Balancing Power, Price, and Performance in the Server CPU World

35 Comments

View All Comments

• qrazi - Friday, March 4, 2011 - link

  Don't forget that a higher TDP also requires a higher capacity cooling and PSU, which in turn also means higher power requirements.
  
  And if it's not the only server in the rack, thermal output can be a real issue.

• 7Enigma - Friday, March 4, 2011 - link

  Exactly. This point is missed in almost all articles related to power consumption. "But it's only 5 cents per week more...blah....blah....blah".
  
  Yes but the problem is the cost associated with the REMOVAL of that heat that is often much more expensive and troublesome than the actual moderate increase in power consumption. This is compounded in a server environment where even a slight increase can start to cause issues with air handlers, total power draw for the room, and that extra 5 cents can become a significant increase in operating costs.
  
  So please before someone else writes a post in this or an upcoming article think the whole situation through. It's not just the additional power the server uses, but what do you do with that extra power (in the form of heat) that really matters.

• ZL1Corvette - Friday, March 4, 2011 - link

  PSU: I understand that when custom building a server you'll get to match you exact load to your PSU. How about when you're buying a premade though. I don't buy servers but I bet Dell charges a fine premium when you upgrade to the higher dollar CPU. Quick trip to Dell page says the 4170HE is a $102 premium over the 4122. That price makes it look like they keep the same PSU installed. Going with a 4162EE costs $252, which still looks like they're keeping the same PSU. The 35W chip saves you $52 a year. 5 year pay back until you consider heat removal.
  
  Heat: CPU's make heat through electrical resistance, which is actually a pretty inefficient way to make heat. Your AC system is better, but we'll assume it's equal. You can take all of my original pay back numbers and cut them in half. That means almost all of these chips take from 1.5 to 2.5 years to pay for themselves.
  
  How long do you keep a server? I'm sure I have no idea, but most companies don't implement a cost saving unless it pays back in under two years.
  
  You're right, there are extra costs, some of the time. What about the quarter of the year when it's cold outside? How about when you already have the system and are considering upgrading just for the lower operating costs? Too many times I've seen forum posts about people "saving" all this money by reducing their computer power draw by a few watts.

• JohanAnandtech - Saturday, March 5, 2011 - link

  Quite a few people have given you already a good answer. Check also the "Power cost" by ERJ post out. Most people collocating will pay a fixed cost, and will pay a lot more if they create "bursty power" (i.e. demand more power than was agreed). So requiring a half Amp less or more than your limit can make a big difference.

• bwj - Friday, March 4, 2011 - link

  Why do you think least power consumption is important for cloud providers? A cloud provider wants to keep all servers running at peak utilization, all day, every day of the week. The platform is at 80% of its peak power consumption when 10% loaded, so there's little cost going from 10% to 100% load. A cloud provider wants the highest throughput per watt at 100% load.

• duploxxx - Friday, March 4, 2011 - link

  Why would you choose in this configurations for a balanced power schema? doesn't make sense to me and it is very OEM depending weather those power schema work well or not, certainly on Vmware.
  
  Next time select also LP dimm's although retail might show a price difference, it's no longer the case when you have a decent price reduction from server volume.
  
  vAPU 2 is a great benchtool but the score i still a bit flawed because of the WEB bench results. You miss a 9th or 10th that would serve files orso.

• silverblue - Friday, March 4, 2011 - link

  HAHA McAfee makes things more secure?
  
  Thank you for brightening up my Friday.

• tech6 - Friday, March 4, 2011 - link

  A test of Watts per unit of work done would have interesting.

• duploxxx - Friday, March 4, 2011 - link

  People like you should be banned from the internet, your personal feelings towards a certain vendor clearly affect your way of working with IT.
  
  I pity those who would do any business with you with such a narrow mind. By folks like you we would still be living in the Netburst ERA, wasting hours of time waiting for a job to finish.
  
  Just FYI in the 2p server compare here there is not a single RAS feature intel has more then AMD, and using the platform you obviously refer too (EX) in a power consumption compare would be a really big joke, just like the more secure intel cpu thx to mcafee hence they just bought the company not let alone integrating this before 2013.....
  
  Bugs, yeah right, you mean bugs from the one behind the keyboard. we use 1000's of Intel and AMD servers in Hospital environments, both do there jobs more then well.
  
  Intel is not a standard, x86 is which is btw not created by Intel, not to mention the 64bit you are probably running these days :D

• duploxxx - Friday, March 4, 2011 - link

  are you really that stupid? we are talking here about server platform. Intel 55xx and 56xx series are connected through Tylersburg chipset, perhaps start reading a bit more.
  
  http://www.avadirect.com/intel-nehalem-ep/intel-ty...
  
  thx for the information sharing but I have a feeling that there will be many other people with more added value posts ....
  Your smooth, lightning fast ATOM system seems to be handling the CUT/PASTE typing really well ......