POST A COMMENT

65 Comments

Back to Article

  • dilidolo - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    Link not working on first page - THE SPECS AND THE SKUS Reply
  • yvizel - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    For some reason I cannot go beyond the first page... Reply
  • yvizel - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    Second page, in the Intel table, the 2630 is listed as an eight core CPU.
    But then: "...Based on the paper specs, AMD's 6276, 6274 and Intel's 2640 and 2630 are in a neck-and-neck race. AMD offers 16 smaller integer clusters, while Intel offers 6 heavy, slightly higher clocked cores with SMT..."
    Reply
  • JohanAnandtech - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    Fixed, thanks for letting me know!

    -Johan
    Reply
  • Assimilator87 - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    Ah man, the 2630L error totally got my hopes up. 8 cores for $662 would be very reasonable. Reply
  • Kjella - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    ...just got bulldozed. And this isn't even on the 22nm 3D transistors they're launching next month, it's like they just got a dizzying punch and know the KO punch is coming. Reply
  • A5 - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    It'll probably be awhile before the Ivy Bridge Xeons are out. Reply
  • Kjella - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    Of course, I'm guessing Q1 2013 before we'll see those but we already know from all the leaked SB -> IB details roughly what SB-Xeon to IB-Xeon will be like. All AMD has on their roadmap for 2013 is the "Abu Dhabi" with the "Piledriver" core promising 10-15% performance boost but still on 32nm. So you can see the punch coming a year away, but I don't think AMD has the capability to do anything about it. Reply
  • BSMonitor - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    My question as well.

    What is the Intel roadmap for Ivy Bridge in this arena. Would be the same timeframe as IVB-E I would guess.

    Wondering if my Intel dividends will pile up enough for me to afford one! Haha
    Reply
  • fredisdead - Saturday, April 07, 2012 - link

    From the 'article' .....

    'The Opteron might also have a role in the low end, price sensitive HPC market, where it still performs very well. It won't have much of chance in the high end clustered one as Intel has the faster and more power efficient PCIe interface'

    Well, if that's the case, why exactly would AMD be scoring so many design wins with Interlagos. Including this one ...

    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2394515,00.as...

    http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-Infrastructure/Cray-Ti...

    U think those guys at Cray were going for low performance ? In fact, seems like AMD has being rather cleaning up in the HPC market since the arrival of Interlagos. And the markets have picked up on it, AMD stock is thru the roof since the start of the year. Or just see how many Intel processors occupy the the top 10 supercomputers on the planet. Nuff said ...
    Reply
  • iwod - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    And not find a single comment on how and why "making this CPU quite a challenge, even for Intel."

    In my view It seems Intel is now using Server Market and Atom / SoC for their 32nm capacity when ever they introduce a new node in consumer products.
    Reply
  • extide - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    A large part of Intel's long-term strategies include keeping the fabs occupied.

    Latest gen fabs (currently 22nm) produce bleeding edge cpu's, usually in the consumer space

    One gen back (32nm) produces server/workstation/mobile cpus

    two gens back (45nm) produces other things like chipsets, and possibly itanium chips

    even three gens back (65nm) probably still exists in some places making some chipsets as well.

    Their goal is to as much use as possible from their investment into building the fabs themselves.
    Reply
  • Kevin G - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    65 nm is still used for Itanium, though the Poulson chip is due sometime this year made on a 32 nm process. If you want to compare die sizes, the 65 nm Tukwila design is 699 mm^2 in size.

    The main reason why 32 nm Sandybridge-E has been released so close to the release of 22 nm Ivy Bridge chips is that the initial Ivy Bridge chips are consumer centric. Intel performs additional testing on its server centric designs. This is particularly true as Sandybridge-E is not just replacing the dual socket Westmere-EP chips but some of the quad socket Westmere-EX market. RAS demands jump from going from dual to quad socket and that is reflected in additional testing. Implementing PCI-E 3.0 and QPI 1.1 also contributed to the time for additional testing.

    Though you are correct that Intel does uses its older process nodes for various chipsets and IO chips. However, as Intel is marching toward SoC designs, the actual utility of keeping these older process nodes in action is decreasing.
    Reply
  • meloz - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    >And not find a single comment on how and why "making this CPU quite a challenge, even for Intel."

