The Intel Xeon D Review: Performance Per Watt Server SoC Champion?
by Johan De Gelas on June 23, 2015 8:35 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- Intel
- Xeon-D
- Broadwell-DE
Benchmark Configuration
All tests were done on Ubuntu Server 14.04 LTS (soon to be upgraded to 15.04). Aside from the SuperMicro Xeon-D system, we also have the ASRock Rack C2750D4I (eight core Silvermont), a Xeon E3-1200 v3 system, a Xeon E3-1200 v2 system, a 1P Xeon E5-2600L v3 and a HP Moonshot cartridge based system. We tested the HP Moonshot cartridges remotely.
Supermicro's 5028D-TN4T
| CPU | Xeon D-1540 2.0 GHz |
| RAM | 4x16GB DDR4-2133 |
| Internal Disks | Samsung 850 Pro 128 GB |
| Motherboard | SuperMicro X10SLD-F |
| PSU | FSP250-50LC (250 W, 80+ Bronze) |
Below you can find most of the CPU settings in the BIOS:
ASRock's C2750D4I
| CPU | Intel Atom C2750 2.4 GHz |
| RAM | 4x8GB DDR3-1600 |
| Internal Disks | Samsung 850 Pro 128 GB |
| Motherboard | ASRock C2750D4I |
| PSU | Supermicro PWS-502 (80+) |
The Xeon D is not a replacement for the Atom C2000. Although the Xeon D is also a SoC, the Atom C2000 remains Intel low power options for microservers. Of course, we want to know how much power you save, and how large the performance trade-off is.
Intel's Xeon E3-1200 v3 – ASUS P9D-MH
| CPU | Intel Xeon processor E3-1240 v3 3.4 GHz Intel Xeon processor E3-1230L v3 1.8 GHz |
| RAM | 4x8GB DDR3-1600 |
| Internal Disks | 1x Samsung 850 Pro 128 GB |
| Motherboard | ASUS P9D-MH |
| PSU | Supermicro PWS-502 (80+) |
As the Xeon D is limited to 2 GHz (2.6 GHz turboboost), higher clocked Xeon E3s might still make sense where single threaded performance is a major concern. The Xeon E3-1230L was included as a low power alternative, although we wonder it still make sense, considering that the Xeon E3 needs a separate 1-4W chipset (C220).
Intel's Xeon E3-1200 v2
| CPU | Intel Xeon processor E3-1265L v2 |
| RAM | 4x8GB DDR3-1600 |
| Internal Disks | 1x Intel MLC SSD710 200GB |
| Motherboard | Intel S1200BTL |
| PSU | Supermicro PWS-502 (80+) |
The previous generation low power Xeon E3.
Intel's Xeon E5 Server – "Wildcat Pass" (2U Chassis)
| CPU | One Intel Xeon processor E5-2650L v3 (1.8GHz, 12c, 30MB L3, 65W) |
| RAM | 128GB (8x16GB) Samsung M393A2G40DB0 (RDIMM) |
| Internal Disks | 2x Intel MLC SSD710 200GB |
| Motherboard | Intel Server Board Wildcat Pass |
| PSU | Delta Electronics 750W DPS-750XB A (80+ Platinum) |
Although our E5 server is not comparable to the other systems, it important to gauge where a low power E5 model would land. We like to understand when it make sense to invest more money in an Xeon E5 system, and here we only use one Xeon. Note that this system also requires power from a separate PCH.
HP Moonshot
More info about this configuration can be found in our previous article about micro server SoCs.
We tested two different cartridges: the m400 and the m300. Below you can find the specs of the m400:
| CPU/SoC | AppliedMicro X-Gene 2.4 |
| RAM | 8x 8GB DDR3 @ 1600 |
| Internal Disks | M.2 2280 Solid State 120GB |
| Cartridge | m400 |
And the m300:
| CPU/SoC | Atom C2750 2.4 |
| RAM | 8x 8GB DDR3 @ 1600 |
| Internal Disks | M.2 2280 Solid State 120GB |
| Cartridge | m300 |
Other Notes
Both servers are fed by a standard European 230V (16 Amps max.) power line. The room temperature is monitored and kept at 23°C by our Airwell CRACs. We use the Racktivity ES1008 Energy Switch PDU to measure power consumption in our lab. We used the HP Moonshot ILO to measure the power consumption of the cartridges.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
90 Comments
View All Comments
JohanAnandtech - Wednesday, June 24, 2015 - link
Hi Patrick, the base clock of our chip is 2 GHz, not 1.9 GHz as the one pre-production version that we got from Intel. I have to check the turboclocks though, but I do believe we have measured 2.6 GHz. I'll doublecheck.pjkenned - Wednesday, June 24, 2015 - link
Awesome! Our ES ones were 1.9GHz.Chrisrodinis1 - Tuesday, June 23, 2015 - link
For comparison, this server uses Xeon's. It is the HP Proliant BL460c G9 blade server: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s_w8JVmvf0MrDiSante - Wednesday, June 24, 2015 - link
Why use only -O2 when compiling the benchmarks? I would imagine that in order to squeeze out every last bit of performance, all production software is compiled with all optimizations turned up to 11. I noticed that their github uses -O2 as an example - is it that TinyMemBenchmark just doesn't play nice with -O3?JohanAnandtech - Wednesday, June 24, 2015 - link
The standard makefile had no optimization whatsoever. If you want to measure latency, you do not want maximum performance but rather accuracy, so I played it safe and used -O2. I am not convinced that all production software is optimized with all optimization turned on.diediealldie - Wednesday, June 24, 2015 - link
Intel seems disARMing them... X-Gene 2 doesn't look so promising, as they'll have to fight mighty Skylake-based Xeons, not Broadwell ones.Thanks for great article again.
jfallen - Wednesday, June 24, 2015 - link
Thanks Johan for the great article. I'm a tech enthusiast, and will never buy or use one of these. But it makes great reading and I appreciate the time you take to research and write the article.Regards
Jordan
JohanAnandtech - Wednesday, June 24, 2015 - link
Happy to read this! :-)TomWomack - Wednesday, June 24, 2015 - link
This looks very much consistent with my experience; the disconcertingly high idle power (I looked at the board with a thermal camera; the hot chips were the gigabit PHY, the inductors for the power supply, and the AST2400 management chip), the surprisingly good memory performance, the fairly hot SoC (running sixteen threads of number-crunching I get a power draw of 83W at the plug) and the generally pretty good computation.I'm not entirely sure it was a better buy for my use case than a significantly cheaper 6-core Haswell E - Haswell E is not that hot, electricity not that expensive, and from my supplier the X10SDV-F board and memory were £929 whilst Scan get me an i7-5820K board, CPU and memory for £702. And four-channel DDR4 probably is usefully faster than two-channel for what I do.
I quite strongly don't believe in server mystique - the outbuilding is big enough that I run out of power before I run out of space for micro-ATX cases, and I am lucky enough to be doing calculations which are self-checking to the point that ECC is a waste of money.
JohanAnandtech - Wednesday, June 24, 2015 - link
Hi Tom, I believe we saw up to 90 Watt at the wall when running OpenFOAM (10 Gbit enabled). It is however less relevant for such a chip which is not meant to be a HPC chip as we have shown in the article. HPC really screams for an E5.