Assessing IBM's POWER8, Part 2: Server Applications on OpenPOWER
by Johan De Gelas on September 15, 2016 8:01 AM ESTCPU Choices
For this article, the only current-generation Intel Broadwell-EP processors we had in the lab were the Xeon E5-2699 v4 and Xeon E5-2650 v4. Comparing the IBM POWER8 with the former was not fair: the Xeon costs almost 3 times ($4115) more than the midrange POWER8 chip ($1500). The latter was not an option either with a TDP of 90W. There are no Intel chips with 190W TDP, so we had to compromise.
The most comparable CPU that was available to us was the Xeon E5-2690 v3. It is a higher end midrange Intel SKU (135W TDP) that came out around the same time as the POWER8. If the 190W TDP POWER8 cannot beat this 135W TDP chip, IBM's micro architects have not done a very good job. Don't let the 2.6 GHz label fool you: this Haswell Xeon can boost to 3.1 GHz when all cores are active and to 3.5 GHz in a single thread situation. So it does have 2 cores extra and similar clockspeeds.
However we can't ignore the current-generation Broadwell-EP entirely. To get a better idea how the midrange POWER8 compares to the latest Xeons, we had to add another midrange Xeon E5 v4 SKU. So we only enabled 14 of the 22-cores of the Xeon E5-2699 v4. This gives us a chip that is somewhere between the Xeon E5-2660 v4 (14 cores at 2 GHz) and E5-2680 v4 (14 cores at 2.4 GHz). Well, at least on paper. The Xeon E5-2680 v4 runs most of the time at 2.9 GHz in heavily multi-threaded situations (+5 steps, all cores active), while our Xeon E5-2699 v4 with 14 cores runs at 2.8 GHz (+6 turbo steps). As the TDP of the latter is higher, the turbo clock will be used for a higher percentage of the time. Bottom line, our Xeon E5-2699 v4 with 14 cores is very similar to an E5-2680 v4 with a 145 W TDP. As the Xeon E5-2680 costs around $1745, it is in the right price range. From a price/performance point of perspective that is as fair as we can get it.
For those looking to get the best performance per watt: we'll save you some time and tell you that it does not get any better than the Xeon E5-2600 v4 series. Intel really went all the way to make sure that the Broadwell EP Xeon is a power sipper. And although the performance step is small, the Xeon E5-2600 v4 consumes much less than a similar Xeon E5 v3 SKU, let alone a CPU with a 190W TDP (+ 60-80W memory buffers).
Benchmark Configuration and Methodology
Our testing was conducted on Ubuntu Server 15.10 (kernel 4.2.0) with gcc compiler version 5.2.1. The reason why we did not update was that we only got everything working with that version.
Last but not least, we want to note how the performance graphs have been color-coded. Orange is for used for the review POWER8 CPU. The latest generation of the Intel Xeon (v4) gets dark blue, the previous one (v3) gets light blue. Older Xeon generations are colored with the default gray.
IBM S812LC (2U)
The IBM S812LC is based up on Tyan's "Habanero" platform. The board inside the IBM server is thus designed by Tyan.
| CPU | One IBM POWER8 2.92 GHz (up to 3.5 GHz Turbo) |
| RAM | 256 GB (16x16GB) DDR3-1333 |
| Internal Disks | 2x Samsung 850Pro 960 GB |
| Motherboard | Tyan SP012 |
| PSU | Delta Electronics DSP-1200AB 1200W |
Intel's Xeon E5 Server – S2600WT (2U Chassis)
| CPU | One Intel Xeon processor E5-2699 v4 (2.2 GHz, 22c, 55MB L3, 145W) One "simulated" Intel Xeon processor E5-2680 v4 (2.2 GHz, 14c, 35MB L3, 145W) One Intel Xeon processor E5-2699 v3 (2.3 GHz, 18c, 45MB L3, 145W) One Intel Xeon processor E5-2690 v3 (3.2 GHz, 8c, 20MB L3, 135W) |
| RAM | 128 GB (8x16GB) Kingston DDR4-2400 or 256 GB (8x 32GB) Hynix DDR4-2133 |
| Internal Disks | 2x Samsung 850Pro 960 GB |
| Motherboard | Intel Server Board Wildcat Pass |
| PSU | Delta Electronics 750W DPS-750XB A (80+ Platinum) |
All C-states are enabled in the BIOS.
