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
ltcommanderdata - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Does anyone know the Windows support situation for Broadwell-EP for workstation use? Microsoft said Broadwell is the last fully supported processor for Windows 7/8.1 with Skylake getting transitional support and Kaby Lake will not be supported. So how does Broadwell-EP fit in? Is it lumped in with Broadwell and is fully supported or will it be treated like Skylake with temporary support until 2018 and only critical security updates after that? And following on will Skylake-EP see any Windows 7/8.1 support at all or will it not be supported since it'll presumably be released after Kaby Lake?extide - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
When MS says they are not supporting Skylake on Windows 7 DOES NOT MEAN it won't work. It just means they are not going to add any specific support for that processor in the older OS's. They are not adding in the speed shift support, essentially.For some reason the press has not made this very clear, and many people are freaking out thinking that there will be a hard break here will stuff will straight up not work. That is not the case.
Broadwell has no new OS level features over Haswell (unlike Skylake with speed shift) so there is nothing special about Broadwell to the OS. As the poster above mentions, they are all x86 cpu's and will all still work with x86 OS's.
The difference here is between "Fully Supported" and Compatible. Skylake and even Kaby Lake will be compatible with WIndows 7/8/8.1.
aryonoco - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Johan, this is yet again by far the best Enterprise CPU benchmark that's available anywhere on the net.Thank you for your detailed, scientific and well documented work. Works like this are not easy, I can only imagine how many man hours (weeks?) compiling this article must have taken. I just want you to know that it's hugely appreciated.
JohanAnandtech - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Great to read this after weeks of hard work! :-Dfsdjmellisse - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
hello, i want to buy E5-2630L v4any one can give me website for buy it ?
Best regards
HrD - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
I'm confused by the following:"The following compiler switches were used on icc:
-fast -openmp -parallel
The results are expressed in GB per second. The following compiler switches were used on icc:
-O3 –fopenmp –static"
Shouldn't one of these refer to icc and the other to gcc?
JohanAnandtech - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Pretty sure I did not mix them up. "-fast" does not work on gcc neither does -fopenmp work on icc.patrickjp93 - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Um, wrong and wrong. -Ofast works with GCC 4.9 and later for sure. And -fopenmp is a valid ICC flag post-ICC 13.JohanAnandtech - Saturday, April 2, 2016 - link
"-fast" is a typical icc flag. (I did not write -"Ofast" that works on gcc 4.8 too)extide - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
Johan, if you read the comment, you can see that you mention icc for BOTH.