Intel Xeon processors. Search for a ready-made solution
Without any big announcements, Intel did not even present, but simply launched a new generation of processors from the Intel Xeon E3-1200 v6 family, based on a microarchitecture codenamed Kaby Lake. These processors are positioned by the company as server processors (for single-processor servers); currently the Intel Xeon E3-1200 v6 family includes eight models. Their brief specifications are presented in the table. Real retail prices, which are very different from the recommended ones, were taken according to price lists from the Internet at the time of writing.
Model | Recommended cost, $ | Real cost, $ | Number of cores | Number of threads | Base frequency, GHz | Max. frequency, GHz | L3 cache, MB | TDP, W | Graph. core |
E3-1280 v6 | 612 | 760 | 4 | 8 | 3,9 | 4,2 | 8 | 72 | - |
E3-1275 v6 | 339 | 420 | 4 | 8 | 3,8 | 4,2 | 8 | 73 | P630 |
E3-1270 v6 | 328 | 420 | 4 | 8 | 3,8 | 4,2 | 8 | 72 | - |
E3-1245 v6 | 284 | 417 | 4 | 8 | 3,7 | 4,1 | 8 | 73 | P630 |
E3-1240 v6 | 272 | 350 | 4 | 8 | 3,7 | 4,1 | 8 | 72 | - |
E3-1230 v6 | 250 | 338 | 4 | 8 | 3,5 | 3,9 | 8 | 72 | - |
E3-1225 v6 | 213 | 266 | 4 | 4 | 3,3 | 3,7 | 8 | 73 | P630 |
E3-1220 v6 | 192 | 248 | 4 | 4 | 3,0 | 3,5 | 8 | 72 | - |
All processors of the Intel Xeon E3-1200 v6 family are quad-core, and in general most of the characteristics of these processors are the same. In particular, they all have an 8 MB L3 cache and a dual-channel memory controller, and maximum size The supported memory is 64 GB. DDR4 and DDR3 memory with and without ECC is supported. All processors of the Intel Xeon E3-1200 v6 family have a built-in PCI controller Express 3.0 with 16 lines, which can be configured into 1x16, 2x8 or 1x8+2x4 ports. Naturally, processors from the Intel Xeon family support a whole range of technologies aimed at the corporate market segment. This is Intel vPro, virtualization technology, etc. In general, everything that is in demand in servers and workstations and is useless in home PCs. All processors in the family under consideration have an LGA1151 socket, but, alas, they are incompatible with Intel 100 and 200 series chipsets - they require boards based on Intel C236 or C232 chipsets.
Despite the fact that the Intel Xeon E3-1200 v6 processors are positioned as server processors, Intel is also promoting them into the home PC segment, and leading motherboard manufacturers produce gaming motherboards for these processors. However, so far Intel's attempts cannot be called successful: these processors are not being bought for home PCs, which, it seems to us, is quite logical from the point of view of users who are accustomed to the fact that Xeon is a server processor. An inexperienced user simply does not know that Xeon E3-1200 v6 and Intel Core The 7th generation is essentially the same thing, the only difference is in the nuances that do not matter for home PCs. So the use of processors from the Intel Xeon E3-1200 v6 family in home PCs is quite possible - the only question is how optimal it is. Compared to the 7th generation Intel Core, processors from the Intel Xeon E3-1200 v6 family do not have “magic” server performance, but they also cost a lot. Is it possible to use them to achieve similar performance (at comparable frequencies), but at a lower cost - this is a question that we will try to answer in this article.
What and with what we compare
To clearly demonstrate how the performance of Intel Xeon E3-1200 v6 processors compares with the performance of 7th generation Intel Core processors, we tested comparative testing two top models of the Intel Xeon E3-1200 v6 family (E3-1280 v6 and E3-1275 v6) and five Intel Core processors (Kaby Lake). Brief technical characteristics of the 7th generation Intel Core processors that participated in testing are shown in the table.
Model | Recommended cost, $ | Real cost, $ | Number of cores | Number of threads | Base frequency, GHz | Max. frequency, GHz | L3 cache, MB | TDP, W | Graph. core |
Core i7-7700K | 339-350 | 450 | 4 | 8 | 4,2 | 4,5 | 8 | 91 | 630 |
Core i7-7700 | 303-312 | 368 | 4 | 8 | 3,6 | 4,2 | 8 | 65 | 630 |
Core i5-7600K | 242-243 | 306 | 4 | 4 | 3,8 | 4,2 | 6 | 91 | 630 |
Core i5-7400 | 182 | 220 | 4 | 4 | 3,0 | 3,5 | 6 | 65 | 630 |
Core i3-7350K | 168-179 | 222 | 2 | 4 | 4,2 | 4,2 | 4 | 60 | 630 |
For testing, we chose the Gigabyte GA-X170-Extreme ECC motherboard on Intel chipset C236, which is compatible with all processors participating in the comparison. Since the Intel Xeon E3-1280 v6 processor does not have a built-in graphics core, the MSI GeForce GTX 1070 Gaming X 8G video card was used when testing all processors.