    Because it is such a massive die? 416 mm²? Large dies usually have a lower yield, and Intel's 32 nm process is still cutting edge (if only for a few more weeks, heh).

    Look at how TSMC, Global Flounderings et al are struggling. An impressive achievement by Intel.
    Reply
  • MrSpadge - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    A significant amount of functionality has been added to the SB cores, and Intel can't afford mistakes in such CPUs. Reply
  • BSMonitor - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    More than that though, the SNB-E, Xeon E cores are not duplicates of the SNB desktop cores.

    Look at Anand's die shot of SNB-E, vs die shot of SNB. The CPU cores, L3 cache, controllers, are arranged completely different. Which makes sense as SNB-E doesn't have to deal with 40% of the die being GPU transistors. So, what we have now with Intel is two completely different dies between Xeon/SNB-E and Core. The individual CPU cores are the same, but the rest of the die is completely different.

    SNB-E:
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/5091/intel-core-i7-3...

    SNB:
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridg...
    Reply
  • cynic783 - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    omg these benches are so biased it's not even funny. everyone knows amd offers clock-for-clock more punch than intel and lower power as well Reply
  • MrSpadge - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    Put some sarcasm tags in there to save some people from getting confused... Reply
  • cynic783 - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    definitely sarcastic. i was actually surprised not to see any fanbois so I thought I'd pretend Reply
  • badjohny - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    I have no doubt these chips or something similar will end up in the new mac pros. Who are in a very bad need of a refresh. Reply
  • Shuxclams - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    Looking at a complete visualization transformation in our server room, looks like the decision was made for us as far as architecture. Wow.... Reply
  • TeXWiller - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    <quote>The new Xeon also supports faster DDR-3 1600. Contrary to the Interlagos Opteron which can only support this memory speed with one DIMM per channel</quote>Interlagos supports memory up to DDR3-1600 using two single rank memory modules, or one single rank and one double rank module if using registered memory, and two single rank modules if using unbuffered memory. DDR3-1866 is supported on a single load-reduced registered, or on a single unbuffered module per channel. It depends on the board manufacturer and more importantly, it can be all read on the manual, so to speak. Reply
  • davegraham - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    AMD Interlagos can support more than 1 DDR3-1600 ECC/REG dimm per channel. I run 8 on a single socket 6276 and it works at the rated speed. Reply
  • TeXWiller - Wednesday, March 07, 2012 - link

    Too bad these kinds of errors in the articles are not usually fixed. Reply
  • JohanAnandtech - Wednesday, March 07, 2012 - link

    I will double check . Reply
  • meloz - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    Just wanted to congratulate Johan on a job well done. Very thorough analysis, Intel have achieved a very dominant position with this new platform and this is reflected in pricing of their processors as well!

    AMD was already a sub 10% niche (with a market share to mirror) in the data center, now even that niche has evaporated.

    New Opterons (based on Piledriver) might decrease the performance gap to Intel under certain benchmarks, but I doubt they will beat Intel. Intel has plenty of SKUs above the quickest AMD Opterons to adjust prices and kill any new challenge from AMD, instantly.
    Reply
  • JohanAnandtech - Wednesday, March 07, 2012 - link

    Thanks! Although I hope Intel gets a bit more competition though. Reply
  • alpha754293 - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    Thanks for running those.

    Are those results with HTT or without?

    If you can write a little more about the run settings that you used (with/without HTT, number of processes), that would be great.

    Very interesting results thought.

    It would have been interesting to see what the power consumption and total energy consumption numbers would be for these runs (to see if having the faster processor would really be that beneficial).

    Thanks!
    Reply
  • alpha754293 - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    I should work with you more to get you running some Fluent benchmarks as well.

    But, yes, HPC simulations DO take a VERY long time. And we beat the crap out of our systems on a regular basis.
    Reply
  • jhh - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    This is the most interesting part to me, as someone interested in high network I/O. With the packets going directly into cache, as long as they get processed before they get pushed out by subsequent packets, the packet processing code doesn't have to stall waiting for the packet to be pulled from RAM into cache. Potentially, the packet never needs to be written to RAM at all, avoiding using that memory capacity. In the other direction, web servers and the like can produce their output without ever putting the results into RAM. Reply
  • meloz - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    I wonder if this Data Direct I/O Technology has any relevance to audio engineering? I know that latency is a big deal for those guys. In past I have read some discussion on latency at gearslutz, but the exact science is beyond me.