SuperMicro 6027R-73DARF (2U Chassis)
| CPU | Two Intel Xeon processor E5-2697 v2 (2.7GHz, 12c, 30MB L3, 130W) |
| RAM | 128GB (8x16GB) Samsung at 1866 MHz |
| Internal Disks | 2x Intel SSD3500 400GB |
| Motherboard | SuperMicro X9DRD-7LN4F |
| PSU | Supermicro 740W PWS-741P-1R (80+ Platinum) |
All C-states are enabled in the BIOS.
Other Notes
Both servers are fed by a standard European 230V (16 Amps max.) power line. The room temperature is monitored and kept at 23°C by our Airwell CRACs.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
49 Comments
View All Comments
Eden-K121D - Thursday, September 15, 2016 - link
Can't wait for Power9Kevin G - Thursday, September 15, 2016 - link
Same here. I'm really curious about the differences between the four different dies IBM will be offering. Certainly the mix of two core types and IO types should fill the assorted niches found in the server market.rahvin - Thursday, September 15, 2016 - link
I can wait, it will be a market share failure like every other power because IBM will price it out of reach of any sensible price range. Going by previous attempts it will cost anywhere from 5-10X as much as an equivalent amount of x86 processing power. Something like $10K for the processor and a another $2-5 for the case, memory and motherboard and it will be equivalent to a quad x86 Xeon server that costs $5k for the same hardware.No one that doesn't need some special sauce it provides will buy them, particularly because you'd have to recompile all your software to use it. IBM has screwed up power so many times at this point that you'd have to be a fool to bet on it.
Eden-K121D - Friday, September 16, 2016 - link
Tell that to GoogleBrutalizer - Friday, September 16, 2016 - link
Power9 will be 50% - 125% faster than power8, according to IBM.http://www.nextplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/201...
On average it will be 75% faster.
The specjbb2013 benchmark is broken, SPEC discovered the benchmark can be vendor optimized to provide false results so they fixed it in specjbb2015. IBM have released specjbb2015 numbers for their S812LC server achieving 44.900 for max-jops and 13.000 for crticial-jops. That is almost as good as the Intel Xeon E5-2699v4 result. However, what is interesting is the critical-jops, which measures critical throughput under SLAs. IBM have said they will compete with Intel, with their power9.
(Of course, one SPARC M7 cpu achieves 120.600 max-jops and 60.300 critical-jops, that is 2.7x faster max-jops and 4.6x faster critical-jops. This is not using the built in hardware accelerators in SPARC. Next year the SPARC M8 arrives, which is 2x faster than M7. Today, Oracle have released six cpus in six years, each doubling performance (except the low cost S7, which is a crippled M7))
wingar - Friday, September 16, 2016 - link
I do like how you come with a comment that's incendiary towards POWER8 and POWER9, doing what you can to make it look worse... and then start touting how magical and wonderful SPARC M7 is. Using the same old Oracle-supplied performance claims without substantiating it. Funny, that. I think it stands out a little bit...But that's not what matters. If you run a simple google search, "site:anandtech.com brutalizer", you'll find comments with not a lot of variety. Usually commenting on anything x86 and POWER8, and in every single one (Except this one, actually! You actually reference an IBM supplied Spec result. However, you should link to it next time.) you tout the wonder of the latest SPARC of the time. Linking to Oracle-supplied benchmarks, on Oracles own site consistently concluding that Oracle outperforms their competitors. And every time you do this the comment seems to be as close to the top of the comment list as possible, for visibility.