The testing stand had the following configuration:
Testing was carried out using our benchmark based on real applications iXBT Application Benchmark 2017. However, when calculating the integral results, we used the results of the Intel Core i3-7350K processor as reference, that is, all results are normalized relative to the results of the Intel Core i3-7350K processor. Let us remind you that in our test package iXBT Application Benchmark 2017, a desktop PC based on an Intel Core i7-6700K processor is used as a reference system, but without discrete video card. Since in in this case We use a video card, it was decided to use a different reference system when calculating the integral results.
Test results
Logical test group | Core i3-7350K | Core i5-7400 | Core i5-7600K | Core i7-7700 | Core i7-7700K | Xeon E3-1275 v6 | Xeon E3-1280 v6 |
Video conversion, points | 100.0±0.3 | 124.2±0.3 | 149.0±0.3 | 192.4±0.5 | 205.1±1.0 | 192.7±0.5 | 189.7±0.5 |
MediaCoder x64 0.8.45.5852, with | 204.4±0.8 | 167.2±0.7 | 139.2±0.6 | 106.0±0.5 | 98.0±0.5 | 106.0±0.5 | 106.0±0.5 |
HandBrake 0.10.5, s | 201.0±0.3 | 159.3±0.3 | 132.8±0.1 | 104.7±0.3 | 99.7±0.8 | 104.4±0.3 | 107.6±0.3 |
Rendering, points | 100.0±0.4 | 119.8±0.4 | 142.0±0.4 | 192.2±0.5 | 210.7±1.3 | 192.1±1.1 | 190.3±0.6 |
POV-Ray 3.7, with | 270.5±0.4 | 119.8±0.4 | 167.0±0.3 | 139.6±0.3 | 128.2±0.3 | 139.6±0.1 | 142.3±0.1 |
LuxRender 1.6 x64 OpenCL, with | 493.8±1.6 | 452±3 | 352.4±1.9 | 256.0±0.5 | 232.3±1.4 | 255.6±1.1 | 255.4±1.4 |
Blender 2.77a, with | 423±5 | 393.3±1.8 | 331±6 | 222.4±1.6 | 203±4 | 223±4 | 225.5±1.6 |
Video editing and video content creation, points | 100.0±0.3 | 116.1±0.3 | 143.9±0.3 | 154.4±0.6 | 167.6±0.8 | 153.9±0.4 | 153.9±0.6 |
Adobe Premiere Pro CC 2015.4, from | 202.9±0.3 | 169.6±0.3 | 140.7±0.3 | 108.7±1.1 | 99.48±0.28 | 108.4±0.3 | 108.4±0.4 |
Magix Vegas Pro 13, s | 641.2±1.6 | 509.8±2.5 | 425.3±1.0 | 355.8±1.6 | 325±4 | 356.0±1.5 | 354.6±2.4 |
Magix Movie Edit Pro 2016 Premium v.15.0.0.102, with | 237.4±1.0 | 208.3±1.0 | 173.7±0.4 | 183±4 | 173±4 | 187.7±1.9 | 188±3 |
Adobe After Effects CC 2015.3, from | 1019±5 | 816.2±3.1 | 569.2±1.8 | 570.0±1.6 | 518.3±1.6 | 569.2±1.7 | 569.4±2.1 |
Photodex ProShow Producer 8.0.3648, with | 286.8±0.6 | 291.6±0.7 | 247.0±0.5 | 254.2±0.6 | 235.0±0.5 | 253.8±0.6 | 254.0±0.5 |
Treatment digital photos, points | 100.0±0.9 | 81.6±0.7 | 90.1±1.1 | 138±4 | 147.5±2.0 | 136.2±2.6 | 137±3 |
Adobe Photoshop CC 2015.5, s | 512.9±0.5 | 1390±8 | 1321.9±4 | 457.7±1.8 | 423±4 | 457.7±0.8 | 459±3 |
Adobe Photoshop Lightroom SS 2015.6.1, s | 292±7 | 235.2±2.2 | 213±7 | 192±7 | 181±6 | 197±9 | 192±11 |
PhaseOne Capture One Pro 9.2.0.118, s | 468±6 | 395±9 | 341±6 | 306.0±0.6 | 285±6 | 308±8 | 307±10 |
Text recognition, points | 100.0±0.1 | 103.5±0.3 | 124.6±0.3 | 207.7±1.1 | 228.9±2.1 | 207.7±1.6 | 206.1±1.2 |
Abbyy FineReader 12 Professional, with | 922.5±0.4 | 891.5±2.4 | 740.3±0.7 | 444.1±2.4 | 403±4 | 444.2±3.4 | 447.5±2.5 |
Archiving, points | 100.0±0.4 | 104.4±0.5 | 115.3±0.1 | 171.0±0.8 | 180.3±1.1 | 171.0±0.7 | 172.5±0.8 |
WinRAR 5.40 CPU, with | 158.7±0.6 | 151.9±0.7 | 137.59±0.15 | 92.8±0.4 | 88.0±0.6 | 92.8±0.4 | 92.0±0.4 |
