
Our benchmark suite is automated so that tests run in the same order each time, with the same delays between commands. There is even a period of idle time injected at the end to capture the reality that even high-end workstations aren’t under load 24x7. At the end of that idle period, the workstation shuts itself down automatically.
As that’s happening, we log power consumption. The above chart represents power use through the run. We also get a sense for how long each configuration takes to finish the batch file and turn itself off, given the length of each line. Right away it’s clear that two Xeon E5-2687W v2s complete our battery of benchmarks faster than first-gen -2687Ws, and they do it using less energy.

Averaging the data points together shows that, indeed, the newer Xeons use 20 W less through our suite. That’s pretty remarkable considering:
- The new Xeons operate at higher clock rates under load and in lightly-threaded apps.
- The new Xeons have 5 MB more of shared L3 cache each.
- The average results have a ton of single-threaded work and idle time factored in; considering threaded workloads-only would exacerbate the difference.
Of course, the averages themselves don’t take into account how quickly a given platform got its job done, dropped to idle, and stopped using power. For that, we need to create a unit of energy by multiplying wattage by the time it takes to finish our workload.

Those single-threaded tasks and that idle time give Intel’s Core i7 a big advantage when it comes to average power consumption. However, because the two Xeon E5-2687W v2s are so much faster, they gain quite a bit of ground when we factor performance into the equation.
Compared to first-gen E5s, the new -2687W v2s use less power and are faster. That’s a recipe for an efficiency sweep, reflected in a 42 Wh advantage in our benchmark suite.
- All About Intel's Ivy Bridge-EP-Based Xeon CPUs
- Test Setup And Benchmarks
- Results: Sandra 2014 And 3DMark
- Results: Adobe CC
- Results: Media Encoding
- Results: Rendering
- Results: Productivity
- Results: Compression
- Power Consumption And Efficiency
- Ivy Bridge-EP: Faster And More Efficient On The Same Platform
The Maya render test seems to be missing O.o
(raytracer_supported_cards.txt) in the appropriate Adobe folder and it will work just
fine for CUDA, though of course it's not a card anyone who wants decent CUDA
performance with Adobe apps should use (one or more GTX 580 3GB or 780Ti is best).
Also, hate to say it but showing results for using the card with OpenCL but not
showing what happens to the relevant test times when the 1800 is used for CUDA
is a bit odd...
Ian.
PS. I see the messed-up forum posting problems are back again (text all squashed
up, have to edit on the UK site to fix the layout). Really, it's been months now, is
anyone working on it?
The 3dsMax test does use mental ray. Our Maya render test also uses mr, and the other Max render test uses VRay.
Again, obviously, I know the productivity benches are what's important here. I know no one's gaming on a server processor, like ever. But while you've got a review sample, why not experiment a little?
Great review as always.
I have an HP z600 with 2x 2.26 Ghz Xeon 5520s and 12 GB RAM, 2x 500 GB hard drives... total invested: $550. Its my personal 3d machine and benchmark development machine. Going to put it up to 24 GB shortly.