Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Xeon E5-1680 v3 & E5-2687W v3 Compared To The Core i7 5960X On Linux

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Intel Xeon E5-1680 v3 & E5-2687W v3 Compared To The Core i7 5960X On Linux

    Phoronix: Intel Xeon E5-1680 v3 & E5-2687W v3 Compared To The Core i7 5960X On Linux

    While the Intel X99 series motherboards are popular right now with the Intel Core i7 Haswell Extreme Edition CPUs, some of these motherboards are also compatible with the Haswell-based Xeon processors. The MSI X99S SLI PLUS does support a number of the Haswell-EP Xeon processors, including the E5-2687W v3 that's a ten core processor plus Hyper Threading. In making for some interesting Linux results, MSI kindly sent over the Xeon E5-1680 v3 and E5-2687W v3 to test them with their X99S SLI PLUS motherboard under a variety of conditions with Linux.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=21145

  • #2
    That was very nice of MSI. I've seen review websites far larger and more popular than phoronix who don't get products THIS nice.

    I'm surprised to see how power efficient the E5-2687W is, but good thing it has the Xeon label on it because otherwise people really need to understand this CPU is seriously overkill for anything that isn't a server. In some ways, I think I'd rather go for a dual-socket motherboard and get 2 6-core Xeon E5 processors. You'd get more threads than a single 10-core, it costs less to get two six-cores, power management would probably be easier, you could theoretically double the amount of memory you have, and you could double your memory bandwidth.


    On another note, I just found out there are actually 14-core CPUs with HT.

    I also realized that the low-end Xeons are surprisingly good values. The 6-cores are easily $100-$200 cheaper than their desktop i7 counterparts. Makes me think - if I go for an intel build next, I think I'm going to go for Xeon. If all I'm really missing out on is the IGP, that's perfectly fine with me - the only reason I'd want the IGP is for a hypervisor.

    Comment


    • #3
      Just imagine a workstation with two of these bad boys?

      The lower clocked E5 Xeons are actually quite fairly priced. E5-2630 v3 (8-core, 2.40 GHz) at $671 and E5-2620 v3 (6-core, 2.40 GHz) at $422. If I were building a new workstation today, I would probably buy something like this.

      Comment


      • #4
        Goddammit AMD get your things in order. Things have gotten this bad that a $422 hexacore is cited as good value.

        I still remember buying my Phenom x6 for 110e. That is a fair price for a hexa.


        edit: Quoted wrong number.
        Last edited by curaga; 11-13-2014, 03:37 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
          That was very nice of MSI. I've seen review websites far larger and more popular than phoronix who don't get products THIS nice.

          I'm surprised to see how power efficient the E5-2687W is, but good thing it has the Xeon label on it because otherwise people really need to understand this CPU is seriously overkill for anything that isn't a server.
          I'm not sure why people say this. There are many workstation apps that will ultimate these sorts of CPU's. Any software developer doing large C++ projects would love the fast turn around many cores provide. It doesn't stop with software development either, consider how many Mac Pros get sold to professionals that use every once of compute power in the box yet don't understand the underlying tech.

          In some ways, I think I'd rather go for a dual-socket motherboard and get 2 6-core Xeon E5 processors. You'd get more threads than a single 10-core, it costs less to get two six-cores, power management would probably be easier, you could theoretically double the amount of memory you have, and you could double your memory bandwidth.
          Ideally the user would understand the trade offs. However dual chip motherboards can be good values as you describe.

          On another note, I just found out there are actually 14-core CPUs with HT.
          The latest XEON designs lay down cores in blocks of five, I don't think we are far away from having 20 and 25 core machines. If Knights landing gets improved in the way it has been indicated you may end up seeing 60 core workstations soon.
          I also realized that the low-end Xeons are surprisingly good values. The 6-cores are easily $100-$200 cheaper than their desktop i7 counterparts. Makes me think - if I go for an intel build next, I think I'm going to go for Xeon. If all I'm really missing out on is the IGP, that's perfectly fine with me - the only reason I'd want the IGP is for a hypervisor.
          This is so true, the mainstream stuff can be surprisingly expensive. I think part of the deal here is that Intel sells this product to a smarter clientele that can look at AMD and other solutions with an open eye. Intel isn't the slam dunk in enterprise that some people think it is.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by wizard69 View Post
            I'm not sure why people say this. There are many workstation apps that will ultimate these sorts of CPU's. Any software developer doing large C++ projects would love the fast turn around many cores provide. It doesn't stop with software development either, consider how many Mac Pros get sold to professionals that use every once of compute power in the box yet don't understand the underlying tech.
            Well of course there will be SOME workstations that could really take advantage of a system like this, but, the average developer doesn't need a 20-thread CPU. A regular i7 in many cases could be overkill. The only people who could really take advantage of something this powerful are people who develop kernels or software suites. And even then - most of the time when they're developing their software, they don't have to recompile the entire package.

            In many situations, it's all about patience, and it seems most people these days have very little of it. For me personally, I don't think spending an extra $X00 is worth shaving a few minutes off my workload, if that's the only thing it fixes. Though if I have money to wipe myself with then sure, I'll get something fancy.

            I think part of the deal here is that Intel sells this product to a smarter clientele that can look at AMD and other solutions with an open eye. Intel isn't the slam dunk in enterprise that some people think it is.
            Ya that's probably true, Intel regularly gets in trouble for anticompetitiveness so if they can prove their server-side products are so much cheaper, they can just say "we're charging $200 more than what this is actually worth, how is that anticompetitive?"
            But yeah, Intel definitely isn't #1 in servers. x86 has its place in the server world but in most cases, GPGPUs, ARM, PPC, and SPARC have an edge x86 doesn't offer. x86 seems to be the most popular for Windows servers, unsurprisingly.

            Comment

            Working...
            X