Scientific calculations, points | 100.0±0.7 | 129.3±0.8 | 147.5±2.0 | 158.9±2.2 | 172.4±0.9 | 161.8±1.0 | 160.7±0.6 |
LAMMPS 64-bit 20160516, with | 729±6 | 581.1±2.0 | 497.5±0.7 | 400.6±0.5 | 371.0±1.3 | 401.3±2.7 | 402.9±0.9 |
NAMD 2.11, with | 440.1±2.8 | 325.5±0.7 | 274.7±0.7 | 237±43 | 214.5±0.5 | 236.3±1.7 | 240.9±2.4 |
FFTW 3.3.5, ms | 44.7±0.8 | 38.4±1.2 | 37.1±2.5 | 35.2±2.3 | 32.4±0.4 | 32.2±1.0 | 32.6±0.3 |
Mathworks Matlab 2016a, with | 214±5 | 134.71±0.08 | 114.64±0.17 | 121.9±1.4 | 112.2±2.4 | 121.3±0.4 | 121.4±1.3 |
Dassault SolidWorks 2016 SP0 Flow Simulation, with | 338.9±1.9 | 294.8±1.4 | 257.5±1.7 | 235.1±1.8 | 236.2±1.4 | 253.3±1.3 | 253.3±1.0 |
Speed file operations, points | 100.0±0.8 | 96.5±0.8 | 98.8±0.8 | 97.6±1.5 | 96.7±1.3 | 98.0±1.8 | 98.9±1.0 |
WinRAR 5.40 Storage, with | 83.9±0.8 | 85.7±1.0 | 86.5±1.7 | 85.6±3.0 | 84.9±0.5 | 86±3 | 85.1±1.4 |
UltraISO Premium Edition 9.6.5.3237, with | 54.1±0.8 | 57.4±0.7 | 53.9±0.5 | 55.8±1.0 | 57.5±1.9 | 54.8±1.3 | 54.3±1.3 |
Data copying speed, s | 41.5±0.6 | 42.6±0.8 | 41.9±0.6 | 42.4±1.0 | 42.6±0.9 | 42.3±0.5 | 42.2±0.3 |
Integral CPU result, points | 100.0±0.2 | 110.2±0.2 | 128.7±0.4 | 171.9±0.9 | 185.6±0.5 | 172.0±0.6 | 171.5±0.6 |
Integral result Storage, points | 100.0±0.8 | 96.5±0.8 | 98.8±0.8 | 97.6±1.5 | 96.7±1.3 | 98.0±1.8 | 98.9±1.0 |
Integral performance result, points | 100.0±0.3 | 105.9±0.3 | 118.9±0.4 | 145.1±0.8 | 152.6±0.7 | 145.3±0.8 | 145.4±0.6 |
Analyzing the results from the given table is difficult, so we will also present the integral test results in diagrams for each logical group of tests (with the exception of the results for the speed of file operations, which do not depend on processor performance).
As can be seen from a comparison of test results, the performance of the Intel Xeon E3-1275 v6 and Xeon E3-1280 v6 processors, firstly, is almost the same in all tests, and secondly, it coincides with the performance of the Intel Core i7-7700 processor. In general, the Intel Xeon E3-1275 v6 processor is the same as the Intel Core i7-7700 processor, with the exception of nuances (such as ECC memory support and vPro technology), which are absolutely not critical for home PCs. Well, the Xeon E3-1280 v6 processor is the same as the Xeon E3-1275 v6, but without a graphics core and at an inadequate cost.
The leader in terms of performance is the Intel Core i7-7700K processor. In terms of integral performance indicator, it is 8% ahead of the Xeon E3-1275 v6, Xeon E3-1280 v6 and Core i7-7700 processors and 86% ahead of the Core i3-7350K processor.
If we look at the test results for individual logical groups, then everything is as expected. The lowest performance is found in the Core i3-7350K processor, followed by the Core i5-7400 and Core i5-7600K processors in increasing order of performance, followed by three Xeon E3-1275 v6, Xeon E3-1280 v6 and Core i7-7700 processors with equal performance , and, as already noted, the highest performance is from the Core i7-7700K processor. The only exception is the logical group of tests “Digital Photo Processing”, where the Core i5-7400 and Core i5-7600K processors have a clear performance gap, so the results of the Core i3-7350K processor in this group of tests are higher.
