The Intel Xeon W Review: W-2195, W-2155, W-2123, W-2104 and W-2102 Tested
by Ian Cutress & Joe Shields on July 30, 2018 1:00 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- Intel
- Xeon
- Workstation
- ECC
- Skylake-SP
- Skylake-X
- Xeon-W
- Xeon Scalable
Benchmarking Performance: CPU Encoding Tests
One of the interesting elements on modern processors is encoding performance. This includes encryption/decryption, as well as video transcoding from one video format to another. In the encrypt/decrypt scenario, this remains pertinent to on-the-fly encryption of sensitive data - a process by which more modern devices are leaning to for software security. Video transcoding as a tool to adjust the quality, file size and resolution of a video file has boomed in recent years, such as providing the optimum video for devices before consumption, or for game streamers who are wanting to upload the output from their video camera in real-time. As we move into live 3D video, this task will only get more strenuous, and it turns out that the performance of certain algorithms is a function of the input/output of the content.
All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.
7-Zip 9.2
One of the freeware compression tools that offers good scaling performance between processors is 7-Zip. It runs under an open-source licence, is fast, and easy to use tool for power users. We run the benchmark mode via the command line for four loops and take the output score.
AMD's prowess in decompression means that it takes the top spot, however overall the W-2195 and the i9-7980XE are competing for top spot.
WinRAR 5.40
For the 2017 test suite, we move to the latest version of WinRAR in our compression test. WinRAR in some quarters is more user friendly that 7-Zip, hence its inclusion. Rather than use a benchmark mode as we did with 7-Zip, here we take a set of files representative of a generic stack (33 video files in 1.37 GB, 2834 smaller website files in 370 folders in 150 MB) of compressible and incompressible formats. The results shown are the time taken to encode the file. Due to DRAM caching, we run the test 10 times and take the average of the last five runs when the benchmark is in a steady state.
WinRAR likes cores and memory, and it seems that even the W-2155 can win against the Core i9-7980XE in this test. Despite the quad channel memory for the Xeon W quad core parts, the low frequency means they are bringing up the rear. The W-2123 hits mid-pack, actually beating the Threadripper 1950X in this test.
AES Encoding
Algorithms using AES coding have spread far and wide as a ubiquitous tool for encryption. Again, this is another CPU limited test, and modern CPUs have special AES pathways to accelerate their performance. We often see scaling in both frequency and cores with this benchmark. We use the latest version of TrueCrypt and run its benchmark mode over 1GB of in-DRAM data. Results shown are the GB/s average of encryption and decryption.
HandBrake v1.0.2 H264 and HEVC: link
As mentioned above, video transcoding (both encode and decode) is a hot topic in performance metrics as more and more content is being created. First consideration is the standard in which the video is encoded, which can be lossless or lossy, trade performance for file-size, trade quality for file-size, or all of the above can increase encoding rates to help accelerate decoding rates. Alongside Google's favorite codec, VP9, there are two others that are taking hold: H264, the older codec, is practically everywhere and is designed to be optimized for 1080p video, and HEVC (or H265) that is aimed to provide the same quality as H264 but at a lower file-size (or better quality for the same size). HEVC is important as 4K is streamed over the air, meaning less bits need to be transferred for the same quality content.
Handbrake is a favored tool for transcoding, and so our test regime takes care of three areas.
Low Quality/Resolution H264: Here we transcode a 640x266 H264 rip of a 2 hour film, and change the encoding from Main profile to High profile, using the very-fast preset.
High Quality/Resolution H264: A similar test, but this time we take a ten-minute double 4K (3840x4320) file running at 60 Hz and transcode from Main to High, using the very-fast preset.
