HP DL360 The Intel processor roadmap for industry-standard servers technology - Page 20

Performance comparisons, TPC-C performance

Get HP DL360 - ProLiant - G3 PDF manuals and user guides
UPC - 613326948835
View all HP DL360 manuals
Add to My Manuals
Save this manual to your list of manuals

Page 20 highlights

Performance comparisons TPC-C performance The Transaction Processing Performance Council benchmark TPC-C results for Woodcrest, Clovertown, Tulsa, Nehalem, and Dunnington processors are compared in Figure 14. TPC-C is measured in transactions per minute (tpmC). Figure 14. TPC-C performance for Intel processors showing percentage improvements compared to Woodcrest SPEC performance The Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation (SPEC) CPU2006 benchmark provides performance measurements that can be used to compare compute-intensive workloads on different computer systems. SPEC results for Woodcrest, Clovertown, Tulsa, Tigerton, and Nehalem processors are compared in Figure 15. SPEC CPU2006 contains two benchmark suites: CINT2006 for measuring and comparing compute-intensive integer performance; CFP2006 for measuring and comparing compute-intensive floating point performance. The performance results show that the fourcore processors-Clovertown, Tigerton, and Nehalem-performed better in the SPEC tests. 20

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
Performance comparisons
TPC-C performance
The Transaction Processing Performance Council benchmark TPC-C results for Woodcrest,
Clovertown, Tulsa, Nehalem, and Dunnington processors are compared in Figure 14. TPC-C is
measured in transactions per minute (tpmC).
Figure 14.
TPC-C performance for Intel processors showing percentage improvements compared to Woodcrest
SPEC performance
The Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation (SPEC) CPU2006 benchmark provides
performance measurements that can be used to compare compute-intensive workloads on different
computer systems. SPEC results for Woodcrest, Clovertown, Tulsa, Tigerton, and Nehalem processors
are compared in Figure 15. SPEC CPU2006 contains two benchmark suites: CINT2006 for
measuring and comparing compute-intensive integer performance; CFP2006 for measuring and
comparing compute-intensive floating point performance. The performance results show that the four-
core processors—Clovertown, Tigerton, and Nehalem—performed better in the SPEC tests.
20