The SPECjbb2005 results of all three servers -- 219,342, 218,527, and 217,820 bops -- varied by less than 1 percent, showing performance of the systems to be essentially identical. This is due in large part to the similarities in the underlying architecture of the motherboards. For comparison with a previous server generation, I ran SPECjbb2005 against an HP ProLiant ML360 G3 and saw just how far the technology has come. My G3 ProLiant has a pair of 2.8GHz dual-core Xeons (533MHz FSB, 512MB of L2 cache) and 4GB of PC2100 DDR RAM. SPECjbb2005 was only able to run up to eight warehouses (my dual-core Xeons were not Hyper-Threaded), but the results were only about 5 percent of what the new Nehalem-based systems posted. For example, at eight warehouses, the three Nehalem servers averaged 153,259 bops, while my G3 ProLiant scored only 7,596 bops -- not even close.
While the load testing took place, I monitored power usage using the Watts Up Pro "plug load" meter. Watts Up Pro logged all of the collected data via USB cable to a client PC where I was able to view watts, voltage, amperage, and other metrics specific to power consumption.
This is one area where I did see a variance among the servers. All three servers drew very little power while in standby mode (plugged in but powered off). Once the systems were powered on and booted up, the Dell PowerEdge consumed fewer watts under load than the HP server and substantially less than the Fujitsu server. The potential impact on your power bill? Assuming a rate of 14 cents per kilowatt hour (roughly the U.S. average), the Dell would cost about $100 less than the Fujitsu, and about $25 less than the HP, to run 24 hours per day for a year.
The STREAM 5.8 memory benchmark allowed me to see how fast bytes could be moved in and out of memory. STREAM measures sustainable memory bandwidth in megabytes per second, and all three servers recorded performance numbers that back up Nehalem's architectural advances. As with SPECjbb2005, the STREAM Triad results -- 33,463, 33,508, and 33,536 -- were again very close together, varying less than 1 percent across the three servers.
Server virtualization is high on most admins' checklists, and the Nehalem Xeons are built to provide support for all popular virtualization packages. All three servers are identical in this regard, supporting bare-metal hypervisors as well as OS-based virtualization without a problem.
Rank and file
At the end of my testing, it was very clear to me that Intel's new Xeons have opened a new door of server performance. Nehalem represents a landmark shift in processing power, and all three servers demonstrated this fact with their fantastic SPECjbb2005 and STREAM 5.8 performance numbers. Regardless of the task, it will run faster on a Nehalem-based server.
The uniformly excellent performance made it very difficult to rank the three servers. In the final analysis, the differences in scores came down to minor things like hardware expandability, power consumption, and price. All of these servers are impressive performers, and none of them lacks any substantial features. All of them are great for small to medium-sized businesses, and each one's remote management is top notch. If noise is a concern, then look to the Dell. If you need room for lots of hard drives, then the Fujitsu is the one. If cost is king, HP is your choice. You won't go wrong with any of them.
Dell PowerEdge T610
Dell has always had style on its side, and the PowerEdge T610 keeps the tradition going. This stand-alone tower, which can also serve as a 5U rack server, bundles power behind a pretty face. The chassis has plenty of room for growth for any small to medium-sized business, capable of 8TB of internal storage and 96GB of DDR3 RAM. Remote management chores are handled by iDRAC6 (Integrated Dell Remote Access Controller). A nifty front-panel mini-LCD does the trick for boot-time monitoring.
Nehalem tower servers by the features
|Dell PowerEdge T610||Fujitsu Primergy TX300||HP ProLiant ML350|
|Installed CPUs / max CPUs||2/2||2/2||2/2|
|Type of CPU (as tested)||Intel Xeon X5550 2.26 GHz||Intel Xeon X5550 2.26 GHz||Intel Xeon X5550 2.26 GHz|
|Installed RAM / max RAM||24GB/96GB||24GB/144GB||24GB/196GB|
|RAM type/speed?||DDR3 Registered, 1333MHz||DDR3 Registered, 1333MHz||DDR3 Registered, 1333MHz|
|# of RAM sockets||12 DIMM slots||18 DIMM slots||18 DIMM slots|
|# of PCIe slots||5 PCIs slots||7 PCIe slots||6 PCIe slots/2 PCI-X optional|
|# of USB ports||8 USB ports||10 USB ports||6 USB ports|
|Drive bay options||8 SFF or LFF||20 SFF or 8 LFF||16 SFF or 8 LFF|
|Disk type options (SATA/SAS/SCSI)||SAS, SATA, SSD||SAS, SATA||SAS, SATA|
|Controller types||SAS controller||SAS controller||SAS controller|
|# and type of drives installed (as tested)||4 x 73GB 15K RPM SAS||3x 450 GB 15K RPM SAS HDD||3 x 146G 10K RPM SAS|
|Max storage available||8TB||8TB||8TB|
|Front Panel LCD?||Yes||Yes||No|
|# and type of Ethernet ports||2 port GbE||2 port GbE||2 port GbE|
|Power supply options||570W/870W, redundant optional||800W hot-plug standard, redundant optional||460W/750W/1200W, redundant optional|
|Tool less case design?||Yes||Yes||Yes|
|Chassis type||Tower or 5U rack||Tower or 4U rack||Tower or 5U rack|
|Hot-swap fans?||No, redundant fan support||Yes||No, redundant fan support|
|Price as tested||$7,315||$9,316||$6,560|
|Warranty||3 Years||3 Years||3 Years|
You may still be better off sticking with Win7 or Win8.1, given the wide range of ongoing Win10...
Early results look promising: the many-hours-long Win7 waits may be behind us
Now that we're down to the wire, many upgraders report that the installer hangs. If this happens to...
Sponsored by Hewlett Packard Enterprise
Sponsored by Intel
Combining the telecom giant and content titan is a lose-lose for consumers and the economy alike
Check out the new bells and whistles -- including the Touch Bar -- on Apple's latest iterations of the...
We may not need another JVM language, but open source Whiley could wind up with other back ends
The originator of the Apache Spark big data processing framework has outfitted its cloud service with...