single or dual dual core?

[andrius]

We are in the process of adding up to 20 new nodes to our render farm and are looking for some advice. The chosen vendor is Dell and they have a number of available options. Essentially the most realistic choice in CPUs comes down to the following:

• A Single - Dual Core Intel Pentium D 915 2.8GHz

or

• Two - Dual Core AMD Opteron 2210 1.8GHz

So the question is under Window XP Pro 64-bit which setup will yield faster render times. The clock speeds of the AMD chip is slower than the Intel, but I know comparing different chipsets is like Apples & Oranges, but nonetheless figured it best to ask here first.


Taking that a step further though and expanding the wallet how would a single Intel Xeon 305, 2.13GHz compare versus a duel Opteron?


In closing the confusion really comes down to at what point does a Single Dual-Core chip overcome Two Dual-Core chips especially when the chipsets are different... And when does having less, but better machines provide more benefit than more, but lesser equipped machines.


I know these are difficult questions and may not be able to be answered completely, but a big thank you to anyone who could provide some insight.

[Mathew Everett]

Re: single or dual dual core?

If your choice is between these setups the AMD system will by far be the better choice.

If I understand correctly you are comparing realistically a 4 core AMD system vs. a 2 Core Intel system. Overall the basic break follows these lines. The Pent D line was still part of the GHz race of no end by Intel so comparing the 1.8Ghz to the 2.8Ghz is pretty silly, as the architectures on the chips are very different. Of course both the chips offer 64 bit support allowing 64 bit windows to run fine on both setups.

Let me break down the CPU's for you

Intel Pentium D 915 Presler 2.8GHz LGA 775 Processor
64 bit Support: Yes
FSB: 800MHz
Hyper-Threading Support: No
L1 Cache: 24KB+32KB
L2 Cache: 2 x 2MB
Multi-Core: Dual-Core
Process Type: 65 nm
Series: Pentium D
Virtualization Technology Support: No
Vista Ready: Yes

vs.

AMD Opteron 2210 Santa Rosa 1.8GHz Socket F Dual Core Processor
64 bit Support: Yes
HT: 1000MHz
Hyper-Transport Support: Yes
L1 Cache: 128KB+128KB
L2 Cache: 2 x 1MB
Multi-Core: Dual-Core
Process Type: 90 nm
Series: Opteron
Virtualization Technology Support: Yes
Vista Ready: Yes

Overall you have the basic layout with AMD's on die buss which allows the data from the AMD setup to run much faster as it runs at the speed of the CPU. The Intel setup is still based on the 800Mhz FSB P4 nastiness that slowed them down and stopped them from overtaking AMD at that time. Now if you had a Core 2 Duo CPU in its spot my choice would change. But overall the AMD setup is by far superior to the Intel setup and you get 2 Dual Core CPU's rather than 1 allowing 4 instances per box rather than 2.

[Morbid Angel]

Hey. Well Im not a real expert on this, Im sure others on the forume will be able to give a more precise answer, however I would like to say that many people confuse windows 64 bit speed performace slightly.
I think the only visible difference in 64 bit is a large usage of ram and faster loading into memory.
All I can say is that I recently got a core 2 extreme (quad core cpu) at 2.66 ghz, and tested it against my workstation which was a dual dual core amd opteron at 2.1 ghz, and found the performace and overall speed increase was 30-40% faster. And obviously 4 cores in any situation will be faster then 2 cores, weather its quad or dual dual. So I think for you it should be a question of, weather to get dual dual cores or single quads.

[Mathew Everett]

Hey. Well Im not a real expert on this, Im sure others on the forume will be able to give a more precise answer, however I would like to say that many people confuse windows 64 bit speed performace slightly.
I think the only visible difference in 64 bit is a large usage of ram and faster loading into memory.
All I can say is that I recently got a core 2 extreme (quad core cpu) at 2.66 ghz, and tested it against my workstation which was a dual dual core amd opteron at 2.1 ghz, and found the performace and overall speed increase was 30-40% faster. And obviously 4 cores in any situation will be faster then 2 cores, weather its quad or dual dual. So I think for you it should be a question of, weather to get dual dual cores or single quads.

Well In both his choices the Core 2 Duo series CPU is not listed... If he was to go that route I would say yes to a $1000+ Quad core Core 2 Duo would beat both of the above setups. but take in mind that 1 Core 2 Duo dual core would not outpace the Dual CPU Opteron setup.

Back to the last question:

I am guessing you meant to say a Intel Xeon 3050? If so I would say you will get less poerformance out of one of those CPU's compared to the AMD Opterons. The Conroe setup is fast with a dual core but not fast enough to dominate over a 2 Dual core Opteron's.

My Work PC is a Dual Intel Xeon 5150 Woodcrest setup and it is balzing fast. But I know for a fact if I only had 1 of the CPU's in this rig my Dual Opteron setup would blow it away...

[andrius]

Thanks everyone for the advice.. so far the winner would appear to be the Two CPU Dual-Core Operton setup.

A few follow up questions. Obviously the attempt is to get the most bang for the buck and if that can be done in the fewest amount of machine.. well then the better. Less machines = more room for later growth without having to do server consolidation.

So assuming the baseline is a

• Two CPU - Dual Core AMD Opteron 2210 1.8GHz

Which would yield, on average, better results... Placing 20 (TWENTY) of those machines into my farm or putting 10 (TEN) of the following machine into my farm

• Two CPU - Quad Core Intel Xeon E5320 1.86GHz


All together your counting 80 cores, but given the different architectures of the two chipsets which setup would provide a faster render rate?

Once again many, many thanks!

[Mathew Everett]

Thanks everyone for the advice.. so far the winner would appear to be the Two CPU Dual-Core Operton setup.

A few follow up questions. Obviously the attempt is to get the most bang for the buck and if that can be done in the fewest amount of machine.. well then the better. Less machines = more room for later growth without having to do server consolidation.

So assuming the baseline is a

• Two CPU - Dual Core AMD Opteron 2210 1.8GHz

Which would yield, on average, better results... Placing 20 (TWENTY) of those machines into my farm or putting 10 (TEN) of the following machine into my farm

• Two CPU - Quad Core Intel Xeon E5320 1.86GHz


All together your counting 80 cores, but given the different architectures of the two chipsets which setup would provide a faster render rate?

Once again many, many thanks!

Hard to say since the Xeon Quad cores are not available to the mass market nor have I played with one yet! but with Intels new architecture and the FSB on the Quad cores I would put my money on the Intel setup over the AMD setup. Now if you jump into the 4 CPU setup where you have 4 dual core AMD CPU's than AMD would take the win and to note the 8,4,2,1 CPU setups will accept the new AMD Quad cores when they come out. Which are rumored to be on par with what Intel is currently running...