The firm said that the technical community had generated much discussion about the differences between Xeons and Opterons, but many benchmarks had focused on CPU throughput "based on an unrealistically light workload" added to "equally unrealistic hardware and software infrastructure".
While these benchmarks are good as a reference point, very few customers would have these workloads in the real world.
After thrashing Opterons and Xeons, HP came up with some general and some particular conclusions. The first general conclusion is that the more content cached in memory, the better the Opteron scores. Xeons at 800MHz are throttled by the front side bus, while the Opteron isn't.
But, said HP, if the server sub components become bottlenecks, the Opteron access speed advantage is negated. Websites with a lot of static content "level the playing field" because the disk controller and hard drive tech is the "mitigating factor".
It's own Proliant DL145 is a good web server but network interface cards can't be put in tandem. For SMB sites, the ATA disk subsystem and this don't matter that much.
And these, and other reasons, presumably are the reason why HP sells AMD and Intel server boxes.
You can find the white paper here, but will need an HP Passport ID to access the document. µ
Sign up for INQbot – a weekly roundup of the best from the INQ