Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Conclusion

Intel Xeon E3-1275 Review: Sandy Bridge Goes Professional
By

What’s HD Graphics P3000 Worth?

Many of the benchmarks we ran, which you’re already accustomed to seeing in our regular processor reviews, are utterly anti-climactic. And while that’d seem like bad news for a company touting the extra graphics-oriented optimizations inherent to its workstation-specific Xeon E3-1200-series CPUs, it’s actually not.

For any workload that doesn’t require a potent graphics processor, HD Graphics P3000 performs just fine, enabling similar performance as a setup with discrete graphics. As you saw, that includes a majority of our benchmarks. Not having to drop a discrete card into your entry-level workstation frees up money. If I was doing a lot of Visual Studio or rendering work, I’d sink that savings into an SSD and use the Xeon’s value-added HD Graphics engine. Why not? It's there, you've already paid for it, and it's modestly-capable.

There are even a handful of situations where driver-oriented tweaks help Intel’s HD Graphics P3000 compete with entry-level professional cards like the Quadro FX 580. Make no mistake, though—the number of apps for which Intel is currently optimizing is small. We couldn’t get an official list of titles that run better on Xeon’s P3000 (rather than Core i7’s 3000) today, much less a roadmap for apps the company plans to optimize for in the future. Without this critical information, it’s impossible for professionals to make an informed decision with regard to whether HD Graphics is good for them, or if they’ll need an add-in board for official validation. For that reason, if your money-making app depends on 3D performance, don’t even chance it—buy the discrete GPU.

Nvidia’s been in the professional graphics space a long time, and its long list of validated drivers is going to be hard for Intel to match. Similarly, AMD makes it very easy to see if your app of choice is certified on its professional graphics products. Intel needs more of this sort of transparency if it hopes to win over customers on the merits of its graphics engine.

How About The CPU?

Now, there are features you explicitly give up when it comes to adopting Xeon over the desktop-class Core i7. Overclocking, for example, is out of the question. While the Core i7-2600K at $317 gives you an unlocked multiplier ratio (easily able to hit 4.5+ GHz), the Xeon E3-1275 at $339 is locked. Additionally, while Intel claims Quick Sync is enabled on the Xeon E3 lineup, none of the apps we used to test Quick Sync on the desktop seem to recognize it on the Xeon. Perhaps that’s just a software support issue.

On the other hand, though, the Xeon enables ECC memory support. It lives on a platform that enables additional PCI Express connectivity. It connects to a chipset that offers RAID support for Linux-based operating systems. In other words, there are real business-specific reasons to spend an extra $20 on a Xeon running at the same speed as a Core i7. And for the folks who need those specific differentiators, but were previously priced out of the workstation market, Xeon E3 does make sense.

And we only looked at the flagship Xeon E3-1275, too. If you slide down the stack to a processor like the Xeon E3-1225, which includes four cores, 6 MB of last-level cache, and the same HD Graphics P3000 engine for $194, you end up comparing to Core i5-2400. The desktop chip has the same basic specs for $184, but it’s limited to HD Graphics 2000. The Xeon’s better graphics and more professional feature set make it the obvious choice for an entry-level workstation without the need for a discrete GPU.

Where Are Thou, Motherboards?

It’s interesting that Intel chose not to build a motherboard on its own C206 chipset, opting instead to let Asus take the reins for its launch. With that said, the P8B WS is a solid workstation-class platform. Of course, it looks a lot like so many of the other P67 boards we’ve seen (despite its onboard graphics support), which is expected given the similarities between both Cougar Point-based chipsets. Given Asus’ thorough job, the lack of C206-based workstation motherboards from any other vendor is understandable. Server-oriented C204 and C202 platforms seem to be much more plentiful.

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 44 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • -1 Hide
    one-shot , May 3, 2011 4:22 AM
    Stop teasing and give us a six core Sandy Bridge CPU!
  • 3 Hide
    dragonsqrrl , May 3, 2011 5:49 AM
    one-shotStop teasing and give us a six core Sandy Bridge CPU!

    Sandy Bridge-E, LGA 2011 X79, Q4 2011.
  • -1 Hide
    agnickolov , May 3, 2011 6:48 AM
    Finally a compilation benchmark! Now please make it standard in your test suite for CPUs and storage so there's a real benefit from it all for actual comparisons.
  • -4 Hide
    memadmax , May 3, 2011 8:00 AM
    They still make xeons?
  • 2 Hide
    DavC , May 3, 2011 11:57 AM
    Thanks for this review Chris, very well covered. I'll probably be refering back to this when it comes to spec our next workstations.
  • -2 Hide
    Anonymous , May 3, 2011 2:15 PM
    I think this is a useless review. Why are we comparing Apples to Oranges? Lets compare current generation Xeons to Previous generation Xeons.
  • 0 Hide
    dgingeri , May 3, 2011 2:31 PM
    one thing I can attest to: companies who cheap out on their workstations and servers never perform well as companies, and eventually fail.

