Intel Broadwell Xeon E3 v4 Conclusions

If you skipped to the end without looking at the benchmark data, we’re going to throw a few graphs in here for good measure.

HandBrake v0.9.9 2x4K

Google Octane v2

POV-Ray 3.7 Beta RC4

Agisoft PhotoScan Benchmark - Total Time

Cinebench R15 - Multi-Threaded

We said at the start of this review that one of the key parts to examine was the main parallel to the 95W of the E3-1285 v4 and the E3-1276 v3 at 84W due to their near similar (but not ideal) thermal design power metrics. The differentiator here is that the E3 v3 has some extra frequency, but the E3 v4 range has eDRAM.

At least, we thought this should be the battle to be had, but it is clear from the results that something else is more interesting. Comparing the E3-1285 v4 at 95W to its lower power variant, the E3-1285L v4 at 65W, we see that the low power variant scores better on almost all benchmarks.

The only difference between these two processors aside from the 30W of TDP should be the 100 MHz gap in favor of the 95W part. We said at the beginning that this 100 MHz does not adequately explain 30W in the grand scheme of things, so the lower powered model must also have a substantially better voltage/frequency profile. This, as it happens, has some knock on side effects.

In a couple of CPU tests, the extra frequency wins. This boils down to only 3DPM and Sunspider, both tests that arguably are neither extensively pressing the processor nor exhaustive in their capabilities. But the lower power model, by virtue of the better binning, is able to keep its higher frequency turbo mode available for 100% of the time in our testing, ultimately giving a higher frequency and completing work quicker. This is despite the base frequency of the E3-1285 v4 being higher, and alluding to a variable turbo frequency profile based on power draw. To cap it off, the E3-1285L v4 is also $111 cheaper. So when the two processors are put side-by-side, the decision is obvious. We would choose the E3-1285L v4 every time.

This means the title fight should be between the 65W E3-1285L v4 and the E3-1276 v3 at 84W. Here it gets a little more edgy – the v4 here is technically 100 MHz above the i7-5775C which we looked at in our last Broadwell review, and we get more into a performance/power based efficiency discussion based on the TDP difference than the 95W vs 84W discussion.

In DRAM heavy scenarios such as WinRAR, which requires a large amount of cache to retain dictionary compression tables, the benefits of the eDRAM are easy to see. Benchmarks on the integrated graphics also win out due to the Iris Pro P6300. For discrete graphics, the Broadwell parts certain win over the v3 for efficiency at this point, with results between the two being almost identical. But the big one to note here is Photoscan in pure CPU mode, where Broadwell takes a minor lead – Photoscan uses a set of fifty two-dimensional photos with no depth information to create a three-dimensional imagine over several stages, so managing that data around the memory subsystem becomes a handful when there are 40,000 data points per picture in flight. This benchmark was suggested to us by an archivist at a national library who uses it to recreate models of the artifacts in their storage for external examination.

For all the other CPU tests, a dichotomy appears. The higher frequency v3 wins for compute driven performance, but data driven metrics (and efficiency) are the realm of Broadwell, Xeon or otherwise, as long as there is frequency to match.

As mentioned on the first page of the review, on the suggestion of a number of our readers and based on these interesting, we are looking into other avenues which are also data driven. Previously our Chrome compilation benchmark was a featured set piece in our testing, but has fallen away and a similar equivalent needs to be reintroduced. As a result, we are speaking to some users and looking into a series of tests of this nature that afford a repeatable and consistent point of analysis – ideally in an automated context if possible and encompassing a variety of projects and languages. At current there is no time framework for introduction, but September affords some time to focus on the project and then test a number of processors on it. Thoughts and suggestions should be forwarded to ian@anandtech.com.

Gaming Benchmarks: GTX 980 and R9 290X
Comments Locked

72 Comments

View All Comments

  • Urizane - Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - link

    The R7 240 used on that page isn't exactly fast. Actually, the A10 APU has more graphics hardware than that card, which shows in the results. The fact that Crystal Well parts can beat an A10 APU means that they also beat the R7 240.

    As far as the 4770R comparison goes, it seems I'm coming up with nothing useful from a quick search. Anandtech has numbers for the 4770R and numbers for the 5675C, but in none of the same benchmarks. Iris Pro 5200 (4770R) had 40 EUs that could turbo to 1.3 GHz and Iris Pro P6300 (E3-1285* v4) has 48 EUs that can turbo to 1.15 GHz (same for 5775C and 1.1 GHz for 5675C). I would think it would be a wash (some wins, some losses) between the two generations, but you're right. There would be some utility in having some hard numbers to compare the two.
  • alefsin - Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - link

    I wish you also included e5-1630 v3 in your tests. It is slightly more expensive ($600 range I guess) but with 6 cores at 3.5 MHz is probably more attractive than the any of faster e3 series.
  • tyger11 - Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - link

    Yeah, that's the one I'm thinking about building my video workstation around, unless a 6 core skylake comes out soon.
  • Mastadon - Thursday, August 27, 2015 - link

    Skylake Xeons aren't due until 2017.
  • JesseKramer - Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - link

    According to Ark the e5-1630 v3 is a 4c8t part.

    http://ark.intel.com/products/82764/Intel-Xeon-Pro...
  • alefsin - Thursday, August 27, 2015 - link

    Oh, sorry, my bad. I meant E5-1650 V3. I recently built a workstation with that for CFD analysis. 140 W is bit high these days but then again, there is no argument about the performance.
  • Gigaplex - Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - link

    "but the main parallel we should be making is the 95W of the E3-1285 v4 and the E3-1276 v3 at 84W. The E3 has some extra frequency (peaks at 4 GHz) and extra L3 cache, but the Xeon has eDRAM."

    The E3 vs the Xeon? They're both E3 Xeons.
  • MrSpadge - Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - link

    "If I were thinking from the point of view of the motherboard manufacturer, they are more likely to overvolt a Xeon processor to ensure that stability rather than deal with any unstable platforms"

    Ian, this would be a really really poor move & explanation. You are literally paying Intel for the guaranteed stability of the Xeon. the CPU tells the mainboard exactly which voltage it wants. If a mainboard maker gives it more than this on purpose, he's sabotaging either the TDP and power efficiency, or the performance. Neither is good and could easily lead to lawsuits in the US (because the product wouldn't perform as promised).

    In any way, you should be able to check this! You can test on different boards, with different software. You can read out & report the voltages of the CPUs under different load conditions. You can log & report the average CPU clocks during those tests. One would think such information is interesting when we're seemingly confronted with 2 of 3 CPUs consuming far more than promised by Intel and performing really good for that TDP.
  • Morawka - Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - link

    i wish you guys would start putting the i7 4790K in these Skylake/Broadwell Comparisons because the clock speed is identical to the 6770K.

    Comparing the 6770K to the 4770K is not fair because clock speeds are different.
  • Oxford Guy - Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - link

    Anandtech refuses to include the AMD FX 8 core in its results charts and instead only includes weaker APUs.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now