Cargando…

Evaluation of the Intel Westmere-EX server processor

One year after the arrival of the Intel Xeon 7500 systems (“Nehalem-EX”), CERN openlab is presenting a set of benchmark results obtained when running on the new Xeon E7-4870 Processors, representing the “Westmere-EX” family. A modern 4-socket, 40-core system is confronted with the previous generatio...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jarp, S, Lazzaro, A, Leduc, J, Nowak, A
Lenguaje:eng
Publicado: 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:http://cds.cern.ch/record/1416073
_version_ 1780924045778223104
author Jarp, S
Lazzaro, A
Leduc, J
Nowak, A
author_facet Jarp, S
Lazzaro, A
Leduc, J
Nowak, A
author_sort Jarp, S
collection CERN
description One year after the arrival of the Intel Xeon 7500 systems (“Nehalem-EX”), CERN openlab is presenting a set of benchmark results obtained when running on the new Xeon E7-4870 Processors, representing the “Westmere-EX” family. A modern 4-socket, 40-core system is confronted with the previous generation of expandable (“EX”) platforms, represented by a 4-socket, 32-core Intel Xeon X7560 based system – both being “top of the line” systems. Benchmarking of modern processors is a very complex affair. One has to control (at least) the following features: processor frequency, overclocking via Turbo mode, the number of physical cores in use, the use of logical cores via Symmetric MultiThreading (SMT), the cache sizes available, the configured memory topology, as well as the power configuration if throughput per watt is to be measured. As in previous activities, we have tried to do a good job of comparing like with like. In a “top of the line” comparison based on the HEPSPEC06 benchmark, the “Westmere-EX” platform provides a 39% advantage over the “Nehalem-EX” one. In this comparison the power consumption remained constant, yielding an appreciable 39% of throughput per Watt improvement. Other benchmarks had similar scores, between 14% and 46%, depending on the configuration of SMT, Turbo and frequency scaling. The benefits of SMT remained constant at around 25% for throughput based applications, but were far lower (7%) for an OpenMP based latency bound program. In addition, Turbo mode efficiency was explored and compared in depth for the first time. While before Turbo mode was found to provide large boosts for low active core counts and no boosts for high active core counts, the situation with “Westmere-EX” was the opposite. Turbo mode seemed to provide small but consistent improvements across all active core counts.
id cern-1416073
institution Organización Europea para la Investigación Nuclear
language eng
publishDate 2011
record_format invenio
spelling cern-14160732019-09-30T06:29:59Zhttp://cds.cern.ch/record/1416073engJarp, SLazzaro, ALeduc, JNowak, AEvaluation of the Intel Westmere-EX server processorComputing and ComputersOne year after the arrival of the Intel Xeon 7500 systems (“Nehalem-EX”), CERN openlab is presenting a set of benchmark results obtained when running on the new Xeon E7-4870 Processors, representing the “Westmere-EX” family. A modern 4-socket, 40-core system is confronted with the previous generation of expandable (“EX”) platforms, represented by a 4-socket, 32-core Intel Xeon X7560 based system – both being “top of the line” systems. Benchmarking of modern processors is a very complex affair. One has to control (at least) the following features: processor frequency, overclocking via Turbo mode, the number of physical cores in use, the use of logical cores via Symmetric MultiThreading (SMT), the cache sizes available, the configured memory topology, as well as the power configuration if throughput per watt is to be measured. As in previous activities, we have tried to do a good job of comparing like with like. In a “top of the line” comparison based on the HEPSPEC06 benchmark, the “Westmere-EX” platform provides a 39% advantage over the “Nehalem-EX” one. In this comparison the power consumption remained constant, yielding an appreciable 39% of throughput per Watt improvement. Other benchmarks had similar scores, between 14% and 46%, depending on the configuration of SMT, Turbo and frequency scaling. The benefits of SMT remained constant at around 25% for throughput based applications, but were far lower (7%) for an OpenMP based latency bound program. In addition, Turbo mode efficiency was explored and compared in depth for the first time. While before Turbo mode was found to provide large boosts for low active core counts and no boosts for high active core counts, the situation with “Westmere-EX” was the opposite. Turbo mode seemed to provide small but consistent improvements across all active core counts.CERN-IT-Note-2012-001CERN openlaboai:cds.cern.ch:14160732011-07-01
spellingShingle Computing and Computers
Jarp, S
Lazzaro, A
Leduc, J
Nowak, A
Evaluation of the Intel Westmere-EX server processor
title Evaluation of the Intel Westmere-EX server processor
title_full Evaluation of the Intel Westmere-EX server processor
title_fullStr Evaluation of the Intel Westmere-EX server processor
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of the Intel Westmere-EX server processor
title_short Evaluation of the Intel Westmere-EX server processor
title_sort evaluation of the intel westmere-ex server processor
topic Computing and Computers
url http://cds.cern.ch/record/1416073
work_keys_str_mv AT jarps evaluationoftheintelwestmereexserverprocessor
AT lazzaroa evaluationoftheintelwestmereexserverprocessor
AT leducj evaluationoftheintelwestmereexserverprocessor
AT nowaka evaluationoftheintelwestmereexserverprocessor