Sun Ultra 20 M2 Performance
I’ve been working with a Sun Ultra 20 M2 workstation, running Solaris 10 and Windows XP, over the past couple of weeks. While I’m going to write up my impressions of the Sun Ultra 20 M2 sometime soon, I thought I’d share some of the performance results I’ve collected on the Ultra 20 M2, especially now that Geekbench runs on Solaris.
Update: Geekbench results for Solaris and Linux running on the same Sun Ultra 20 M2 are now available.
Setup
Here’s the configuration of the Sun Ultra 20 M2:
- AMD Dual-Core Opteron 1210
- 512 MB DDR2-667 (1 DIMM)
- Windows XP Professional x64 Edition or
- Solaris 10 (6/06 Update)
- Geekbench 2006 (build 230)
I’m reporting the baseline score, rather than the raw score, for each benchmark (where a score of 100 is the score a Power Mac G5 1.6GHz would receive). Higher is better.
Overall Score
Integer Performance
Floating Point Performance
Memory Performance
Stream Performance
Conclusion
Overall, I’m pleased with the performance of the Sun Ultra 20 M2. While this model (with an Opteron 1210) isn’t quite as fast as a low-end Mac Pro, it’s less than half the price of a low-end Mac Pro. Models equipped with faster Opterons (like the Opteron 1218) will certainly be more competitive when it comes to performance.
Another thing worth mentioning is that Solaris (and the Sun Studio compiler) outperformed Windows (and Visual C++) by almost 15%. Solaris outperformed Windows in almost every benchmark category, even outperforming Windows dramatically in some specific tests (such as some of the floating point benchmarks). If you’re working with processor-intensive tasks, Solaris might be the operating system for you.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
- Opensolaris benchmarks… « Il mio piccolo diario di viaggio… tra i bit pingbacked Posted October 24, 2006, 3:47 am
- Tod-OS.com :: Te ponemos al dia » Duelo en 64 btis: Solaris 10 contra WindowsXP 2.0 pingbacked Posted October 24, 2006, 4:03 am
- Link Patrol | Sun Ultra 20 M2 Performance pingbacked Posted October 24, 2006, 9:26 am
- » Duelo 64 bits: Solaris 10 vs. Windows XP » Linux Platense pingbacked Posted October 24, 2006, 12:32 pm
- meneame.net trackbacked Posted October 25, 2006, 12:32 pm
- Geek Patrol | Sun Ultra 20 M2 Linux Performance pingbacked Posted October 27, 2006, 11:56 am
- Clandestine Harmony trackbacked Posted October 27, 2006, 1:35 pm
- Geek Patrol | Intel inside Sun Servers pingbacked Posted February 15, 2007, 11:59 am
- Primate Labs Blog : Sun Ultra 24 pingbacked Posted December 4, 2007, 12:30 am
Can you do these tests with Linux?
I’m not surprised at your results, since any GUI pretending to be an operating system has to have drawbacks.
To date, I’ve used an Ultra 10, but I’m thinking of buying an Ultra 20, as I suspect the AMD processor may be faster than a SPARC.
I can’t find any meaningful comparisons, so do you have any suggestions?
Alright, now you have intrigued me. How does Linux fare on the same hardware?
Thank you very much for sharing this experience
Can you tell us what’s performance made with both Solaris and Linux in the same machine?
Cheers
Better double-check your pricing. Your comment about it being half as much as a Mac Pro is WAY OFF. I just priced one out on Sun’s website. A “low-end” version came out to $1770.
Thanks for your hard work
UniBoy said:
I think you should double check your pricing for the system config listed at the top. It only costs $995!! Compared to the Mac Pro at $2121 for low-end. And that doesn’t even include a monitor! So half as much as a Mac is correct.
What compiler options did you use to compile stream with
SunStudio? The best options for stream on Opteron are:
-fast -xprefetch -xvector=simd -xdepend
Diane said:
Geekbench for Solaris is compiled with the -fast switch. Are the best options for Stream on Solaris (-fast -xprefetch -xvector=simd -xdepend) recommended for all Solaris applications?
These switches are always a good place to start. Note
that -xvector=simd is not a sparc option.
Diane said:
Note that -xvector=simd can occasionally make performance
worse.