Have some links.
http://www.anandtech.com/comments/10158/the-intel-...
http://www.anandtech.com/comments/9193/the-xeon-e7...
http://www.anandtech.com/comments/10230/ibm-nvidia...
http://www.anandtech.com/comments/9567/the-power-8...
http://www.anandtech.com/comments/7757/quad-ivy-br...
http://www.anandtech.com/comments/7852/intel-xeon-...
http://www.anandtech.com/comments/7285/intel-xeon-...
But I found a couple of comments you left that anti-everyone-not-Oracle. Have some links.
http://www.anandtech.com/comments/7334/a-look-at-a...
http://www.anandtech.com/comments/7371/understandi...
http://www.anandtech.com/comments/5831/amd-trinity...
I'm sure there's more comments like this where you're actually adding to the conversation but those are the few I found, and they're always unrelated to CPUs and the server market. They seem to perhaps reflect your own interests? But there is one thing to point out here and that the first religiously-pro-Oracle comment you made seemed to be in 2014. What happened then? Did you buy the account? Did someone start paying you? I don't know.
And hey, for fun I've actually posted this comment before to you, here's a link:
http://www.anandtech.com/comments/10435/assessing-...
Brutalizer - Friday, September 16, 2016 - link
I am not doing something to make power look worse, I put it in perspective and post other benchmark numbers from Intel and Oracle so people can compare. Yes, I am posting hard facts that can be indendently verified, or are you rejecting the benchmarks I post? Why? Why do you think it is a bad thing I post benchmarks from other vendors than IBM? You dont want people to be able to build their own opinion about power by comparing with other vendors? Why not? Why is it dangerous when someone quote benchmarks from other vendors? Whats the problem with that?If you insist, here is the SPARC M7 specjbb2015 results.
https://blogs.oracle.com/BestPerf/entry/201511_spe...
PowerOfFacts - Friday, September 16, 2016 - link
trollBrutalizer - Friday, September 16, 2016 - link
"...Using the same old Oracle-supplied performance claims without substantiating it..."Now this is the same old FUD from the IBM supporters. As i have explained, mathematicians can always prove their claims with links to benchmarks, white papers, resaerch papers, or point to common comp sci knowledge, etc. So you are in deep sh-t now. I can always post links to the numbers I claim. You claim I can not, and I spread unsubstantiated information - now you are lying about me.
Quote me on any number in any post - and I will post links to prove my numbers. If you ever find any post (you will not find any) where I make up numbers out of the blue to discredit IBM or Intel, you are correct that I post unsubstantiated claims. If you can not find any such posts by me, you are spreading FUD about me, and you lie about me. Now go ahead and quote me on any number where I make out things. I am waiting.
You are not really smart to claim a mathematician to not be able to prove his figures. I am now able to prove you are a liar and FUDer.
I think it is funny how the IBM supporters always FUD and try to discredit people, instead of countering the benchmark numbers. I post benchmark numbers, and instead of try to discuss the numbers you always attack me. That is not the scientific way, to avoid the hard facts and instead try to discredit the opponent. You should instead try to dissect my numbers and links instead of attacking me. But always, always, the IBM crowd does that " oh, he is an Oracle supporter" - so what? You are an IBM supporter! The difference is that I post numbers, and IBM crowd attacks me instead of countering with other numbers.
If you want to disprove my claims about Sparc, post numbers that disproves my benchmarks. Do not attack me, that does not win you any discussions.
SarahKerrigan - Friday, September 16, 2016 - link
Sure, it's true that on SPECjbb2015 a T7-1 beats a low-end IBM Turismo machine, an S812LC (with an entry price under $5000 list, compared to over $30000 entry price for the T7-1), by a factor of 2.7x on max-jops. It's also true that M7 came out almost a year and a half after P8 did, and that you can get a dual-CPU P8 server with that same processor, and 256GB RAM, for well under half of the list price of a single-CPU T7-1 with 128GB.Starting to see why IBM has over 70% of the non-x86 server market?