AMD FX-8350 or Intel i7-5820K for virtualization rig?

[user8237492]

First off, I understand the price points are different - this is strictly to understand the performance benefit (IF any) of the i7-5820K over the FX-8350 so we can accept or reject the price premium.

This will NOT be used for gaming but will instead be hosting a Hyper-V VM server running 4-6 VMs (2 Windows Servers, 4 Linux) that will be lightly-moderately used. It'll have 32 GB RAM (64 would be nicer, but cost+supported platforms ...)

Most of the benchmarks I see online are of games with almost no benchmark (synthetic or real) on virtualization performance.

So, can the 8 cores of the FX-8350 actually "beat" the i7-5820K for virtualization workloads? Any hard data? Any anecdotal tales of wonder?

Other CPUs we had originally considered:

• The i7-4790 (non K) - we don't think half the number of cores would be useful so dropped it (and it's more expensive than the 8350)
• The AMD FX-9370/9590 etc - 220W TDP is too much

 

[AtenRa]

I would strongly consider the FX-8320E for that task if you are going for the FX.

 

[user8237492]

I would strongly consider the FX-8320E for that task if you are going for the FX.

The E variants were just to allow for an upgrade path from older systems with a lower supported TDP. That compatibility came at the expense of lower sustained performance by virtue of its lower base frequency.

Since this is a fresh build where we can influence the TDP design (mobo TDP support, PSU, airflow), why do you suggest we compromise on baseline performance? 125-140 watts isn't awesome but isn't that bad either.

Is there something else we're missing?

Thanks!

 

[ShintaiDK]

5820K. You get a 5 year newer platform. Better support, lower virtualization switching overhead, much faster performance, much better performance/watt and so on.

 

[AtenRa]

The E variants were just to allow for an upgrade path from older systems with a lower supported TDP. That compatibility came at the expense of lower sustained performance by virtue of its lower base frequency.

Since this is a fresh build where we can influence the TDP design (mobo TDP support, PSU, airflow), why do you suggest we compromise on baseline performance? 125-140 watts isn't awesome but isn't that bad either.

Is there something else we're missing?

Thanks!

First of all E SKUs were not introduced only for upgrade path, new systems can benefit for having an 8-core at 95W TDP.

Secondly, from what you have said the FX-8320E has enough performance to drive those 4-6 lightly-moderately used VMs. The FX-8320E can turbo to 4GHz for a single core if one of the VMs needs the extra performance and 3.2GHz for base frequency is more than enough for the rest of the VMs.

running 4-6 VMs (2 Windows Servers, 4 Linux) that will be lightly-moderately used.

Or if you really want 8-cores at 4GHz then get the FX-8350 and turn off Turbo. You will get way lower power consumption without loosing any significant performance.

 

[AtenRa]

5820K. You get a 5 year newer platform. Better support, lower virtualization switching overhead, much faster performance, much better performance/watt and so on.

I dont believe anyone will dispute the performance advantage the 5820K has but for what he wants, i strongly believe it is overkill and way too expensive.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

5820K. You get a 5 year newer platform. Better support, lower virtualization switching overhead, much faster performance, much better performance/watt and so on.

Price it out and tell us that's a good deal. Please do.

 

[NTMBK]

Will you need to migrate VMs at all? AMD and Intel have incompatible virtualization extensions, and generally you cannot migrate an AMD-hosted VM to an Intel host (or vice versa).

 

[BigDaveX]

The 5820K does have one big advantage in that a decent X99 motherboard will have double the memory slots of any AM3+ board, along with more SATA ports (and SATAe). That said, the prices of DDR4 at the minute are killer - it'd probably be a slam-dunk for the 5820K if they had stuck with DDR3.

If you really need to put this system together in the near future, would an Ivy Bridge-E/X79 set-up maybe be a good compromise solution? It'd perform at least as well as the 8350 (if you put in a 4820K), and has the advantage of the added memory slots and being able to use cheaper DDR3, which you could really load up on while building it.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Question: how does Piledriver (in this case, the 8350) fare when attempting to load VMs dedicated to half a module?