    Perhaps future versions of protools and other professional DAWs will make use of Data Direct I/O Technology.
    Reply
  • Samus - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    wow. 20MB of on-die cache. thats ridiculous. Reply
  • PwnBroker2 - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    dont know about the others but not ATT. still using AMD even on the new workstation upgrades but then again IBM does our IT support, so who knows for the future.

    the new xeon's processors are beasts anyways, just wondering what the server price point will be.
    Reply
  • tipoo - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    "AMD's engineers probably the dumbest engineers in the world because any data in AMD processor is not processed but only transferred to the chipset."

    ...What?
    Reply
  • tipoo - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    Think you've repeated that enough for one article? Reply
  • tipoo - Wednesday, March 07, 2012 - link

    Like the Ivy bridge comments, just for future readers note that this was a reply to a deleted troll and no longer applies. Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    Johan, you got the percentage numbers for LS-Dyna wrong.

    You said for the first one: the Xeon E5-2660 offers 20% better performance, the 2690 is 31% faster. It is interesting to note that LS-Dyna does not scale well with clockspeed: the 32% higher clockspeed of the Xeon E5-2690 results in only a 14% speed increase.

    E5-2690 vs Opteron 6276: +46%(621/426)
    E5-2660 vs Opteron 6276: +26%(621/492)
    E5-2690 vs E5-2660: +15%(492/426)

    In the conclusion you said the E5 2660 is "56% faster than X5650, 21% faster than 6276, and 6C is 8% faster than 6276"

    Actually...

    LS Dyna Neon-

    E5-2660 vs X5650: +77%(872/492)
    E5-2660 vs 6276: +26%(621/492)
    E5-2660 6C vs 6276: +9%(621/570)

    LS Dyna TVC-

    E5-2660 vs X5650: +78%(10833/6072)
    E5-2660 vs 6276: +35%(8181/6072)
    E5-2660 6C vs 6276: +13%(8181/7228)

    It's funny how you got the % numbers for your conclusions. It's merely the ratio of lower number vs higher number multiplied by 100.
    Reply
  • JohanAnandtech - Wednesday, March 07, 2012 - link

    Argh. You are absolutely right. I reversed all divisions. I am fixing this as we type. Luckily this does not alter the conclusion: LS-DYNA does not scale with clockspeed very well. Reply
  • alpha754293 - Wednesday, March 07, 2012 - link

    I think that I might have an answer for you as to why it might not scale well with clock speed.

    When you start a multiprocessor LS-DYNA run, it goes through a stage where it decomposes the problem (through a process called recursive coordinate bisection (RCB)).

    This decomposition phase is done every time you start the run, and it only runs on a single processor/core. So, suppose that you have a dual-socket server where the processors say...are hitting 4 GHz. That can potentially be faster than say if you had a four-socket server, but each of the processors are only 2.4 GHz.

    In the first case, you have a small number of really fast cores (and so it will decompose the domain very quickly), whereas in the latter, you have a large number of much slower cores, so the decomposition will happen slowly, but it MIGHT be able to solve the rest of it slightly faster (to make up for the difference) just because you're throwing more hardware at it.

    Here's where you can do a little more experimenting if you like.

    Using the pfile (command line option/flag 'p=file'), not only can you control the decomposition method, but you can also tell it to write the decomposition to a file.

    So had you had more time, what I would have probably done is written out the decompositions for all of the various permutations you're going to be running. (n-cores, m-number of files.)

