Intel Xeon E5-2600 v2: More Cores, Cache, And Better Efficiency

Status
Not open for further replies.

GL1zdA1

Honorable
Jan 7, 2014
1
0
10,510
0
Does this mean, that the 12-core variant with 2 memory controllers will be a NUMA CPU, with cores having different latencies when accessing memory depending on which MC is near them?
 

Draven35

Distinguished
Nov 7, 2008
806
0
19,010
9
The Maya playblast test, as far as I can tell, is very single-threaded, just like the other 3d application preview tests I (we) use. This means it favors clock speed over memory bandwidth.

The Maya render test seems to be missing o_O
 

voltagetoe

Distinguished
Sep 6, 2009
63
0
18,630
0
If you've got 3ds max, why don't you use something more serious/advanced like Mental Ray ? The default renderer tech represent distant past like year 1995.
 

lockhrt999

Distinguished
Apr 15, 2010
250
0
18,790
3
"Our playblast animation in Maya 2014 confounds us."@canjelini : Apart from rendering, most of tools in Maya are single threaded(most of the functionality has stayed same for this two decades old software). So benchmarking maya playblast is as identical as itunes encode benchmarking.
 

daglesj

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2007
465
16
18,785
0
I love Xeon machines. As they are not mainstream you can usually pick up crazy spec Xeon workstations for next to nothing just a few years after they were going for $3000. They make damn good workhorses.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
@GL1zdA1: the ring-bus already means every core has different latency accessing any given memory controller.Memory controller latency is not as much of a problem with massively threaded applications on a multi-threaded CPU since there is still plenty of other work that can be done while a few threads are stalled on IO/data. Games and most mainstream applications have 1-2 performance-critical threads and the remainder of their 30-150 other threads are mostly non-critical automatic threading from libraries, application frameworks and various background or housekeeping stuff.
 

mapesdhs

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2007
2,507
0
21,160
111
Small note, one can of course manually add the Quadro FX 1800 to the relevant file
(raytracer_supported_cards.txt) in the appropriate Adobe folder and it will work just
fine for CUDA, though of course it's not a card anyone who wants decent CUDA
performance with Adobe apps should use (one or more GTX 580 3GB or 780Ti is best).

Also, hate to say it but showing results for using the card with OpenCL but not
showing what happens to the relevant test times when the 1800 is used for CUDA
is a bit odd...

Ian.

PS. I see the messed-up forum posting problems are back again (text all squashed
up, have to edit on the UK site to fix the layout). Really, it's been months now, is
anyone working on it?

 

Draven35

Distinguished
Nov 7, 2008
806
0
19,010
9


The 3dsMax test does use mental ray. Our Maya render test also uses mr, and the other Max render test uses VRay.

 

ddpruitt

Honorable
Jun 4, 2012
1,109
0
11,360
45
Our Core i7 and dual Sandy Bridge-EP-based Xeons score similarly. Meanwhile, the -2687W v2 crushes this test.
There are a number of reasons this could occur, without knowing what the exact input and output are any attempts to explain this are guessing (my first guess is that the output is different, bug perhaps). The fact that these benchmarks are run the same way as Tom's runs desktop CPU benchmarks shows that whomever was running these really didn't know what they were doing. These CPUs are fast but this article does them a disservice. I would like to see power measurements when the systems run for the same workload and are running for the same period of time. True they are rarely loaded 24x7 but they are generally running 24x7. The workloads should also match the hardware. These things had 64Gb RAM and not a single one of the benchmarks would have stressed that amount of RAM appropriately. The problem is that if your actually reading and writing this much RAM it can have an impact on power consumption.
 

Draven35

Distinguished
Nov 7, 2008
806
0
19,010
9
We don't have any tests specifically oriented towards 64 GB of RAM, but the AE test will use as much as you throw at it. At some point though, the AE test runs into the storage limitation, which is what i suspect was happening here. I also don't know if Chris was using the SD or HD version of the AE test. If the machine had 128 GB of RAM, he could have run the AE test from a RAM disk, thus removing storage from the equation. Without just throwing random items into a scene, it is difficult to create a test meant for 64 GB systems without a 64 GB system to create the test on- some of these tests were originally created on the HP z400 we reviewed a few years back, and the newer Maya and Max tests I use on workstations were authored on our baseline workstation. I am now developing updated test s on an HP z600 with 12 GB of RAM... but the extra RAM will be nearly inconsequential in the actual tests because I'll still need to be able to run them on the baseline workstation (8 GB RAM). My personal feeling is that the Premiere test is getting a little long in the tooth, as is the AE test (hence why i went back and redid it for HD).
 

oxiide

Distinguished
Nov 8, 2011
850
0
19,360
108
I know this chip is absolutely inappropriate for gaming, but it would still be somewhat interesting to me to see how it stacks up in the usual gaming benchmarks. Multithreading in games is getting a little better, and the results might show Intel's potential if they weren't so heavily focused on power consumption in their recent consumer-level products. On the other hand, it might be completely predictable and boring. But I think it would still be interesting to find out for sure.

