The Intel Xeon E7 v2 Review: Quad Socket, Up to 60 Cores/120 Threads
by Johan De Gelas on February 21, 2014 6:00 AM EST- Posted in
- IT Computing
- Intel
- Xeon
- Ivy Bridge EX
- server
- Brickland
The Core
As Ian already discussed, the new Xeon E7 v2 is a 6, 8, 10, 12 or 15-core Ivy Bridge Xeon, similar to the Xeon E5-2600 v2. The big difference of course is that this new Xeon E7 v2 can be plugged into a quad- or native octal-socket server. These processors have three QuickPath Interconnects to be able to communicate over one hop. More sockets are possible with third party "glue logic".
Compared to the old Xeon E7 based on the "Westmere" core, the new Xeon E7 v2 "Ivy Bridge EX" features a vast amount of improvements. We will not list all of them, but just to give you an idea of how much progress has been made since the Westmere core:
- µop cache (less decoding)
- Improved branch prediction
- Deeper and larger OoO buffers
- Turbo Boost 2.0
- AVX instructions
- Divider is twice as fast
- MOVs take no execution slots
- Improved prefetchers
- Improved shift/rotate and split/load
- Better balance between Hyper-Threading and single-threaded performance; buffers are dynamically allocated to threads
- Faster memory controller
Most of the improvement were fine tuning but the combined effect of them should result in a tangible performance boost in integer performance. For software that uses AVX, the performance boost could be very substantial. Even in software that uses older SSE(2) code, we found that the Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge generations were 20% faster, clock for clock, and we should see similar results here.
The Uncore
Just like the Xeon E5-2600 v2, the Ivy Bridge EX cores and 2.5MB L3 cache slices are stacked in columns connected with three fast rings, which connect all cores and all other the units (called agents) on the SoC. These rings also make sure that the L3 slices can act as one unified 37.5MB L3 cache with 450GB/s of bandwidth. The latency to the L3 cache is very low: 15.5ns (at 2.8GHz) versus 20ns for Westmere-EX (Xeon E7-4780 at 2.4GHz). PCIe I/O now happens on the die as well, and each CPU can support 32 PCIe lanes.
Finally, some coherency improvements are also implemented. Modified cache lines are send straight to the requester, without any write back to the memory agent. Overall, the collective sum of the improvement should prove quite capable.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
125 Comments
View All Comments
JohanAnandtech - Saturday, February 22, 2014 - link
I meant, I have never seen an independent review of high-end IBM or SUN systems. We did one back in the T1 days, but the product performed only well in a very small niche.Phil_Oracle - Monday, February 24, 2014 - link
Contact your Oracle rep and I am sure we'd be glad to loan you a SPARC T5 server, which we have in our loaner pool for analysts and press. Would be nice if you had a more objective view on comparisons.Phil_Oracle - Monday, February 24, 2014 - link
If you look at Oracles Performance/Benchmark blog, we have comparisons between Xeon, Power and SPARC based on all publicly available benchmarks. As Oracle sells both x86 as well as SPARC, we sometimes have benchmarks available on both platforms to compare.https://blogs.oracle.com/BestPerf/
Will Robinson - Saturday, February 22, 2014 - link
Intel and their CPU technology continues to impress.Those kind of performance increase numbers must leave their competitors gasping on the mat.
Props for the smart new chip. +1
Nogoodnms - Saturday, February 22, 2014 - link
But can it run Crysis?errorr - Saturday, February 22, 2014 - link
My wife would now the answer to this considering she works for ibm but considering software costs far exceed hardware costs on a life cycle basis does anyone know what the licensing costs are between the different platforms.She once had me sit down to explain to her how CPU upgrades would effect db2 licenses. The system is more arcane and I'm not sure what the cost of each core is.
For an ERP each chip type has a rated pvu metric from IBM which determines the cost of the license. Are RISC cores priced differently than x86 cores enough to partially make up the hardware costs?
JohanAnandtech - Sunday, February 23, 2014 - link
I know Oracle does that (risc core <> x86 core when it comes to licensing), but I must admit, Licensing is extremely boring for a technical motivated person :-).Phil_Oracle - Monday, February 24, 2014 - link
In total cost of ownership calculations, where both HW and SW as well as maintenance costs are calculated, the majority of the costs (upwards of 90%) are associated with software licensing and maintenance/administration- so although HW costs matter, it’s the performance of the HW that drives the TCO. For Oracle, both Xeon and SPARC have a per core license factor of .5x, meaning 1 x license for every two cores, while Itanium and Power have a 1x multiplier, so therefore Itanium/Power must have a 2x performance/core advantage to have equivalent SW licensing costs. IBM has a PVU scale for SW licensing, which essentially is similar to Oracle but more granular in details. Microsofts latest SQL licensing follows similarly. So clearly, performance/CPU and especially per core matters in driving down licensing costs.Michael REMY - Sunday, February 23, 2014 - link
that would have be very good to test this cpu on 3D rendering benchmark.i can imagine the gain of time in a workstation...even the cost will be nearest a renderfarm...
but comparing this xeon to other one in that situation should have bring a view point.
JohanAnandtech - Sunday, February 23, 2014 - link
What rendering engine are you thinking about? Most engines scale badly beyond 16-32 threads