Let us remind you that the “Digital Photo Processing” group consists of three tests based on the applications Adobe Photoshop CC 2015.5, Adobe Photoshop Lightroom CC 2015.6.1 and PhaseOne Capture One Pro 9.2.0.118. The performance dip of the Core i5-7400 and Core i5-7600K processors is observed only in the test based on Adobe applications Photoshop CC 2015.5. In general, we have previously observed inadequately low results for processors of the Intel Core i5 family in a test based on this application (in previous version our test package), but before that we only stated this sad fact. Now we have the opportunity to find out what exactly the problem is with processors of the Intel Core i5 family when working in the Adobe Photoshop CC 2015.5 application. Comparing the results of testing all processors in Adobe Photoshop CC 2015.5, we can conclude that the problem with the Core i5-7400 and Core i5-7600K processors cannot be their low clock frequency or L3 cache size. Moreover, the point here is not the number of physical processor cores (the Core i3-7350K processor has fewer of them). Unlike all other processors (Core i3-7350K, Core i7-7700, Core i7-7700K, Xeon E3-1275 v6, Xeon E3-1280 v6), Core i5-7400 and Core i5-7600K processors do not support Hyper- Threading. That is, they only have four physical cores and there is no way to simultaneously run two threads on one core. The Core i7-7700, Core i7-7700K, Xeon E3-1275 v6 and Xeon E3-1280 v6 processors each have four physical cores with support Hyper-Threading technology, that is operating system These processors are seen as eight-core (have eight logical cores). The Core i3-7350K processor has only two physical cores, but with support for Hyper-Threading, that is, four logical cores.
The fact that the Core i5-7400 and Core i5-7600K processors are inferior in performance to the Core i7-7700, Core i7-7700K, Xeon E3-1275 v6 and Xeon E3-1280 v6 processors can be explained by the fact that they have twice the fewer cores. But why then are the Core i5-7400 and Core i5-7600K inferior in performance to the Core i3-7350K processor, which has only two physical cores and, accordingly, four logical ones? In order to answer this question, we once again tested the Core i7-7700K processor in a test based on the Adobe Photoshop CC 2015.5 application, but with the BIOS technology Hyper-Threading. The result is as follows: in normal mode(using Hyper-Threading technology) test runs in 423 s, and when Hyper-Threading technology is disabled, the test execution time increases to 1278 s, that is, it increases three times. Not even two times, as one might assume (with great optimism), but three times! Actually, this is the answer to the question: the Adobe Photoshop CC 2015.5 application simply “loves” Hyper-Threading technology and is optimized for it. Two physical cores with support for Hyper-Threading technology are in this case more efficient than four physical cores without Hyper-Threading support. That is, this is the rare case when simultaneous execution of two threads on one physical core is more effective than parallelizing these threads on two physical cores. And it is the lack of support for Hyper-Threading technology in processors of the Intel Core i5 family that is the reason for their low result in our test based on the Adobe Photoshop CC 2015.5 application.
Conclusion
So let's summarize. We tested two top processors from the Intel Xeon E3-1200 v6 family and compared them with the 7th generation Intel Core processors. It turned out that in terms of performance, the Xeon E3-1275 v6 and Xeon E3-1280 v6 processors are practically no different from each other and correspond to the Intel Core i7-7700 processor. At the same time, the recommended (according to the Intel website) cost of the Intel Core i7-7700 processor is $303-$312, and the Xeon E3-1275 v6 and Xeon E3-1280 v6 processors cost $339 and $612, respectively. Moreover, these are only recommended prices, and real retail prices are also determined by the conscience of the seller. For example, a Core i7-7700 processor can be purchased for $368, a Xeon E3-1275 v6 processor for $417, and a Xeon E3-1280 for $760. As you can see, even taking into account the price markup, it is more profitable to buy a Core i7-7700 processor and get absolutely the same performance at a lower cost. For those for whom the performance of the Core i7-7700 processor is not enough (for them, the Xeon E3-1275 v6 and Xeon E3-1280 v6 processors will not be enough), there is the Core i7-7700K processor: even in normal operation (without overclocking) it provides 8% higher performance compared to the Core i7-7700, Xeon E3-1275 v6 and Xeon E3-1280 v6 processors. And the Core i7-7700K costs about $450 in retail. It is, of course, a little more expensive than the Xeon E3-1275 v6, but it also has higher performance (especially taking into account the overclocking capabilities).
We tested only the Xeon E3-1275 v6 and Xeon E3-1280 v6 processors and found that these are analogues of the Core i7-7700 processor. But the Intel Xeon E3-1200 v6 family also includes the E3-1270 v6, E3-1245 v6, E3-1240 v6, E3-1230 v6, E3-1225 v6 and E3-1220 v6 models. It is clear that the Xeon E3-1270 v6 processor is the same as the Xeon E3-1275 v6, but without the graphics core. Therefore, in terms of performance, the Xeon E3-1270 v6 processor is a more expensive analogue of the Core i7-7700 processor. The Xeon E3-1245 v6 and Xeon E3-1240 v6 processors also differ from each other only in that the Xeon E3-1245 v6 model has graphics core. In terms of performance, they are the same, and their performance is slightly lower than that of the Core i7-7700 processor, but higher than that of top model Intel Core i5 family (Core i5-7600K). Likewise, the Xeon E3-1230 v6 model has lower performance than the Core i7-7700, but higher than the Core i5-7600K. As for the Xeon E3-1225 v6 and Xeon E3-1220 v6 models, in terms of performance they are analogous to the Intel Core i5 family of processors. Moreover, for the Xeon E3-1220 v6 processor the analogue is the Core i5-7400 model, and the Xeon E3-1225 v6 model is closer to the Core i5-7500 processor.
