Xeon e5-1650 vs e5-1620

[estyer]

does the extra expense for the 1650 vs the 1620 make sense for cad and revit/ rendering apps

 

[TheBigTroll]

if you are doing a lot of work, yes. if not, a e3 1230v2 is faster than the e5 1620 as the e5s as fo now are still sandy bridge based rather than the better ivy bridge

or you might as well get a i7 3930k, which you can overclock for better perfromance while keeping stability. i can recommend you a good board and some ram

 

[bambiboom]

does the extra expense for the 1650 vs the 1620 make sense for cad and revit/ rendering apps

estyer,

The Passmark benchmarks and ranks for the Xeon E5-1650 and E5-1620 are >

E5-1650 = 11437___rank= #14
E5-1620 = 9228____rank= #38

TheBigTroll mentioned the >

E3-1230 v2 = 9063 rank =#41

The difference in the E5-1620 and E3-1230 v2 benchmarks and rank of #38 to #41 is not large, but rendering can use all the available cores and the E5 has 6 cores while an E3 is 4 cores- important in rendering times. Clock speed is also a factor in rendering and the E5-1620 is also a 3.6GHz against the E3 at 3.3GHz, so between the 1620 and 1230 v2, I'd definitely give the edge to the 1620, mainly because of the 6 cores for rendering.

Overall, the pure computational speed of the E5-1650 though it's rated at 3.2GHz, there are the 6-cores and 12MB cache (instead of 10MB in the 1620 and 8MB in the 1230)- and a semi-reasonable price which all together makes the E5-1650 my favorite Xeon. It is $250 more than the 1620-a big proportion, but if you're after performance it's the best of the three Xeons mentioned. As it's at least a 3 or 4 year investment, if the additional cost is not a project-killer, I would opt for the E5-1650- that's $60-80 per year- $5-6 per month- for the best price/performance Xeon made.

For your applications, I would stay with Xeons- the double precision, ECC error correcting RAM, and computational qualities are tailored for 3D CAD and rendering- and reliability.

You didn't mention graphics cards, but there are important advantages in using Quadros in your applications too- like 64X and 128X anti-aliasing, 10-bit color, viewport support, though they seem ostensibly over-priced to those used to gaming cards, in some 3D CAD tasks it's the difference in working and not working.


Cheers,

BambiBoom

 

[estyer]

thanks for the help...good info

 

[daerohn]

why don't you check the Opteron's. I am no expert when it comes to workstations yet I know that opterons perorma better in multi tasking and the prices are nearly half. Also for rendering and FMA, nVidia has a special card mounted in a PCI-EX slot which is based on GPU architecture yet used solely for computation. It is said to increase computation power a lot.

 

[TheBigTroll]

not really. they have more cores, but not more performance

 

[daerohn]

hımmm as i said i am no expert in this. Yet this nVidia card seems promising and need to be evaluated deeply. I would do an analyse of it paired with Intel and AMD together with price. I have seen the first models last year and the benchmarks in rendering and FMA was astonishing

 

[TheBigTroll]

nvidia cards can help out during parellel computing tasks where tons of cores can be way faster than running on CPU power alone