More Sockets, but Lower Performance?

When AMD briefed us on Quad FX, the performance focus was on heavy multitasking (AMD calls this "Megatasking") or very multi-threaded tests. We figured it was an innocent attempt to make sure we didn't run a bunch of single threaded benchmarks on Quad FX and proclaim it a failure. Given that the vast majority of our CPU test suite is multi-threaded to begin with, we didn't think there would be any problems showcasing where four cores is better than two, much like we did in our Kentsfield review.

However when running our SYSMark 2004SE tests we encountered a situation that didn't make total sense to us at first, and somewhat explained AMD's desire for us to strongly focus on megatasking/multithreaded tests. If we pulled one of the CPUs out of the Quad FX system, we actually got higher performance in SYSMark than with both CPUs in place. In other words, four cores was slower than two.

CPU SYSMark 2004SE Internet Content Creation Office Productivity
2 Sockets (4 cores) 261 373 182
1 Socket (2 cores) 288 393 211

You'll see that in some of the individual tests there is an advantage to having both CPUs installed, but in the vast majority of them performance goes down with four cores. It turns out that there are two explanations for the anomaly.

CPU Internet Content Creation 3D Creation 2D Creation Web Publication
2 Sockets (4 cores) 373 245 514 411
1 Socket (2 cores) 393 364 453 369

First, in Internet Content Creation SYSMark 2004SE, there appears to be an issue with having two physical CPUs in the system that results in the 3dsmax rendering test only spawning a single thread, lowering performance below that of a normal dual-core processor. This problem may be caused by a licensing violation within the benchmark where it is expecting to see one physical CPU with multiple cores and isn't prepared to deal with multiple CPUs. Regardless of the exact cause of the problem, it doesn't appear to be anything more than a benchmark issue. It's the performance in the Office Productivity suite that is far more worrisome because there is no issue with the benchmark that's causing the problem.

CPU Office Productivity Communication Document Creation Data Analysis
2 Sockets (4 cores) 182 171 259 137
1 Socket (2 cores) 211 187 285 176

The Office Productivity suite of SYSMark 2004SE wasn't the only situation where we saw lower performance on Quad FX than with a single dual core setup. 3D games seemed to suffer the most; take a look at what happens in our Oblivion and Half Life 2: Episode One tests:

CPU Oblivion - Bruma Oblivion - Dungeon Half Life 2: Episode One
2 Sockets (4 cores) 67.3 78.3 155.8
1 Socket (2 cores) 75.2 90.9 165.7

Once again, populate both sockets in the Quad FX system and performance goes down. The explanation for these anomalies lies in the result of one more benchmark, CPU-Z's memory latency test:

CPU CPU-Z Latency (8192KB, 128-byte)
2 Sockets (4 cores) 55.3 ns
1 Socket (2 cores) 43.3 ns

With both sockets populated, memory latency goes up by around 27% and thus in applications that are more latency sensitive and don't necessarily need all four cores, you get worse performance than with a single dual-core CPU. The added latency comes from the additional probing over the HT bus that's done for coherency whenever a memory request is made to see where the latest copy of the data resides.

It's a problem that will go away if you have a single quad-core CPU with one memory controller, but one that makes Quad FX a tougher pill to swallow compared to Intel's quad-core offerings.

How does a 3GHz Athlon 64 X2 Perform? Four cores, 1 Socket or Four cores, 2 Sockets?
Comments Locked

88 Comments

View All Comments

  • mino - Friday, December 1, 2006 - link

    If you would bother to read, you would see those IDLE numbers are Without C'n'C.

    Witch C'n'C the IDLE number is be more like 250W than 380W.
  • mino - Sunday, December 3, 2006 - link

    Hell, I should REALLY read after myself more thoroughly...
  • JKing76 - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link

    What have you got against pickup trucks?
  • Genx87 - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link

    I think it is safe to say Intel has caught AMD with its pants down this round with their Core 2 Duo line of products. Intels product line is much more compelling and performance\watt is scary good for Intel.

    Hell Intel's offering must be good, it got me to buy their product for the first time in nearly a decade! ;)
  • mino - Friday, December 1, 2006 - link

    Actually not.

    AMD has caught Intel pants down in 2003. It took Intel 3!!! years to come back to game.
    Those 3 yrs Intel was NOT price competitive.

    Intel has just caught up in midle of 2006, this was to be expected and WAS expected by AMD.

    AMD is about to catch up to Intel after 1 year..
    This 1 year AMD IS price competitive, hence it is still in the game..

    The 2008 Intel CSI may catch AMD with pants down. May.

    Actually, in 2008 AMD will have some 30-35% marketshare and be so well entrenched in the corporate market that some mild performance(as now) hiccup is not gonna hurt them in any serious manner.
  • Roy2001 - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link

    If you need quad-core/CPU system, kentsfield is a much better choice, no question asked.
  • sprockkets - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link

    Why is it that just putting the other 2 cores on the same package reduces power consumption so much?

    Anyhow, yeah, Intel is ahead, though this would be good for servers, not for desktops. Even so, Intel for now is still better.

    But, I found for perhaps 90% of all people, an old s754 board with a $45 dollar Sempron works fast enough. I wish Anand would check out the new C7 processor mini ITX boards to see how well it works for so little power consumption.
  • Furen - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link

    The QX6700 pretty much draws twice as much power as the E6700, the big benefit of going for quad-core in a single system is that you only have one motherboard, harddrive, one set of RAM sticks, one video card, etc. The 4x4 is horribly engineered, I think even 400W at load is too much for two Opterons at 3GHz.
  • mino - Friday, December 1, 2006 - link

    Two Opterons DO NOT employ 8000GTX usually ...
    Two Opterons do have 95W TDP(lower voltage) ... compared to 125W for FXs
    Two Opterons are available in 68W TDP ...
    Two Opterons are NOT available in 3GHz flavour ....

    Two Opterons are twice as expensive ....
  • Furen - Thursday, November 30, 2006 - link

    The 4x4 motherboard, that is...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now