It seems to us that if we talk about expanding the positioning of processors of the Intel Xeon E3-1200 v6 family, then it is worth paying attention to the Xeon E3-1245 v6, Xeon E3-1240 and Xeon E3-1230 v6 models. The older Xeon E3-1280 v6, E3-1275 v6 and E3-1270 v6 models cannot compete with Core processor i7-7700, because with the same performance, the Core i7-7700 is cheaper. But the Xeon E3-1245 v6, Xeon E3-1240 and Xeon E3-1230 v6 processors can be said to complement the Intel Core i7 (Kaby Lake) family: this quad core processors with support for Hyper-Threading technology, which provide a level of performance lower than the Core i7-7700, but higher than processors of the Core i5 family, and fall into the price niche between the Core i7-7700 and Core i5-7600K (at least if you go by at recommended prices). The new Core i7 family has turned out to be painfully scanty: in fact, there are only two models in it (there is also a Core i7-7700T, but it’s from a different story), and there’s not much to choose from. But if we formally supplement the Core i7 family with the Xeon E3-1245 v6, Xeon E3-1240 and Xeon E3-1230 v6 models, the picture will become much more attractive. At the same time, there is no point in supplementing the Core i5 family with Xeon E3-1225 v6 and Xeon E3-1220 models: the Core i5 family has similar performance, but cheaper models.
So, if we are talking about the server segment of the market (single-processor servers), where ECC memory is required, then there is simply no alternative to Intel Xeon E3-1200 v6 processors. By the way, there are also home users who believe that memory with ECC is like manna from heaven, and only such memory can provide correct operation applications. Well, let them continue to think like that; trying to dissuade them is a waste of time. If we are talking about productive home PCs, then the Intel Core i7 family can be expanded with the Xeon E3-1245 v6 model with a graphics core and the Xeon E3-1240 and Xeon E3-1230 v6 models without a graphics core.
It's hard to imagine a concept more closely related to Intel than "processor." Having once had a hand in the emergence of this class of devices on the mass market, Intel is now spending no less effort on their constant improvement. As a result of these titanic efforts, there is a regular change of generations of processors: everyone probably knows about “tick-tock”. Let's, however, take a picture and take a look at the entire processor lineup - on what principle is it built? Let's start with Intel Xeon server processors.
The Intel Xeon line dates back to the Pentium II. Historically, they were built on the same microarchitectures as desktop processors with the addition of server-specific features such as multiprocessing support, larger caches, extended instruction set support, etc. If we talk about current Xeons from a platform point of view, we get a rather interesting picture.
However, if you think about it, the situation when three families of Xeons are so scattered across Intel’s technology line does not seem strange. Server processors are much more complex than desktop processors; the development and implementation of those very specific features takes a long time, and the more there are, the longer. That’s why the simplest E3s “jumped” the furthest; We will begin our analysis of Xeon by family with them.
Intel Xeon E3
The current Intel Xeon E3 line is represented by the E3-12xx v.2 models (note v.2, v.1 were built on Sandy Bridge). Their main purpose is budget single-socket servers, as well as not too demanding servers. computing resource embedded systems. The line includes models with reduced power consumption (they have the index L), and the model E3-1220L, which is slaughtered in all respects but super energy-efficient, stands somewhat apart; we will exclude it from further review.In general, the picture looks like this. E3-12xx v.2 processors have a frequency from 3.1 to 3.7 GHz, 4 cores and hyperthreading (with the exception of the younger 122x models - they do not have hyperthreading). All have 8 MB cache and Turbo Boost support. There are two memory channels, frequency up to 1600 MHz, maximum capacity – up to 32 GB. Processors with a five at the end have a built-in graphics core Intel HD Graphics P4000 (model E3-1265L has Intel HD Graphics 2500). All processors support VT-x/VT-d, Trusted execution and latest version SpeedStep. For greater clarity, let’s draw a summary table of the main parameters for three processors from different ends of the line. Full comparison table you will find on the well-known website ark.intel.com.
Let us emphasize once again that E3 processors are not used in multiprocessor systems.