Again, obviously, I know the productivity benches are what's important here. I know no one's gaming on a server processor, like ever. But while you've got a review sample, why not experiment a little? :)

Great review as always.
 

Crass Spektakel

Honorable
Nov 3, 2013
5
0
10,510
0
Right now I am using a system build in 2008 with two Xeon 5450 (thats basically eight cores at 3.0Ghz from the last Core2 Q9000 series), 16GB RAM and a Radeon 280X for Work, Development and also Gaming. Runs quite well, even a slightly overclocked i7-4770 doesn't beat this old war horse (at least not always). The i7-49xx on the other hand is quite superior to my old Xeon, especially when overclocked (My Xeon board offers not overclocking at all).
 

daglesj

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2007
465
16
18,785
0
Yes I'm running a 2008 Dell Precision T5400 with a single 2.8GHz quad Xeon (soon to be a double 2.8Ghz quad setup this week) with 16GB of ECC ram and 1TB SSHD drives.Fantastic machine. Takes everything I throw at it and will take even more once I get up to 8 cores.Might treat it to a matched pair of 3.3GHz chips in the summer.
 

Draven35

Distinguished
Nov 7, 2008
806
0
19,010
9


I have an HP z600 with 2x 2.26 Ghz Xeon 5520s and 12 GB RAM, 2x 500 GB hard drives... total invested: $550. Its my personal 3d machine and benchmark development machine. Going to put it up to 24 GB shortly.
 

DoDidDont

Distinguished
May 27, 2009
81
0
18,640
2
I think for people that already own a pair of E5-2687W processors, the upgrade to the V2 version isn’t really worth it from a price point. If its purely for work purposes and multi-threaded apps then the E5-2690V2 being in the same price bracket, would be a better choice. Very slight drop in clocks, but more cores. Shame Tom’s didn’t include the 2690V2 and 2697V2 in the multithreaded tests, for people considering whether or not to upgrade their SandyBridge platforms. Definitely something wrong with Tom’s CineBench results.Every benchmark I have seen online scores a pair of E5-2687w’s at around the 26 mark for the multiple test, and my own E5-2687w’s lowest score has been 25.6 and highest 26.22, so I’m guessing the results should be 26 for the E5-2687w and 28 for the V2.
 

Michael Robinson

Honorable
Mar 14, 2013
24
0
10,520
1
I still find it difficult understanding where you'd use them though. Sure the idea of 12 cores on two CPU's (and I assume 48 threads) sounds like a geek dream but with so much graphic work capable of being offloaded onto the GPU I'm not sure what the point is. It would of been interesting to see some figures for CPU bound games as well - I know these things aren't for gaming but it allows us non-workstation users to be able to contrast and compare. It would also of been interesting to try and run tests with various programs (and limiting the cores being used) to see whether huge cache sizes make much of a difference and how. A similar thing could be done for the number of cores to see what games really can use each and every core.
 

Draven35

Distinguished
Nov 7, 2008
806
0
19,010
9
In order to show the effects of various cache sizes, we'd literally have to run a half dozen to a dozen different 3D rendering tests. Then people would say we are running too many rendering tests...


The thing is, a lot of the techniques I know for showing these kinds of things date back to the days of 512k-1mb of L2 cache. There were 'tricks' in render setups that would cause cache hits, and tricks where the latency of the cache became an issue (anyone else remember when the L2 cache wasn't running at full CPU speed?) and the relative complexity of these 'tricks' has gone up drastically.
 

daglesj

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2007
465
16
18,785
0


Yep managed to pick my Precision T5400 up in mint condition with 8GB of ram in it for just £80! ($130)

I got another SLANS 2.8Ghz Quad Xeon CPU for just £25! ($40)
 

tricecold

Distinguished
Jul 29, 2008
62
0
18,630
0
The article says, Maya Playblast test,which is a GPU related test, unless there are some uncached deformations or effects happening, Default renderer for maya is also mental ray, We all know dual cpu XEONs are going to be superior to single CPU machines in terms of speed because an 4.5GHZ overclocked I7-2600K(my home machine) does similar render times and simulation times in comparison to my work machine which is e5 2640 6 cores, dual cpu, however, I maxed my home machine to 32gb ram whereas these dual cpu boards can go 192gb ... So why dont you guys make a detailed review of XEON PHIs instead, in terms of rendering, memory limitations and distributed simulations from Houdini for example, come on I am sure Intel will be happy to send some
 

Michael Robinson

Honorable
Mar 14, 2013
24
0
10,520
1
Thanks for your reply. I agree it would make a dull read to see dozens of similar tests all lined up but it might offer an insight into how different cache sizes affect performance (games, mainstream apps, multiuser systems etc). At the moment we sort of assume that more is better but is there a sweat spot and what type of cache memory is more important for what sort of apps? It might make an interesting article for the geeks out there. Similarly with number of cores (with and without hyperthreading). Would even highly threaded games make use of all the available cores? how does the benefit change when you move to 2 CPU's on the same board? would an end user see any noticeable benefit? Obviously Xeons aren't aimed at gamers but they do offer a taste of the future. If I had money to burn then 2 Xeons would be nice but would they be any faster than an i5 running much of it's processing through a moderate GPU?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS