To test the performance of the server we ran different benchmarks such as Sun¬Gard, Linpak, POVRay and Cinebench We ran these benchmarks on Windows Server 2008 64-bit OS, first with 2 processors and 8GB RAM, and then with 4 processors and 16 GB RAM. The HOD was configured on RAID 0 so that the TO doesn't create any bottleneck during the benchmarking process. Initially we sim¬ply took out 2 processors, 8 GB RAM and ran the benchmarks. Then we placed the processor and RAM back again and then ran the benchmarks to get full system per¬formance. For checking the power con¬sumption, we connected this device via a 'wattmeter' to the main powersupply and then calculated the maximum, minimum and average power consumption.

Benchmark results

Initially we started the test with Cinebench 10, which measures the per¬formance of processor and graphics card, and finally we gave a Cinebench score. This test process consists of two different parts: the first part is processor intensive and second is graphics intensive. Initially it makes use of a single CPU for running the test whereas the latter part of the test uses all the cores. In the second test, ie the graphics test, the test runs inside a 3D window. An animated scene is played starting with a low demand for graphics which is increased later on. Finally a score is generated, when the processor works on maximum speed for the scene to be dis¬played properly. The higher the scores the better will be the server performance.

Results:

With 2 processors and 8GB RAM, Cinebench gave scores of 3262 CB¬CPU while rendering 1 CPU and gave 26816 CB-CPU rendering with all the CPUs. The GPU score ticked to 190 CB¬GFX which is good for a server processor like this one. Nowwith all the 4 CPUs and 16 GB RAM i.e. with full blown configu¬ration, this monster gave scores of 3266 CB-CPU for rendering 1 CPU which is of course the same as the earlier case. But when it rendered all the CPUs then the score ticked to 313 72 CB-CPU which means 14% increase in the performance compared to earlier configurations. How¬ever, pis note that this benchmark 'CINEBENCH 10 64-bit' didn't use more than 16 cores.

As the next benchmark we used a ray tracing program POVRay which is used for CPU benchmarking. It uses the ray¬tracing rendering technique to calculate an image, by simulating how light travels in the real world. For benchmarking with POVRay, we used the standard 'bench¬mark.pov' as this file uses every internal feature of POVRay and stresses the CPU to limits. One more reason for using this benchmark file is that as it is the standard for all processors and it becomes easier for others to compare scores.

Results:

With 2 processors and 8 GB RAM, POVRay rendered an average 120.38 PPS over 147456 pixels and with 4 proces¬sors and 16 GB RAM, it rendered an average 120.25 PPS. POVRay used a maximum of 3 cores for executing the benchmark.
Then we used SunGard Adaptive Analytics as a component of SunGard's Suite of risk management products. More precisely. it is the stripped down version of the actual product. This benchmark uti¬lizes Monte Carlo method financial en¬gine to predict the future of fictitious portfolio. It requires two different files to run, the first one contains a sample data that represen ts the actual market condi¬tion and the second file contains the sam¬ple customer's investment portfolio. The benchmark scores are calculated on the base of time in seconds, so the lesser the time it will take to run, the better the server performed.

Results:

In the first test, with 2 processors and 8 GB RAM, the total time taken to run the benchmark is 156.2 sec¬onds and with 4 processors and 16 GB RAM, it took only 105.9 seconds. Harper¬town with 8 cores and 16 GB RAM took around 200 seconds which is 47% less than what this Dunnington processor took.

Next we ran Linkpack which takes down almost any server to its feet. It basi¬cally measures a system's 110ating point computing power by making the system solve an I by N linear equation (i.e. Ax = b). It calculates how much amount of GFlops can be generated. The greater the number of GFLops generated the better the system is.

Results:

With 2 processors and 8 GB RAM the system generated 53.69 GFlops and with 4 processors and 16 GB RAM, the system gave 62.02 GFlops which is lower than GFlops generated by Harper¬town (65 GFlops). We got lower score for Dunnington as Linpack that we had was customized for Harpertown.

For checking the min power con¬sumption we kept the system idle which came to be 438 W, whereas in the case of max power drawn, the wattmeter showed 775W