Intel Xeon E5
The E5 line looks more colorful. This is due to the fact that E5 is Intel’s main “workhorse” for servers; its applications are varied, so a greater range of parameters is required. E5 processors are divided into three large groups: from bottom to top – E5-24xx, E5-26xx, E5-46xx. E5-24xx, E5-26xx are processors for two-socket servers, E5-46xx are for four-socket servers. In order not to get lost in the numbers, let’s immediately create a summary table; it includes two processors from each group – the top one and the “smallest”.E5-2403 | E5-2470 | E5-2603 | E5-2690 | E5-4603 | E5-4650 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Clock frequency, GHz | 1.8 | 2.3 | 1.8 | 2.9 | 2 | 2.7 |
Frequency s Turbo boost, GHz | 3.1 | 3.8 | 3.3 | |||
Number of cores/threads | 4/4 | 8/16 | 4/4 | 8/16 | 4/8 | 8/16 |
Cache memory, MB | 10 | 20 | 10 | 20 | 10 | 20 |
Number of QPI connections | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Speed system bus | 6.4 | 8 | 6.4 | 8 | 6.4 | 8 |
Scalability | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 |
Max. memory capacity, GB | 375 | 375 | 750 | 750 | 1500 | 1500 |
Number of memory channels | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
Max. calc. Power, W | 80 | 95 | 80 | 135 | 95 | 130 |
Reference point. cost, $ | 188 | 1440 | 198 | 2057 | 551 | 3616 |
For those wishing to get a more compact, productive system, I advise you to pay attention to the E5-26xx series, suitable for almost any task - it’s not for nothing that Intel calls it mainstream. A special feature of this series is two QPI lines for two processors; Thus, the two sockets of the system exchange data at speeds twice as high as standard.
Changes compared to the previous generation are shown in red.
Intel Xeon E7
E7 processors are also represented by three families: E7-28xx, E7-48xx, E7-88xx. As you might guess, the first ones are for two-socket systems, the second ones are for four-socket systems, and the third ones are for eight-socket systems. Here is a summary table compiled according to a similar principle as for E5.E7-2803 | E7-2870 | E7-4807 | E7-4870 | E7-8830 | E7-8870 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Clock frequency, GHz | 1.73 | 2.4 | 1.86 | 2.4 | 2.13 | 2.4 |
Frequency with Turbo boost, GHz | 2.8 | 2.8 | 2.4 | 2.8 | ||
Number of cores/threads | 6/12 | 10/20 | 6/12 | 10/20 | 8/16 | 10/20 |
Cache memory, MB | 18 | 30 | 18 | 30 | 24 | 30 |
Number of QPI connections | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
System bus speed | 4.8 | 6.4 | 4.8 | 6.4 | 6.4 | 6.4 |
Scalability | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 8 |
Max. memory capacity, GB | 1024 | 1024 | 2048 | 2048 | 4096 | 4096 |
Number of memory channels | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
Max. calc. Power, W | 105 | 130 | 95 | 130 | 105 | 130 |
Reference point. cost, $ | 774 | 4227 | 890 | 4394 | 2280 | 4616 |
As we have already seen, the E7 family is the oldest of Intel’s current server offerings; it is just now turning two years old. That's why we can assume with a high degree of confidence that the E7 is the first contender for an update, and this event is most likely just around the corner.
To change or not to change?
Another pressing question that forces specialists to delve deeper into processor specifications is whether it makes sense to update the platform in light of the challenges being solved? To conclude the conversation about Intel Xeon, I will give some facts and figures on this subject using the E5 as an example.What has changed in the new generation of Xeon processors compared to the previous one and how much faster are they? First of all, we note the trend towards integrating controllers responsible for input/output on the processor chip. Embedded I/O Solution
Intel Integrated I/O reduced data latency by 30%; Intel Data Direct I/O technology (direct transfer of I/O directly to/from the processor cache, bypassing main memory, for all types of traffic) gave a more than twofold increase in speed. You can also get the same twofold increase in speed if you switch to PCIe 3.0. By the way, reducing the load on memory significantly reduces its energy consumption; in general, the new platform is 70% more energy efficient than the previous one.
So, if you are already running low on resources or are slowly but surely running out of resources, upgrading to the next generation will solve your problem. Well, we will definitely return to the conversation about Intel Xeon in the blog.
Owners of personal computers are of little interest, because crystals this segment a completely different task related to mathematical calculations and working with databases. The unrealistically inflated cost and its own platform, in addition, completely relieve the potential buyer from thinking about purchasing and installing processors from the corporate segment.
In fact, the computer hardware manufacturer is simply not interested in regular users installed server solutions for themselves, because this would undermine the company’s policy and suspend sales of new equipment. In this article, the reader will get acquainted with one interesting representative of the corporate segment, which can compete with expensive crystals. We will talk about the XEON E5450 processor. Review, characteristics, description and user reviews will help the reader to better know the representative of the corporate segment.
Specifications
The processor is designed for installation in a socket reserved by Intel for multiprocessor platforms. For the XEON E5450, the performance characteristics are slightly different from the Pentium 4 crystals and their analogs intended for installation in the 775 socket. Four cores implemented separately on one platform (like Core Quad), operate at a frequency of 3 GHz. The bus operating frequency corresponds to 1333 MHz.
The only indicator that stands out is the size of the processor memory cache, which is 12 megabytes (for the second level). Support for a 64-bit platform, 80 Watt heat dissipation and support for all instructions necessary for server operation complete the general idea about the XEON E5450 crystal.
Processor Features
The reader has already noticed several fundamental differences between the representative of the server platform and processors intended for installation in a personal computer. A crystal with four cores operates at a frequency of 3 GHz, while a home representative, even in the top version, is limited to a threshold of 2.9 GHz. The bus performance indicator is also interesting - 1333 MHz for most users personal computer can only be achieved by overclocking. And then in most cases the frequency threshold is 1066 MHz.