    When you start the run, instead of it having to decompose the problem over and over again each time it starts, you just use the decomposition that it's already done (once) and then that way, you would only be testing PURELY the solving part of the run, rather than from beginning to end. (That isn't to say that the results you've got is bad - it's good data), but that should help to take more variables out of the equation when it comes to why it doesn't scale well with clock speed. (It should).
    Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    Please refrain from creating flamebait in your posts. Your post is almost like spam, almost no useful information is there. If you are going to love one side, don't hate the other. Reply
  • Alexko - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    It's not "like spam", it's just plain spam at this point. A little ban + mass delete combo seems to be in order, just to cleanup this thread—and probably others. Reply
  • ultimav - Wednesday, March 07, 2012 - link

    My troll meter is reading off the charts with this guy. Reading between the lines, he's actually a hardcore AMD fan trying to come across as the Intel version of Sharikou to paint Intel fans in a bad light. Pretty obvious actually. Reply
  • JohanAnandtech - Wednesday, March 07, 2012 - link

    We had to mass delete his posts as they indeed did not contain any useful info and were full of insults. The signal to noise ratio has been good the last years, so we must keep it that way.

    Inteluser2000, Alexko, Ultimav, tipoo: thx for helping to keep the tone civil here. Appreciate it.

    - Johan.
    Reply
  • tipoo - Wednesday, March 07, 2012 - link

    And thank you for removing that stuff. Reply
  • tipoo - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    We get it. Don't spam the whole place with the same post. Reply
  • tipoo - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    No, he's just a rational persons. I don't care which company you like, if you say the same thing 10 times in one article someones sure to get annoyed and with justification. Reply
  • MySchizoBuddy - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    I'm again requesting that when you do the benchmarks please do a Performance per watt metric along with stress testing by running folding@home for straight 48hours. Reply
  • think-ITB-live-OTB - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    Can i ask you a question? do you at least get paid when you bend over for Intel?

    These are Server Chips - who cares about single-threaded application performance.. or Corporate IPOs. AMD has delivered far greater TCO/performance than Intel has for at least a Decade and running.

    You want to praise a company like a Deity? ARM Holdings. nuff said. They can design a 35 dollar computer that can decode H.264 better than Intel can on SoCs that run 4x's the price. Currently have more Chips in more devices than in Intels entire history and Push Power envelopes far beyond anything Intel could ever muster.

    Just you wait before the Storm ARM and its Licensees unleash as it will eventually take over ALL markets including the Server space (Calxeda much?). Oh and as for Apple. (an ARM Licensee itself... i can see them moving to in-house ARM designs pretty soon). 4-6-8 Core Cortex A15 (with A7 core for low power iPod/tablet sync) Macbook Airs anyone?

    Intel is becoming the strongest of the Dinosaurs. But even the T-Rex fell eventually.
    Reply
  • swizeus - Wednesday, March 07, 2012 - link

    We have been using the Flemish/Dutch Web 2.0 website Nieuws.be as a benchmark for some time. 99% of the loads on the database are selects and about 5% of them are stored procedures.

    The database is loaded 104%. is it possible ?
    Reply
  • JohanAnandtech - Wednesday, March 07, 2012 - link

    Stored procedures can contain selects :-) Reply
  • fredisdead - Saturday, April 07, 2012 - link

    From the 'article' .....

    'The Opteron might also have a role in the low end, price sensitive HPC market, where it still performs very well. It won't have much of chance in the high end clustered one as Intel has the faster and more power efficient PCIe interface'

    Well, if that's the case, why exactly would AMD be scoring so many design wins with Interlagos. Including this one ...

    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2394515,00.as...

    http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-Infrastructure/Cray-Ti...

    U think those guys at Cray were going for low performance ? In fact, seems like AMD has being rather cleaning up in the HPC market since the arrival of Interlagos. And the markets have picked up on it, AMD stock is thru the roof since the start of the year. Or just see how many Intel processors occupy the the top 10 supercomputers on the planet. Nuff said ...
    Reply
  • InsaneScientist - Wednesday, March 07, 2012 - link

    Johan, where in the specs where you have this line:
    Transistors (Billion) 2,26 2x 1,2 2x 904 1,17

    I sure hope that 2x 904 (Billion) is a typo... otherwise AMD has some serious explaining to do. ;)

    Should be 2x ,904 (I think? Would be 2x .904 for me, I assume you follow the same rules...)
    Reply
  • iliev - Wednesday, March 07, 2012 - link

    Page 5, Benchmark Configuration

    R2208GZ4GSSPP specs table... E5-2660 is 2.2Ghz, and not 2.9GHz
    Reply
  • dodge776 - Wednesday, March 07, 2012 - link

    Hi Johan,
    Always look forward to reading your server reviews at AT, but no SAPS benchmarks this time?
    Reply
  • ppennisi - Wednesday, March 07, 2012 - link

    For maximum VMware performance on Opteron Interlagos cpu under VMWARE it's better to disable C1E and enable, where available, HPC mode.