HEVC Test: Using the same video in HQ, we change the resolution and codec of the original video from 4K60 in H264 into 4K60 HEVC.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
74 Comments
View All Comments
Lolimaster - Tuesday, July 31, 2018 - link
I see no point in this when TR exist, not only 1950X already crushes but the 2990X will just made them an afterthought.cm2187 - Tuesday, July 31, 2018 - link
It says “workstation” but is there any reason not to base an entry level server on these specs? Cheaper than server chips, ample of ram, ECC, vpro. Is there anything Intel will do to enforce a segmentation?GreenReaper - Monday, August 6, 2018 - link
That is almost certainly one of the purposes of the custom 4-core editions. HP's MicroServer Gen8 had a two-core 2.3Ghz Celeron with ECC support - this has significantly more wattage but I'd expect to see it in hardware with a need for long-term highly-reliable duty like communications equipment.buxe2quec - Tuesday, July 31, 2018 - link
This may be a stupid question, but how come my E3-1220 (3.1 GHz) from 2011 has 80 W TDP and this Xeon W-2104 (first table) has 120 W?I thought that power consumption went down per MHz... this is 50% increase.
buxe2quec - Tuesday, July 31, 2018 - link
I saw the numbers on page 2 about the real tests, but I don't have the ones for the E3-1220 to compare the actual values, so I was comparing only nominal TDP.Hamm Burger - Tuesday, July 31, 2018 - link
I'm lucky enough to be using a 10-core iMac Pro, so have the Apple-specific W-2150B. I'm afraid I'm not about to prise it out of the system so that you can test it, but here's the result of one anecdotal test: running the CPU portion of Cinebench 15 for macOS gives a mutithreaded score of 2012 and single-threaded of 182 — a spot below your figures for the W-2195. Also, Intel Power Gadget shows the CPU drawing 150W, with the cores hitting almost 100° during the multithreaded test.abufrejoval - Tuesday, July 31, 2018 - link
I guess Intel wants to ensure AMD Threadripper gets the home-grown workstation market going forward…Like you mention, previous generation CPUs, even high core count variants are floating around in the second hand market and I got myself an OEM variant of the E5-2699v3 (E5-2696v) about two years back for around $700 from China via eBay (“extremely affordable”). That’s an 18core chip that will clock a little higher than the 2699, 3.6GHz instead of 3.3 when fewer cores are used, while the all-core clocks and TDP (145 Watts) are the same.
I am running this in an X99 board with 128GB of ECC UDIMM (bought before the RAM prices hiked 100%) and operating it with a BCLK overclock of 103.8, which results in a clean 4GHz for low-core workloads, 3.8GHz with four cores active and 2.8GHz for all-core unless it’s AVX workloads (prime95), where it may drop to 2.6GHz, all with well below 140 Watts and generally quite cool with an unnoticeable Noctua fan inside a $60 cheapo tower.
It runs games rather well, clocking high on the few cores most game engines use and it also does well using lots of cores on things like massive compile jobs (make -j40) or machine learning tasks (helped along by GTX 1080ti where GPUs are better).
It gets 2552 on Cinebench R15, so it won’t quite beat the current generation Threadrippers or these Xeons, but at the premium prices Intel wants to charge for Xeon-W as well as current DRAM prices, I simply couldn’t afford something in this league for the home-lab.
abufrejoval - Tuesday, July 31, 2018 - link
Here is a Geekbench result for this rig: https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/9220520alpha754293 - Thursday, August 2, 2018 - link
The other reason why someone might consider the Xeon W (such as myself) - high memory and need a very fast single threaded performance.The consumer parts are limited to 64 GB (ECC or not) of RAM whereas the Xeon W caps out at 512 GB.
Most "normal" people might not need that, but I can tell you right now that for some of the pre and post-processing work that I do, I'm looking now at either a 256 or 512 GB system with very fast single threaded performance.
Dug - Thursday, August 2, 2018 - link
I know you've heard it before, but just want to throw in my 2 cents.Could you please try a newer version of Handbrake for H.256 benchmarks. I know when doing comparisons you need consistency and it's best to stick with one version, but x265 is becoming very popular, and the new version fixes previous x265 issues. Plus they have new Production presets which might be helpful. Thanks for any consideration.