The heat dissipation, which does not exceed 100 Watts, is also pleasing. Naturally, the user may want to overclock the XEON E5450. The enthusiast’s surprise will know no bounds when he passes the psychological barrier without any problems and stops at 4.1 GHz. True, before overclocking, you need to solve the problem with cooling, since the crystal has a temperature limit (70 degrees Celsius), after which it triggers automatic protection, and the server processor is turned off.
Comparison with analogues
Naturally, all users eagerly want to match the server crystal with some famous product. For example, XEON E5450 vs Core Quad Q6800. By at least, all users of the platform do not consider the Q6800 processor to be a performance standard that fits well into the price-quality criterion. However, IT experts recommend that enthusiasts raise the bar much higher and look for an Intel Core I5 representative for comparison.
Yes, the last generation server processor will easily outperform not only all multi-core AMD representatives, but also its older Core I3 brothers in performance. It is this feature of the crystal that attracts many users who have long wanted to increase the performance of their computer, but do not have the resources to switch to new platform enough funds.
Professional use
Crystal Intel XEON The E5450 will be useful primarily to experts in the field of video processing and creating 3D models. Processing power is enough to perform the most complex tasks. If we compare with other processors on the socket 775 platform, the performance gain can be assessed as follows:
- the Pentium 4 platform with one core is 20 times slower;
- dual core representative Dual Core inferior by 15 times;
- a Core 2 Duo crystal with a core frequency of more than 2.6 GHz is 10 times slower than the XEON E5450;
- a Core Quad representative with 4 cores is 5 times inferior to a server representative.
Performance measurements were carried out by experts using applications for processing and encoding video in FullHD format. Involved famous programs Sony Vegas and Pinnacle Studio. There is no doubt that there will not be much difference in performance when processing 3D objects.
Potential in gaming applications
Many enthusiasts believe that gaming will not be a stumbling block for the XEON E5450 processor. After all, the server crystal has proven itself worthy in working with resource-intensive applications. This is true, but there are several points that dynamic fans should pay attention to. modern games ears. Firstly, for quick exchange With information from the application and the processor, it is necessary to ensure that the RAM operates at the same frequency as the crystal (1333 MHz). Weak point There may also be a video adapter in the system, the potential of which is simply not enough for the full operation of the entire system.
For gaming computer based on a server processor, experts installed minimum requirements for video adapters: Geforce GTX 580 and Radeon HD 5970. Graphics accelerators with lower performance will slow down the entire system. Don't forget about the hard drive. It's time to build SSDs based on solid-state hard drives.
Real numbers
Naturally, all users, especially fans of resource-intensive modern games, want to see the performance of the XEON E5450 crystal in action. For comparison, enthusiasts created two identical platforms: 4 GB Hynix 1333 MHz RAM, MSI G41M-P26 motherboard, SSD Kingston HyperX 120Gb and Gainward GTX 580 video adapter. The platforms differed only in processors. The server crystal was assigned to a Core Quad Q6800. In gaming applications GTA5, FarCry4, Witcher 3, Mortal Kombat X, Fallout 4, system performance increased almost 3 times (from 20-25 FPS to 60-70 frames per second).
Such indicators prompted enthusiasts to think about comparing a server solution for the socket 771 platform with a more powerful new generation processor - 2500K. The results turned out to be stunning - the XEON E5450 was only 5-7% behind the representative of the line! The weak point in the system, as practice has shown, is the volume random access memory- 4 GB is clearly not enough for resource-intensive games.
Physical differences between platforms
The XEON E5450 processor, designed for installation in socket 771, has some differences from the representative Intel Pentium 4, intended for installation in socket 775. Firstly, we are talking about two contacts that the manufacturer swapped in order to prevent the interchangeability of processors. The problem can be resolved in several ways: the legs on the motherboard are soldered or a special adapter is used to change the socket.
The second nuisance is the lack of additional slots on the server processor for installation in socket 775. The problem is also solved in two ways: sawing through the slots on the processor or breaking off the limiters on the motherboard. The second method is safer.
Platform compatibility at the software level
Before you start searching for the XEON E5450 processor on the domestic market, you need to understand whether it is compatible with motherboard available to the user. The fact is that Intel, when releasing chips, created some restrictions that apply not only base frequencies work, but also heat generation. All motherboards based on P and G series chips, as well as nForce 7 series platforms, support the server processor at the hardware level.
Not all motherboards can “know” what kind of Intel XEON E5450 processor it is, even if this crystal is supported by the chip at the hardware level. The problem is that some motherboard manufacturers have their own limitation that they put in place to keep temperature regime in system. Thus, manufacturers Foxconn, MSI and Gigabyte limited at the level BIOS firmware installation of processors with four cores operating at frequencies above 2.66 GHz. Accordingly, users are advised to review the specifications before purchasing motherboard on the manufacturer's official website.