Your Mac Pro pricing comparison is way off. I can find a PC for $499 online too that runs Solaris and beats the pants off price-wise for the Sun Ultra 20 M2. The minimum Ultra 20 M2 price that is even comparable to the low end Mac Pro is $1639 using Sun’s online store.
Your $995 is 512MB of RAM. The Mac Pro you were comparing against is 1GB of RAM. Your $995 M2 is 80GB SATA drive, the Mac Pro is 250GB SATA drive. Your M2 didn’t seem to have a keyboard. Mac Pro does. (and a more extensive PCI-e setup). And the Mac Pro has 2 dual core CPUs, your M2 only has 1 Dual Core CPU. Don’t know how the individual cores compare at the moment. Also, I did not upgrade the video card as I do not kow how the base ones compare… So saying it is 1/2 the cost or less is flat out wrong if you want to have any sort of semblance of comparing machines that are in any way similar in specs.
I have posted STREAM numbers with the Sun Studio compilers (along with the right option set used) at these two following blogs:
SunStudio and GCC compared here
Autopar vs. OpenMP compared here
Even tho it was written with a Linux title, the numbers are the same as Solaris, as I indicated there.
The numbers themselves tell the story… I’m not sure what exactly the STREAM numbers are for comparison, but we should be MUCH higher than these posted numbers. IBM has decent submitted STREAM numbers for Apple G5 dualcore @2GHz, but the other numbers are 40% lower. Compared to the lower 2GHz numbers, Sun Studio numbers are about 2 to 2.5x higher. Compared to IBM’s numbers, they are still about 30% higher
Hope this helps!
Chad Leigh said:
I didn’t say the Ultra 20 M2 was comparable to a Mac Pro when it came to features or functionality. The point I was trying to make is that the Ultra 20 M2 doesn’t perform as well as a Mac Pro, but that it comes close, and that’s impressive considering the price difference between the two machines.
One thing I am impressed with, though, is that I can get a workstation-class computer from Sun for under $1000. I have to pay twice that for a workstation-class computer from Apple. Sure, they’re not comparable machines, but Sun gives me a lot more choice than Apple.
Diane said:
I would also suggest using -xarch=amd64a (must be specified AFTER -fast) to get the best of 64-bit ABI available in AMD chips. There are specific applications which run faster in 32-bit mode but just few of them. Usually migrating to 64-bits makes application faster.
Good stuff. How does the result look when you run on:
1. latest Nevada build?
2. Solaris 10 Update 2?
thanks from Singapore
e1
http://www.singanix.org
iwan ang said:
I haven’t run Geekbench on the latest Nevada build, but that’s something I’m hoping to do sometime this week. As for Solaris 10 Update 2, isn’t that the same as Solaris 10 6/06 (the version of Solaris I ran these tests on)?
John Poole said:
define “Workstation Class”
I can buy a VW GTI or I can buy a Porsche Boxster. Both are sporty cars — but the Porsche costs twice as much and is not a comparable car to the VW — only contrastable.
Run your tests against a 20″ iMac with the dual core 2 CPU. That comes with a screen and is “Workstation Class” in terms of the HW specs.
False comparisons and conclusions are basically useless. Like I said: I can buy a $499 PC that will probably perform close to your Sun box for 1/2 the price. The generic people give you much more choice than Sun. But so what. Apples (the fruit) vs Oranges comparisons are worthless.
Chad Leigh said:
The latest iMacs certainly are workstation class when it comes to hardware specs, but aren’t when it comes to expandability. Both the Mac Pro and the Ultra 20 M2 have room for extra memory, extra drives, and extra expansion cards.
Regardless, thanks for your opinion.
A generic machine (especially one you built your self for 500$) wouldn’t come with the support usually afforded to that class of machine.
As asked, booting Linux, compiling with sun and gcc would be interesting.
Reading the discussion about the hardware is interesting and thanks for posting your results, however, I would be curious to see how the Mac OS would perform on the exact same hardware. I know this is speculation, and I am not trying to instigate anything, but I like the fact that your comparison is the same machine, with the OS interchanged.
I am kind of new to Sun Solaris, but how do you install XP over Solaris 10. Most of the documents that I saw on net explain how to install Solaris over XP not the other way round. If there are any such document or instructions for this please let me know…
Everyone interested in Solaris 10 operating system for PCs (x86) must know that it has a very reduced hardware support for this platform. In fact it is only warranteed to work on Dell, HP and IBM branded PCs.