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
Xeon E5 v4 SKUs and Pricing
As of press time we don't have precise Xeon E5 v4 pricing. But overall prices seem to be about 1-2% higher than the comparable Xeon E5 v3..
| Intel Xeon E5 v4 SKUs | ||||||
| Cores/Threads | TDP | Base Clockspeed | Price | |||
| E5-2699 v4 | 22/44 | 145W | 2.2GHz | $4115 | ||
| E5-2698 v4 | 20/40 | 135W | 2.2GHz | $3228 | ||
| E5-2697A v4 | 16/32 | 145W | 2.6GHz | $2891 | ||
| E5-2697 v4 | 18/36 | 145W | 2.3GHz | $2702 | ||
| E5-2695 v4 | 18/36 | 120W | 2.1GHz | $2424 | ||
| E5-2690 v4 | 14/28 | 135W | 2.6GHz | $2090 | ||
| E5-2687W v4 | 12/24 | 160W | 3.0GHz | $2141 | ||
| E5-2683 v4 | 16/32 | 120W | 2.1GHz | $1846 | ||
| E5-2680 v4 | 14/28 | 120W | 2.4GHz | $1745 | ||
| E5-2667 v4 | 8/16 | 135W | 3.2GHz | $2057 | ||
| E5-2660 v4 | 14/28 | 105W | 2.0GHz | $1445 | ||
| E5-2650L v4 | 14/28 | 65W | 1.7GHz | $1329 | ||
| E5-2650 v4 | 12/24 | 105W | 2.2GHz | $1166 | ||
| E5-2643 v4 | 6/12 | 135W | 3.4GHz | $1552 | ||
| E5-2640 v4 | 10/20 | 90W | 2.4GHz | $939 | ||
| E5-2637 v4 | 4/8 | 135W | 3.5GHz | $996 | ||
| E5-2630 v4 | 10/20 | 85W | 2.2GHz | $667 | ||
| E5-2630L v4 | 10/20 | 55W | 1.8GHz | $612 | ||
| E5-2623 v4 | 4/8 | 85W | 2.6GHz | $444 | ||
| E5-2620 v4 | 8/16 | 85W | 2.1GHz | $417 | ||
| E5-2609 v4 | 8/8 | 85W | 1.7GHz | $306 | ||
| E5-2603 v4 | 6/6 | 85W | 1.7GHz | $213 | ||
Meanwhile Intel's own performance estimations are not exactly exhilarating. Their estimates are based upon the almost perfectly scaling SPECrate benchmarks, and even these "perfect world" gains are simply modest, almost uninspiring in fact. We have said it before: this market desperately needs some competition if we want a new generation to bring more exciting improvements in performance-per-dollar metrics..
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
112 Comments
View All Comments
patrickjp93 - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Knight's Landing: 730 mm^2, also on the 14nm platformextide - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Is it really that big..? Wow, I knew it was big, but didn't know it was that big. Got a source on that?Kevin G - Friday, April 8, 2016 - link
I'll second a link for a source. I knew it'd be big but that big?extide - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
I know you meant Reticle, but that was a pretty funny typo, heh.Kevin G - Friday, April 8, 2016 - link
Autocorrect has gotten the best of me yet again.extide - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
And, I know how big GM200 and Fiji are, but I am talking about big GPU's on 14/16nm. All signs are currently pointing to <300mm^2 for the first round of 14/16nm GPU's.lorribot - Thursday, March 31, 2016 - link
Given the way Microsoft and others are now licensing by the core and in large non splitable packages (Windows 2016 Datacenter is in blocks of 16 cores, a dual socket server with 44 cores would need 48 core licences) the increasing core count has limited appeal over small numbers of faster cores when looking at virtualised environments.Those still in the physical world will still have to pay per core but may have to buy 4 std Windows licenses.
when it comes to doing your testing, it should reflect these costs and compare total bang per buck when dealing with performance.
Red Hat still licences per socket but don't be surprised if they go per core too.
JohanAnandtech - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Back in 2008, I had a sales person explaining the license models of Microsoft to me in our lab. From that point on, we have invested most of our time and resources in linux server software. :-Dextide - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Enterprise linux isn't free, either ya knowrahvin - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Support isn't free on the FOSS side but the software is. Redhat is never going to charge more per "cores" for support, that's ridiculous and would result in rivals stealing their support contracts. If licensing costs are that bad that you are dumping hardware you really should be looking at moving services to Linux and Visualizing the windows servers so you can limit the core count and provide more horsepower.Anyone putting Microsoft on bare hardware these days is nuts. Although the consolation is that they get to pay MS's exorbitant tax on software. Linux should be the core component of any IT services and virtualized servers where you need proprietary server software.