Search for a ready-made solution
Having received introductory data regarding the performance of the Intel XEON E5450 server processor, the user will certainly begin to study offers on the domestic market, and after some time he will be disappointed by the lack of new crystals in retail sales. Yes, the platform is obsolete and has long been discontinued, so the secondary market will help you find the right solution. The cost of such a processor ranges from 2-4 thousand rubles.
A new crystal can be purchased at foreign online auctions. The cost of such processors is not much different from offers on the Russian market, but foreigners offer their products with minor modifications. The server processor is already bored out for socket 775 and has a corresponding adapter.
Cooling system
There is no need to think that the XEON E5450 crystal, which is undemanding in terms of power supply, does not need a decent cooler. The fact is that an economical processor is not only sensitive to overheating, but is also capable of shutting down the entire computer if it exceeds operating temperature. After all, this is a server processor, and it is responsible for the safety of data and its own safety, so the user should think about purchasing a decent cooling system.
Experts in the field of IT technology recommend taking a closer look at inexpensive solutions from Intel. All versions of BOX 4 come with a decent cooler, which is designed to cool crystals with a heat output of up to 125 Watts. This solution will be quite sufficient even for overclocking the crystal to 4 GHz.
Finally
The XEON E5450 server solution is not only an alternative to upgrading your computer by moving to a new platform. It's more about saving Money user, because he is offered an unusual solution, which, along with increasing computer performance, allows him to save a large sum money. Yes, the transition is not easy and requires physical intervention in the operation of the processor. But it’s worth it to enjoy the comfortable operation of the system in the next few years, without thinking about possible modernization, which requires significant financial costs.
True, many potential buyers work to be done great job, before creating the platform of your dreams. A regular trip to the store is not enough here. First you need to make sure that your motherboard's processor is supported. After that, solving the installation problem, and improving the remaining components of the computer plays an important role here.
The server processor segment, unlike mobile or consumer ones, is conservative and predictable. This is unlikely to upset anyone, because for professionals, reliability, compatibility and performance are important, and not spectacular functionality. Nevertheless, there is undoubtedly movement here too. Therefore, with some frequency (less often than we would like, but still) on the Intel blog we publish reviews of the current situation with Xeon processors– a kind of instant cross-section of the entire line. Well, two interesting news prompted us to do this review right now.
A short preface for those who are interested in the topic, but have not previously followed the development of the Intel Xeon line. Xeon (correctly read “Zion”) - server processors using Intel Core technologies and following the Core update strategy (the same one that used to be “tick-tock”, and now “tick-tock”), albeit with some delay . That is, Intel Core i3/i7 Kaby Lake appears first, and after a while Intel Xeon E3/E7 Kaby Lake appears. The more complex the processors, the more difference in generations. Let's say Intel Xeon E3v6 (Kaby Lake) appeared 8 months after Intel Core i3 v7 (Kaby Lake) - right now, and this is the first news. But Intel Xeon E5v6 does not yet exist in nature and it will not appear soon, because the current current generation is the fourth, which is Broadwell. Confused about the numbers? Generations Core and Xeon differ by one, since the first “Zion” was made on Sandy Bridge cores, that is, the second generation Core.
Getting familiar with arithmetic model range Intel Xeon processors, let's move on to their comparative consideration.
Intel Xeon E3
Intel Xeon E3 are processors for entry-level single-socket servers, the performance of which, however, is sufficient to solve a wide variety of tasks. As already mentioned, in March of this year, Intel introduced the new, sixth generation Xeon E3v6. This does not mean, however, that they are the only ones available for order now. The inertia of the server market is great if the platform is more suitable for your task/budget previous generations, you can easily buy both v5 and v4.
Typical Intel configuration Xeon E5 v6
Xeon E3v6 is the third stage in the Intel processor upgrade cycle, the optimization stage. This means that functionally and hardware-wise it is almost no different from its predecessor; There are some “file modifications” taking place in order to more fully utilize the available resource. Let's look at what has changed during the current iteration of the cycle, which took a total of 2 years.
E3-1285V4 | E3-1280V5 | E3-1280V6 | |
---|---|---|---|
Technical process | 14 nm | ||
Generation | Broadwell | Skylake | Kaby Lake |
Price | $556 | $612 | $612 |
Launch | 2Q15 | 4Q15 | 1Q17 |
Cores/threads | 4/8 | 4/8 | 4/8 |
Base frequency | 3.5 GHz | 3.7 GHz | 3.9 GHz |
L3 cache | 6 MB | 8 MB | 8 MB |
TDP | 95 W | 80 W | 72 W |
Memory, max. | DDR3-1866 | DDR4-2133 | DDR4-2400 |
New features | |||
Temperature monitoring | + | + | |
Intel SGX | + | + | |
Intel MPX | + | + | |
Secure key | + | + | |
Intel Optane support | + |
Intel Xeon E5
![](https://i0.wp.com/habrastorage.org/files/300/d28/c47/300d28c476aa46ff91f77a9e6b21f7e2.png)
Intel E5 v4 Line Positioning Chart