I have been putting off upgrading to LGA2011 for a while. I love the older LGA1151 systems for low power servers and appliances. 40 watts for an idle file server is pretty attractive. But, I do feel cramped with only 32GB of memory.
I have also been collecting a few of the LGA1366 systems for number crunchers when I needed more compute power in a small space. Dual LGA1366 systems compete very well against LGA2011 in the budget cruncher space.
But, I have always been curious how much extra I was spending to power my LGA1366 workstation compared to a LGA2011 workstation. Several threads on this, and other forums suggest it should be noticable. My workstation, much like my ESX server, is idle most of the time.
Then I spot a HP Z420 on eBay without memory or video for 200 bucks delivered.. So I buy it.
I then set up two almost identical systems. A HP Z400 with a 130W TDP W3690 and a HP Z420 with a 130W TDP E5-1620. Both are single socket 32 nm workstation processors.
I added a Quadro FX 1800 to both systems along with a single 8GB stick of DDR3-1600 unbuffered ECC memory and a 40GB Intel SSD. I used the same memory and hard drive in both systems. The hard drive had Ubuntu 14.04 installed.
The results were a bit unexpected..
HP Z420 / LGA2011 E5-1620 : 61W / 62VA idle
HP Z400 / LGA1366 W3690 : 61W / 63VA idle.
Compare this to a HP ML10V2 which is just under 40 watts idle with 16G RAM and a SSD.
So, to quote an old commercial "where's the beef?" Other than a slightly better power supply, the chipset in the Z420 is no better than the chipset in a Z400. I can get more cores in LGA2011 but I can get more crunch for the buck in LGA1366.
So, why does everyone give LGA1366 such a bad rep? It doesn't look like it is because of power.
I have also been collecting a few of the LGA1366 systems for number crunchers when I needed more compute power in a small space. Dual LGA1366 systems compete very well against LGA2011 in the budget cruncher space.
But, I have always been curious how much extra I was spending to power my LGA1366 workstation compared to a LGA2011 workstation. Several threads on this, and other forums suggest it should be noticable. My workstation, much like my ESX server, is idle most of the time.
Then I spot a HP Z420 on eBay without memory or video for 200 bucks delivered.. So I buy it.
I then set up two almost identical systems. A HP Z400 with a 130W TDP W3690 and a HP Z420 with a 130W TDP E5-1620. Both are single socket 32 nm workstation processors.
I added a Quadro FX 1800 to both systems along with a single 8GB stick of DDR3-1600 unbuffered ECC memory and a 40GB Intel SSD. I used the same memory and hard drive in both systems. The hard drive had Ubuntu 14.04 installed.
The results were a bit unexpected..
HP Z420 / LGA2011 E5-1620 : 61W / 62VA idle
HP Z400 / LGA1366 W3690 : 61W / 63VA idle.
Compare this to a HP ML10V2 which is just under 40 watts idle with 16G RAM and a SSD.
So, to quote an old commercial "where's the beef?" Other than a slightly better power supply, the chipset in the Z420 is no better than the chipset in a Z400. I can get more cores in LGA2011 but I can get more crunch for the buck in LGA1366.
So, why does everyone give LGA1366 such a bad rep? It doesn't look like it is because of power.