The Intel Xeon E5 v4 Review: Testing Broadwell-EP With Demanding Server Workloads
by Johan De Gelas on March 31, 2016 12:30 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- Intel
- Xeon
- Enterprise
- Enterprise CPUs
- Broadwell
MySQL 5.7.0
Thanks to the excellent repository of Percona, we were able to vastly improve our MySQL benchmark with Sysbench. However due to these changes, you cannot compare this with any similar Sysbench based benchmarking we have done before.
In updating our SQL benchmarking, we first upgraded the standard mysql installation to the better performing Percona Server 5.7. Secondly, we used sysbench 0.5 (instead of 0.4) and we implemented the (lua) scripts that allow us to use multiple tables (8 in our case) instead of the default one. This makes the Sysbench benchmark much more realistic as running with one table creates a very artificial bottleneck.
For our testing we used the read-only OLTP benchmark, which is slightly less realistic, but still much more interesting than most other Sysbench tests. This allows us to measure CPU performance without creating an I/O bottleneck. Our humble S3500 SSDs were fast enough in this scenario.
We used to apply all kinds of hacks to get around the limited scalability of both mysql and the way sysbench tested. Any version older than 5.5 could hardly scale beyond 8 cores. It is still not perfect, but MySQL uses the first 22 cores and 44 threads of the Xeon E5-2699 v4 amazingly well. We only get a 24% performance increase if we double the core count again with a second CPU, but we are honestly surprised that MySQL can now make good use of those 88 threads. Thanks to our better testing methods and a more scalable mysql, we can now report that the latest Xeon is capable of doubling the performance of the best Xeon that was launched 4 years ago. Well done Oracle, Percona, and Intel!
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
112 Comments
View All Comments
isrv - Sunday, April 3, 2016 - link
i will belive that only after one by one comparison E5-1630v3 vs any of E5v4 composing wordpress front page for example.and so far, that's only a words about better caching etc...
simplyfabio - Monday, April 4, 2016 - link
Could I ask one thing here? For a Workstation 3D, both for rendering and graphic/cad, (like illustrator, photoshop, autocad, 3dsmax), could be better have more core like the E5 2690 (considering all the turbo clock speed for each core active) ore better frequency, like the 1680? Thanks a lot to everyone, I can't find a nice review on this side of this CPUs...grantdesrosiers - Monday, April 4, 2016 - link
Not sure if anyone has pointed it out yet, but I think there is an error on the "Multi-Threaded Integer Performance" page, first graph. The 2695v4 says 22 cores, I believe it should be 18.SanX - Monday, April 4, 2016 - link
Poor Moore's law for workstations... 10-20% gain per 2-years generation.Think about it: there is no reason to upgrade for the next *** 5-10 generations *** or the next 10-20 years (!!!) when the processors will be only e-fold (2.71x) faster.
dragonsqrrl - Monday, April 4, 2016 - link
The problem is your first assumption is already false.Khenglish - Monday, April 4, 2016 - link
I can't understand why the 4C and under turbo speeds are so slow on the v4 2699. A Broadwell with 55MB of cache being outperformed by a stock clocked Sandy Bridge is ridiculous. Why would this CPU not clock up to at least 4.2GHz with a 4 core workload, and say 4.4GHz for a 1 core workload? Hell it costs over $4000 and a massive TDP. You'd think Intel could take a minute to make the low core count speeds not terribly low.My workstation in my lab has a 1650 v3. My workloads peak between 4-8 cores. There is not a single CPU in the v4 lineup that would be an upgrade over the 1650 v3 despite the major power savings of 14nm and the cache size increase due to Intel's inability to set reasonable 8C and under frequencies.
Romulous - Monday, April 4, 2016 - link
People who are serious about recompiling the same software often would probably use ccache and maybe even distcc. So your Linux kernel compile test is really only there for to show potential cpu performance.LHL2500 - Tuesday, April 5, 2016 - link
"It finds a home in the same LGA 2011-3 socket."Not according to Intel's website.
http://ark.intel.com/compare/91754,81908
In this comparison between a v3 and a v4 version of a E5-2680, the socket support for the two chips are different. The older version using the the FCLGA2011-3 and the newer version using FCLGA2011.
So who is right? Anandtech or Intel?
And it not just this chip. It's all the v4s.
While I hope it's a typo on Intel's behalf, for now it doesn't look like the v4s are direct upgrades to the v3s. You will apparently need new motherboards.
xrror - Tuesday, April 5, 2016 - link
That... is a bit disconcerting. I also like how "VID Voltage Range" for the v4 parts is simply listed as "0" ...SeanJ76 - Tuesday, April 5, 2016 - link
My School had the 3rd Generation Xeon's in their Workstations, they were slow as fuck@3.3ghz!! The consumer i7 4790K/6700K would run laps around these Xeon crap cpus!