Conclusion

It has been more than three years since the previous generation Xeon E7 hit the market. IBM and Oracle have overtaken the old Xeon E7 since then and an update was long overdue. Since then, Intel has launched two new architectures in the dual socket server CPU market: the Intel E5-2600, based on the "Sandy Bridge" architecture, and the Intel E5-2600 v2 ("Ivy Bridge").

The new Xeon core has already shown its worth in the dual socket Xeon E5-2600 v2 based servers. It is interesting to note that both architecture updates, Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge, although relatively subtle on their own, have increased the integer performance of each individual core by 30%. The many subtle changes also increase the performance/watt, and the excellent 22nm process technology enables a 50% higher core count. The end result is that the general computing performance has doubled in scalable integer applications (SAP) and tripled in floating point applications. There is more.

We are entering the big data era, and the result is a strong and renewed interest in (almost) real-time data mining. One of the prime examples is SAP with the in memory and compressed database platform SAP HANA. Both Microsoft with SQL Server 2014 and IBM with DB2 10.5—with the so called BLU acceleration—are following suit. Therefore, it is likely that there will be a strong demand for a server platform with massive RAM capacity. The new quad socket Xeon servers can offer up to 3TB of RAM with relatively affordable 32GB DIMM technology and no less than 6TB with the ultra-expensive 64GB LR-DIMMs. That is another reason why the Intel Xeon E7 v2 platform will be more attractive than much more expensive RISC servers that are typically limited to 1-2TB.

Overall, Intel's launch of the tried and proven Ivy Bridge cores looks ready to set a new level of performance expectations. Ivy Bridge EX may seem awfully late compared to the IVB and IVB EP releases, but that's typical of this server segment. The Xeon E7 v2 chips are slated to remain in data centers for the next several years as the most robust—and most expensive—offerings from Intel. If you can use more smaller servers instead of a few large servers, that will certainly be more cost effective, but the types of applications typically run on these servers and the demands of the software can frequently make the hardware costs a secondary consideration.

HPC: OpenFoam
Comments Locked

125 Comments

View All Comments

  • Kevin G - Friday, February 21, 2014 - link

    And a quick addition:

    There will indeed be a quick adoption to Haswell-EX not because of AVX2 or DDR4 but rather transactional memory support (TSX). For the large databases and applications these systems are targeted at, TSX should prove to be helpful.
  • TiGr1982 - Friday, February 21, 2014 - link

    I agree, TSX should make a lot of sense for these E7's - they have a huge core count and huge shared memory at the same time.
  • Schmide - Friday, February 21, 2014 - link

    I think your L3 latency numbers are off. I think typical Intel L3 latencies are 30-40 clocks ~3-4ns.
  • Schmide - Friday, February 21, 2014 - link

    Oops my bad i miss used the calculator. Ignore.
  • dylan522p - Friday, February 21, 2014 - link

    No power consumption numbers?
  • JohanAnandtech - Saturday, February 22, 2014 - link

    Coming...we had to run lots of test in parallel, so it was not possible to make sure all systems were similar. Also we should test with workloads that require a lot more memory to get an idea.
  • mslasm - Friday, February 21, 2014 - link

    Note that E7-8857 v2 has 12 cores but no HT, so only has 12 threads as well (see http://ark.intel.com/products/75254/Intel-Xeon-Pro... Thus it is not equivalent to a 3Ghz E7-4860V2, as 4860 has HT for a total of 24 threads

    Also, there must be a typo either in the graph or in the text on the "single thread" integer performance test: "Opteron ... at 2.4GHz would deliver about 2481 MIPs", while - according to the graph - it already delivers 2636 @ 2.3Ghz.
  • JohanAnandtech - Saturday, February 22, 2014 - link

    Good point. There is little gain from HT in OpenFoam, but it will influence the LZMA benchmarks. So the Openfoam findings are still valid, but not the LZMA. The kernel compile is somewhat in between.
  • JohanAnandtech - Saturday, February 22, 2014 - link

    I will rerun the benchmarks without HT to check.
  • mslasm - Saturday, February 22, 2014 - link

    Thanks! I did not mean to imply HT matters "a lot", but it may influence some (and I admit I don't know much about how your benchmarks behave, other than parallel LZMA which I worked a lot with) - so it just does not sound right to outright call it equivalent, and I wish AT only has statements anyone can just trust :)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now