    I found myself on a fresh installation of ESXi 5.0 on Dell R715 that leaving C1E enable literally crippled vm performance.
    Reply
  • boudini - Thursday, March 08, 2012 - link

    I'm not sure I would recommend using iray as a reliable benchmark renderer in 3ds max. It is not a self configuring mental ray, but an unbiased renderer which behaves fairly differently to mental ray, and most other renderers such as vray, final render and brazil. It is comparible to maxwell and fryrender, but is very new compared to those two longer established unbiased render engines. It also attempts to use the gpu to add to its calculations as well - which could significantly skew results.

    Using mental ray or vray might well give you quite a different result, and besides I don't think iray is widely used in the industry.
    Reply
  • omega4711 - Friday, March 09, 2012 - link

    This. The results of iray are mostly dependent on the GPU. The lack of proper scaling certainly isn't due to Amdahl's law. Just use mentalray with small enough render buckets and you can easily satisfy 64+ threads.

    Also, due to the limitations of iray, it can (at this moment) only be used in about 1-3% of real world scenarios.

    Please, for all the people that care about these benchmarks, use mentalray and/or vray.

    Otherwise, it's a brilliant article.
    Reply
  • silverblue - Thursday, March 08, 2012 - link

    You've put that Interlagos has 4x2MB L2, but that would only be true for Valencia; Interlagos is 8x2MB. Reply
  • aranyagag - Thursday, March 08, 2012 - link

    you forgot the E5-2687W with a 150w tdp and higher speeds Reply
  • colonelclaw - Friday, March 09, 2012 - link

    Hi There,
    Thanks for an excellent article. With regards to the rendering benchmarks, would you consider using VRay as a rendering engine? It's fast becoming industry standard, is compatible with all the big hitters (Max, Maya, Softimage etc), is cross platform, and I believe, is incredibly well coded to scale with cores.
    It's also incredibly popular, not something you could say about iRay right now.
    Reply
  • Slik - Saturday, March 10, 2012 - link

    Would be nice if some game benchmark was included as well. Reply
  • colonelclaw - Wednesday, March 14, 2012 - link

    Bloody hell those chips look good, and don't Intel know it; those prices make me wince.
    Having waited what seems like forever, I was thrilled to see the Xeon E5s finally available, right up until I did some quick maths and figured out that for my business to buy a new 2U Twin squared rendernode with 16/32 cores per node will cost us around £10,000. Still the thing is, now that those chips are available, next time we buy kit we can't afford not to choose them.
    Reply
  • Skouperd - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    Great article... but can it run crysis?

    Seriously, what will happen if you plug in some high end graphics card in that machine, how will that compare from a gaming perspeective to say an LGA2011 cpu?

    ;-)
    Reply
  • fudd101 - Wednesday, April 04, 2012 - link

    From the 'article' .....

    'The Opteron might also have a role in the low end, price sensitive HPC market, where it still performs very well. It won't have much of chance in the high end clustered one as Intel has the faster and more power efficient PCIe interface'

    Well, if that's the case, why exactly would AMD be scoring so many design wins with Interlagos. Including this one ...

    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2394515,00.as...

    http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-Infrastructure/Cray-Ti...

    U think those guys at Cray were going for low performance ? In fact, seems like AMD has being rather cleaning up in the HPC market since the arrival of Interlagos. And the markets have picked up on it, AMD stock is thru the roof since the start of the year. Or just see how many Intel processors occupy the the top 10 supercomputers on the planet. Nuff said ...
    Reply
  • jaskhoo - Wednesday, July 11, 2012 - link

    Hi, abit blur here and would like to know if there's anyone who could enlighten abit.
    I'm looking to purchase a new server to work with an SQL 2012 4 core, the initial ppreference was for an E5620 which is now an outdated model but I can't go for higher E5-xxx models as all are 6 core and will affect the 4 core SQL licensing. I'm not running a huge databse but would like to know if there are any serious performance difference between the two processor. Appreciate it.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now