Rendering Performance: Cinebench

Cinebench, based on MAXON's CINEMA 4D software, is probably one of the most popular benchmarks around as it is pretty easy to perform this benchmark on your own home machine. The benchmark supports up to 64 threads, more than enough for our 24- and 32-thread test servers. First we test single-threaded performance, to evaluate the performance of each core.

Cinebench 11.5 Single threaded

Cinebench achieves an IPC between 1.4 and 1.8 and is mostly dominated by SSE2 code. There is little improvement in that area, and the older 2.9-3.8GHz E5-2690 has the clock speed advantage over the new 2.7-3.5GHz E5-2697 v2. Also of note is that i n this type of code, one Piledriver core again needs 50% higher clock speed to keep up with the Ivy Bridge core.

Cinebench R11.5

Once we run up to 48 threads, the new Xeon can outperform its predecessor by a wide margin of ~35%. It is interesting to compare this with the Core i7-4960x results , which is the same die as the "budget" Xeon E5s (15MB L3 cache dies). The six-core chip at 3.6GHz scores 12.08. It is clear that chosing cores over clock speed is a good strategy in rendering farms: the dual E5-2650L offers 50% better performance in a power budget that is more or less the same (2x70W vs 130W).

Java Server Performance HPC: LSTC's LS Dyna


View All Comments

  • Kevin G - Tuesday, September 17, 2013 - link

    Odd that Intel went the 3 die route with Ivy Bridge-EP. It was no surprise that the lowend would be a variant of the 6 core Ivy Bridge-E found in the Core i7-4900 series. Apple leaked that the line up would scale to 12 cores. The surprise is a native 10 core part and the differences between it and the 12 core design.

    Judging from the diagrams, Intel altered its internal ring bus for connecting cores. One ring goes orbits around all three columns of cores while another connects two columns. Thus the cores in the middle column have better latency for coherency as they have fewer stops on the ring bus to reach any core. The outer columns should have similar latency than the native 10 core chip for coherency: fewer cores to stop but longer traces on the die between columns.

    Not disclosed is how the 12 core chip divides cache. Previously each core would have a 2.5 MB of L3 cache that was more local than the rest of the L3 cache. The middle column may have access to L3 cache on both sides.

    The usage of dual memory controllers on the 12 core die is interesting. I wonder what measurable differences it produces. I'd fathom tests with a mix of reads/writes (ie databases) would show the greatest benefit as a concurrent read and write may occur. In a single socket configuration, enabling NUMA may produce a benefit. (Actually, how many single socket 2011 boards have this option?)
  • madmilk - Tuesday, September 17, 2013 - link

    It looks like each ring is connected to two columns. One ring goes around all three, but does not connect to the center column. Reply
  • JlHADJOE - Tuesday, September 17, 2013 - link

    I'm guessing the 12-core might see action in the 8P segment, which is well overdue for an update. Reply
  • psyq321 - Tuesday, September 17, 2013 - link

    There will be 15-core E7 8xxx v2 CPUs based on the same IvyTown architecture.

    As Intel is not showing the die-shot of a 12 core Ivy EP, I wonder if the 15-core EX and 12-core EP are using the same 3x5 die.
  • Kevin G - Tuesday, September 17, 2013 - link

    The memory controller interfaces are different between the Ivy Bridge-EP and Ivy Bridge-EX. The EP uses DDR3 in all of its forms (vanilla, ECC, buffered ECC, LR ECC) where as the EX version is going to use a serial interface similar in concept to FB-DIMMs. There will be two types of memory buffers for the EX line, one for DDR3 and later another that will use DDR4 memory. No changes need to be made to the new EX socket to support both types of memory. Reply
  • Brutalizer - Tuesday, September 17, 2013 - link

    I would have expected this newest Intel 12-core cpu to perform better. For instance, in Java SPECjbb2013 benchmarks, it gets 35,500 and 4,500. However, the Oracle SPARC T5 gets 75.700 and 23.300 which totally demolishes the x86 cpu. Have not the x86 cpus improved that much in comparison to SPARC? The x86 still lags behind?
  • JohanAnandtech - Tuesday, September 17, 2013 - link

    Be careful when you compare inflated, for marketing purposes results with independent "limited optimization" results ;-) Reply
  • Phil_Oracle - Friday, February 21, 2014 - link

    What do you mean by inflated for marketing purposes? SPECjbb2013 is clearly a real world, recent benchmark that’s full audited by all vendors on the SPEC committee. If you make such claims, surely you have some evidence? Reply
  • extide - Tuesday, September 17, 2013 - link

    Dont forget those T5's run at TDP's in the 200-300W range... If you clocked up one of these babies to those power levels I am sure it would be >= to the T5. Reply
  • Kevin G - Tuesday, September 17, 2013 - link

    TDP's are indeed higher on the SPARC side but not as radically as you indicate. Generally they do not consume more than 200W. (Unfortunately Oracle doesn't give a flat power consumption figure for just the CPU, this is just an estimate based upon their total system power calculator. For reference, the POWER7 is 200W and the POWER7+ is 180W.) Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now