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

  • snoopy1710 - Friday, February 21, 2014 - link

    Minor correction on the Dell E7-4890 SAP benchmark, which was done on SUSE Linux Enterprise Server for SAP Applications:

    http://download.sap.com/download.epd?context=40E2D...

    Snoopy
  • FunBunny2 - Friday, February 21, 2014 - link

    you should opt for ubuntu 12.04. "real" databases are approved only for LTS versions, and 12.04 is the latest.
  • bji - Friday, February 21, 2014 - link

    Page 10 does not contain the Linux Kernel Compile time benchmarks.
  • JohanAnandtech - Saturday, February 22, 2014 - link

    The web engine did something weird...I restored the page
  • JawsOfLife - Friday, February 21, 2014 - link

    Very thorough review, which is what I've come to expect from Anandtech! I am interested but not very knowledgeable about the server side of computing, so this definitely filled me in on a lot of the facets of that area. Thanks for the writeup.

    By the way, the "Linux Kernel Compile" page is blank, as bji noted.
  • JohanAnandtech - Saturday, February 22, 2014 - link

    Thx. A glitch in the engine made it delete a page. Restored.
  • iwod - Friday, February 21, 2014 - link

    While the revenue are high, just how many unit are shipped?
    I have been thinking if Intel would move Mobile First, meaning Atom, Tablet and Laptop Chips all gets the latest node first, which are low power design. While Desktop and Server will be a Architecture and Node behind. Which will align the Desktop and Xeon E3 - E5 Series.

    But it seems the volume of Chips dont quite measure out, since the top end volume are far too small? Anyone have any idea on this.
  • dealcorn - Saturday, February 22, 2014 - link

    I believe the statement "Still, that tiny amount of RISC servers represents about 50% of the server market revenues." should read "Still, that tiny amount of RISC servers represents about 50% of the high end server market revenues." Stated differently, from a revenue perspective Intel is #1 vendor in the high end segment even though it has less than a 50% market share. Server orders are placed with vendors, not architectures. Intel has fought an uphill battle to access the high end market and it is costly. However, if Intel can amortize its development costs over a larger revenue base than any competitor, it is well positioned to maintain it's share acquisition momentum.
  • NikosD - Saturday, February 22, 2014 - link

    @Johan

    Very nice review, I would like to see more benchmarks between E7 v2 vs RISC processors because I think the real competition is there.

    Older Intel and AMD servers are not real competition for IvyBridge-EX.

    It would be interesting when POWER8 is out, to give us the new figures of 8 socket benchmarks and if there is any progress on more 8+ sockets for Intel E7 v2 (built by Cray and other vendors)

    I think that E7 v2 (I don't know about older vendors) can be placed in up to 32-socket systems - not natively of course.
  • JohanAnandtech - Saturday, February 22, 2014 - link

    Older Intel systems are competition, because these kind of servers are not replaced quickly. If a new generation does not deliver substantial gains, some companies will postpone replacement. In fact, very few people that already have a quad intel consider the move to RISC platforms.

    But you have a point. But it is almost impossible for us to do an independent review of other vendors. I have never seen an independent review, and the systems are too scarce, so there is little chance that we can ask a friendly company to borrow us one.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now