    I've worked with many small businesses, and every one that used a desktop chip for a server or a discount chip (Celeron, Duron, etc) for their desktop computers all performed very poorly. Some seemed to hang on by the sheer will of the owner, and in a couple cases, when the owner got sick for more than a week, the businesses folded like lawn chairs.

    I've also seen an Engineering shop of ~30 engineers invest nicely into a real server and real workstations, and had me set up their entire network with SBS. their business ramped up so fast and well that they had to hire several more engineers and outgrew SBS (limited to 50 users at the time) within the next 2 years, and I had to go back and rebuild their domain with full enterprise level software, and add another server specifically for email. the owner said the investment in that SBS system was the best thing he'd invested in the business since he hired his first engineer.

    Business owners who do not invest in their IT infrastructure fail at business. It's pretty plain and simple. While investing in good IT gear and software doesn't mean you'll ramp up your business to unheard of heights, it does give you a major leg up on the competition.
  • 0 Hide
    geekapproved , May 3, 2011 3:59 PM
    No quick sync on a Zeon??
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , May 3, 2011 4:14 PM
    given the option of a cheaper Xenon that does not have the P3000 im pretty sure 90% of companies would choose that option, discreet graphics would almost exclusively be employed for the majority of workstation class desktops
  • 0 Hide
    radiovan , May 3, 2011 4:26 PM
    Very informative and useful article Mr. Angelini, thank you.
  • 0 Hide
    johnners2981 , May 3, 2011 5:26 PM
    GeekApprovedNo quick sync on a Zeon??


    Thats a very bold statement, not all companies require top of the range computer equipment
  • 0 Hide
    fball922 , May 3, 2011 5:28 PM
    So what happens when AMD brings an Opteron with a more-than-competent GPU onboard? At least in GPU-influenced situations they should see a nice advantage I would think.
  • 0 Hide
    zerapio , May 3, 2011 5:43 PM
    DiscreetSolutiongiven the option of a cheaper Xenon that does not have the P3000 im pretty sure 90% of companies would choose that option, discreet graphics would almost exclusively be employed for the majority of workstation class desktops

    I think you're wrong. I spend most of my day at work making and compiling code. For me the HD graphics work really well and getting anything more powerful than that, as evidenced from the tests, would be a waste of money. I also don't think I'm in the 10% group.
  • 0 Hide
    jemm , May 3, 2011 5:55 PM
    Great article/job!
  • 0 Hide
    huron , May 3, 2011 6:07 PM
    Nice job Chris. You made some excellent points. I too have seen far too many try to run servers on desktop hardware - not as big of a problem for home, but that is not quite as mission-critical, right?

    Are you going to do a follow-up to compare to current Xeons?
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , May 3, 2011 7:39 PM
    @zerapio

    how many folks compile codes the size of which require a Xeon? im pretty sure your in the 10% group, IMHO for the majority of cases if your not pairing the Xeon with a discreet GFX card then chances are Xeon would be overkill
  • 0 Hide
    cangelini , May 3, 2011 7:59 PM
    GeekApprovedNo quick sync on a Zeon??


    Geek,
    Intel says the Xeons support Quick Sync (at least that's the case on the ark.intel.com site). However, I suspect that current apps do not recognize the Xeons, and consequently cannot yet take advantage of the hardware. Perhaps it'll be enabled in upcoming app revisions. Until then, I still recommend the desktop CPUs if Quick Sync is important to you.
    Chris
  • 0 Hide
    cangelini , May 3, 2011 8:00 PM
    fball922So what happens when AMD brings an Opteron with a more-than-competent GPU onboard? At least in GPU-influenced situations they should see a nice advantage I would think.


    Then the market will get more interesting, to be sure! We still need to see them do this on the desktop, though. I'd be surprised if they didn't end up releasing a FirePro-branded integrated solution at some point!
  • 0 Hide
    cangelini , May 3, 2011 8:02 PM
    huronNice job Chris. You made some excellent points. I too have seen far too many try to run servers on desktop hardware - not as big of a problem for home, but that is not quite as mission-critical, right?Are you going to do a follow-up to compare to current Xeons?


    You're very welcome Huron, and thanks for the feedback.

    Which Xeons would you like to see compared? And in which workloads? I'm happy to field ideas on this if it's something you can use!
    Best,
    Chris
  • -1 Hide
    lradunovic77 , May 3, 2011 10:54 PM
    I will say one thing and that is Intel made such a big mess with 3+ types of socket

    LGA1155
    LGA1156
    LGA1366
    LGA2011
    LGA1356

Display more comments