Intel Xeon E3-1280 V6 Linux Benchmarks and Review

[Patrick Kennedy]

We have Linux benchmarks and a review of the Intel Xeon E3-1280 V6 CPU, the top processor in the Intel Xeon E3-1200 V6 "Kaby Lake" family

The post Intel Xeon E3-1280 V6 Linux Benchmarks and Review appeared first on ServeTheHome.

Continue reading...

 

[MiniKnight]

I think you're missing the point. Why E3-1280 V6 when your at the E5-2630 V4 price for 10 cores and 20 threads. You lose 25% clock speed but for 2.5x as many cores. AND let's not forget you also have way more DIMM and PCIe with E5 V4.

 

[PigLover]

I think you're missing the point. Why E3-1280 V6 when your at the E5-2630 V4 price for 10 cores and 20 threads. You lose 25% clock speed but for 2.5x as many cores. AND let's not forget you also have way more DIMM and PCIe with E5 V4.

Spot on, I think. Don't forget that the E5-2630 delivers more capable cores (big core vs little core - more pipelining gain), more cache (3x more), faster cache, and almost 2x memory bandwidth (37.5GB/s vs 68.3).

For most non-synthetic workloads, even single threaded, the E5-2630 will win. And for about the same price you get more cores.

Of course, the TCO on the E5 is higher. MBs cost more, there are few SFF options, etc. But in most cases I see E3 as a good proposition only at the low end where cost/core is dramatically lower than the "big core" options.

 

[Patrick]

Point taken.

 

[T_Minus]

For most non-synthetic workloads, even single threaded, the E5-2630 will win. And for about the same price you get more cores.

I'd be curious to see single threaded 2630 v4 vs E3 v6, that's the exact reason I just picked up some E3s so I could compare my actual real-world usage, but I'd like to see some benchmarks or simulated real-world tests none the less (I don't neccasrly mean they need to be v4 vs v6 but e3 high freq. single threaded vs E5 lower freq... within a couple generations would be fine.)

 

[PigLover]

Something like this, but High-end E3 vs mid-line E5?

Intel Xeon D-1541 or Xeon E5-2630L V3 What wins?

Could be interesting...

 

[MiniKnight]

It isn't CPU speed that limits. It's RAM.

 

[RobertFontaine]

A price and a chip that makes very little sense in the intel line up.

 

[Red_Devil_24]

almost double the 1270 price for a small 100MHz boost, it just make no sense at all.

 

[niekbergboer]

Thanks for the article Patrick.

To reflect some of the sentiment; I cannot help but see these highest-freq parts of lowish-end E3 as bling-crusted luxuries. You pay twice the dough for 100 MHz more clock on a low core-count part.

It's like buying the highest-end Vauxhall Astra with the most expensive package, and go-faster stripes, while good second-hand Mustangs are on the market.

Edit: yes, the licensing argument is a good one. Still, Intel does have frequency-optimized products in its E5 line for that specific purpose, where the bigger cache and higher RAM bandwidth may actually give you more price positiveness performance. Sure, the E5 will be more expensive, but when you're in such a license-constrained situated, I don't expect the CPU cost to be the major factor compared to licenses that can easily run into tens of thousands of bucks.