For example, let's say you run 8 VMs on an 8350.

In contrast, how does Haswell-E (or Haswell, for that matter) fare when handling a VM dedicated to a virtual core (HT)? Put the same 8 VMs onto a non-k i7.

My guess is that the i7 would handle 4 VMs quickly and 4 VMs slowly, while the performance on the FX would be more "even" (that is, the distribution of computational resources between the VMs would be essentially the same). Is HT at all useful in this sort of virtualization?

 

[davie jambo]

Price it out and tell us that's a good deal. Please do.

I want to see this too

I am no AMD fanboy but you'd have to be actually mental to buy the intel in this case - way over the top for what he needs

 

[GLeeM]

My guess is that the i7 would handle 4 VMs quickly and 4 VMs slowly

Even if there were a big difference between real and virtual cores, how would that affect running 6 VMs on a 5820?

 

[Madpacket]

I think a better comparison would be of the Haswell i5 vs. 8350. Prices are similar but power consumption is much better on the Intel platform. The question of performance needs to be looked at and I wouldn't be surprised if the i5 was faster in most scenarios. It's not like you need 1 core dedicated to 1 VM at a time.

 

[PliotronX]

If you are not going to be overclocking, it is my understanding that the non-k versions are better for virtualization (but sorry I haven't looked, is there even a non-k 5820?). There is no comparison here, even without benchies this will be a bloodbath and regarding the price difference depending on how long it is used, the power savings will pay for it

 

[SlowSpyder]

If you are not going to be overclocking, it is my understanding that the non-k versions are better for virtualization (but sorry I haven't looked, is there even a non-k 5820?). There is no comparison here, even without benchies this will be a bloodbath and regarding the price difference depending on how long it is used, the power savings will pay for it

I wish I could find the benches I saw, but the FX CPU's were pretty decent at running VM from what I recall (but I want to say that was Ivy vs. Vishera, not sure how Hawell may change things). The OP said that these will be lightly used VM's, I doubt there'd be very much in the way of power savings.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Even if there were a big difference between real and virtual cores, how would that affect running 6 VMs on a 5820?

It wouldn't. Just a speculative question, really.

It would also be instructive to observe how 4 VMs would handle on Piledriver vs say, 6 or 8 of them.

If you are not going to be overclocking, it is my understanding that the non-k versions are better for virtualization (but sorry I haven't looked, is there even a non-k 5820?). There is no comparison here, even without benchies this will be a bloodbath and regarding the price difference depending on how long it is used, the power savings will pay for it

The lower-end k chips lose some virtualization-friendly features like VT-d; however, all Haswell-E CPUs (including the 5820k) should have all CPU features fully enabled, including VT-d.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

For 4-6 lightly used VMs, I'm not seeing the benefit of any of these high end desktop chips, with or without virtualization extensions, vs. building an E3-1230 v3 rig. (Cheaper, all the Vt-d goodies and ECC, etc.)

For the same budget, assuming medium-low CPU load, I'd rather have 4c/8HT CPU and an SSD-backed datastore than 6c/12HT or 8ALU/4FPU and spinning disks.

But that's me.

 

[tollingalong]

Question: how does Piledriver (in this case, the 8350) fare when attempting to load VMs dedicated to half a module?

For example, let's say you run 8 VMs on an 8350.

In contrast, how does Haswell-E (or Haswell, for that matter) fare when handling a VM dedicated to a virtual core (HT)? Put the same 8 VMs onto a non-k i7.

My guess is that the i7 would handle 4 VMs quickly and 4 VMs slowly, while the performance on the FX would be more "even" (that is, the distribution of computational resources between the VMs would be essentially the same). Is HT at all useful in this sort of virtualization?

HT can be useful but that depends on your apps.

When you run a process in a vm, the hypervisor (in your case HyperV) creates a new process. You don't get to pick and choose process getting assigned a physical CPU, a hyper threaded or an AMD corlet (VMWARE term). The scheduler picks and chooses for you.

