or rather offers scope for very specific tuning) then
we'll explore that in addition to the raw "naked benchtest".
For other applications the processor is very much a "meh" item, we
have lots of these where the speed of the disk (or lack of) makes
worrying about the processor utterly pointless.
I don't much care if the sticker is blue or green - it's a
cost/performance issue, I'm not picking a football team!
RE: Intel vs. AMD: Does the CPU really matter?
RE: Intel vs. AMD: Does the CPU really matter?
go from there.
I prefer diet A & W vs coke but if you can't find it you can't buy it, huh?
so yes,,,.brand matters to me. but if you can't get it, you can't get it.
RE: Intel vs. AMD: Does the CPU really matter?
RE: Intel vs. AMD: Does the CPU really matter?
When I made IT decisions it was 97/3 WINTEL vs. AMD.
It doesn't matter what is said, I matters where its spent.
RE: Intel vs. AMD: Does the CPU really matter?
RE: Intel vs. AMD: Does the CPU really matter?
A mini mainframe in a box ?
This also drives the price of other items such as memory and increased speed/densities, higher speed SAN infrastructures, etc. Sure you can get more in less space. But can the data centers physically handle the heat dissipation at that density. And so is this really effectively green in power and money?
Granted, the spin off is keeping a lot of other vendors trying to cope with the ever changing processor changes in the line, but are we really ready for this much computing in such a small system.
I have dealt with per CORE licensing with products such as IBM's Websphere or TSM. The cost of backing up a server goes through the roof. Performance monitoring software typically also tends to go up, as well.
In short, the net result is that when most organizations attempted to move away from the mainframe to open systems the commodity market said more lighter weight servers in parallel, reducing a single failure to some insignificant event.
Now that we are migrating back open systems to having huge processing capabilities, have we creating the new mini-mainframe?
Intel vs. AMD?
RE: Intel vs. AMD: Does the CPU really matter?
Reviews!
I for one would love love love 12 cores: superfast video and 3D rendering
more cores like yesterday, and this has nothing to do
with servers. And this is not exactly exotic: anyone
who shoots and edits an HD video camera falls into
this category. Software in this sector can already
make use of multiple cores to drastically speed up
frame by frame video rendering and 3D animation
creation. This stuff takes hours for just a few
minutes of finished video. 12 cores would be like
having your own render farm on one machine. And it
pretty much scales linearly, that is, 12 cores is 3
times as fast as 4 cores and 6 times as fast as a dual
core.
At one point, it mattered...
For the home user, it rarely mattered, and still doesn't, other than that AMD is usually cheaper per spec than Intel.
Personally, I'm an Intel fan. I use Intel for my personal computers. For my clients, who want better savings, I use AMD except for serious crunching machines, like servers or high-end workstations.
For a virtualized environment...
other factors in the equation
CPU doesn't matter - platform strategy does
AMD has a better platform strategy over all.
AMD has simplified their product lineup immensely, while Intel's just continues to get more complicated, and their platform is weak at best.
Sure, Intel has the fastest CPU's, but does that matter anymore? What about scalability, chipset, and graphics support?
Intel is putting a big roof over their head with only one strong pillar. AMD has several solid pillars.
Intel vs AMD - for long batt life laptops Intel is Ahead
are you sure about that?
ohh and since theres 36+hours batteries out there for standard laptops running either processor thats not really saying much, it all depends on the battery specs really, and amd's systems always had an edge on that a few years ago when they realized no one cares apart from a few marketing geeks, people just want something that works and works well /
Not unless your about micro seconds
running their computer unless they checked the System
information or looked at the sticker on the case. Only geeks
and freaks are really interested in CPU cycles and cache.
To most people if it will do what I want it to do. That will do.
AMD running at a lower speed equals Intel at a higher GHz
The difference is speed between an AMD Phenom running @ 2GHz compare to an Intel Core running @ 2.93GHz is so little ... in terms of performance, AMD is a better platform.
Sure if your app is time hungry and every nano-second count, then Intel is the only choice (on the x86 platform). For everything else, AMD is the best bank to your bucks.