I'm not 100% sure you need a 6 core CPU. If your vms don't use all 6 cores at 100% at the same time you might be ok with a 4 core CPU for 1/2 the price.

My 2 cents

 

[TheRyuu]

For 4-6 lightly used VMs, I'm not seeing the benefit of any of these high end desktop chips, with or without virtualization extensions, vs. building an E3-1230 v3 rig. (Cheaper, all the Vt-d goodies and ECC, etc.)

For the same budget, assuming medium-low CPU load, I'd rather have 4c/8HT CPU and an SSD-backed datastore than 6c/12HT or 8ALU/4FPU and spinning disks.

But that's me.

Plus one.

In contrast, how does Haswell-E (or Haswell, for that matter) fare when handling a VM dedicated to a virtual core (HT)? Put the same 8 VMs onto a non-k i7.

There is no such thing as a virtual core. A single real core simply shows up as two virtual threads. There is no distinction between the two (the operating system is aware of SMT and can make scheduling decisions based on it).

My guess is that the i7 would handle 4 VMs quickly and 4 VMs slowly, while the performance on the FX would be more "even" (that is, the distribution of computational resources between the VMs would be essentially the same). Is HT at all useful in this sort of virtualization?

It would depend heavily on the load the VM's. It would likely fair just fine in moderate to light loads.

 

[AtenRa]

For 4-6 lightly used VMs, I'm not seeing the benefit of any of these high end desktop chips, with or without virtualization extensions, vs. building an E3-1230 v3 rig. (Cheaper, all the Vt-d goodies and ECC, etc.)

For the same budget, assuming medium-low CPU load, I'd rather have 4c/8HT CPU and an SSD-backed datastore than 6c/12HT or 8ALU/4FPU and spinning disks.

But that's me.

FX8320E currently available at Newegg at $155,

E3-1230 v3 currently at Newegg at $250

$100 SSDs at Newegg

 

[dave_the_nerd]

FX8320E currently available at Newegg at $155,

E3-1230 v3 currently at Newegg at $250

$100 SSDs at Newegg

Okay, so it's cheaper than the 5820 and faster than the FX, making it a good middle ground.

 

[AtenRa]

Okay, so it's cheaper than the 5820 and faster than the FX, making it a good middle ground.

Well according to you it would be better to have the cheaper FX8320E + SSD than the XEON + HDD at higher cost

 

[Phynaz]

Question: how does Piledriver (in this case, the 8350) fare when attempting to load VMs dedicated to half a module?

For example, let's say you run 8 VMs on an 8350.

In contrast, how does Haswell-E (or Haswell, for that matter) fare when handling a VM dedicated to a virtual core (HT)? Put the same 8 VMs onto a non-k i7.

My guess is that the i7 would handle 4 VMs quickly and 4 VMs slowly, while the performance on the FX would be more "even" (that is, the distribution of computational resources between the VMs would be essentially the same). Is HT at all useful in this sort of virtualization?

That's not how HT works. There isn't a fast core and a slow core. There's one core running two threads simultaneously.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

If you are not going to be overclocking, it is my understanding that the non-k versions are better for virtualization (but sorry I haven't looked, is there even a non-k 5820?). There is no comparison here, even without benchies this will be a bloodbath and regarding the price difference depending on how long it is used, the power savings will pay for it

The lower-end k chips lose some virtualization-friendly features like VT-d; however, all Haswell-E CPUs (including the 5820k) should have all CPU features fully enabled, including VT-d.

the mainstream K chips lost the feature, HEDT has always had them (i.e. go back to Sandy-E and you get VT-d, etc)

although, IIRC, the 4790K quietly introduced VT-d to the unlocked mainstream

 

[AtenRa]

That's not how HT works. There isn't a fast core and a slow core. There's one core running two threads simultaneously.

That doesnt mean the core can always execute two threads simultaneously in SMT. If both threads need the same resources(execution units) then only a single thread can be executed per cycle. In CMT like Bulldozer, you can always execute two Integer threads simultaneously per cycle.