Intel Xeon E3-1280 v2 Review: Ivy Bridge Goes Professional
-
Page 1:Ivy Bridge Finds Its Way Into Servers And Workstations
-
Page 2:Intel’s Second-Gen Xeon E3 Processor Family
-
Page 3:Platform Support: Three Old Chipsets, C216, And Memory Compatibility
-
Page 4:Test Setup And Benchmarks
-
Page 5:Benchmark Results: Adobe CS 5.5
-
Page 6:Benchmark Results: Rendering
-
Page 7:Benchmark Results: Transcoding
-
Page 8:Benchmark Results: Productivity
-
Page 9:Power Consumption
-
Page 10:Xeon E3-1200 v2 Is A Power Story, Not A Performance One
Power Consumption
Rated for 69 W, the Xeon E3-1280 v2 is even more power-friendly than the Ivy Bridge-based Core i7-3770K.
The blue bar in the logged power consumption chart illustrates the Xeon E3-1280 v2 using less power, and the preceding pages proved that it delivers more performance in the process. In fact, on average, the -1280 v2-based system consumes 150 W with a Quadro 5000 skewing the power number higher.
In contrast, the slower last-generation Xeon E3-1290, rated for 95 W, drives the system averaging 161 W of power use. Meanwhile, the -1275-based configuration, which is slower still, sips 153 W, on average.
Yanking the Nvidia card would likely give Intel’s Xeon E3-1280 v2 a larger advantage, since the GPU adds a constant, higher draw. However, the -1280 v2 has no processor graphics, necessitating our platform upgrade.
- Ivy Bridge Finds Its Way Into Servers And Workstations
- Intel’s Second-Gen Xeon E3 Processor Family
- Platform Support: Three Old Chipsets, C216, And Memory Compatibility
- Test Setup And Benchmarks
- Benchmark Results: Adobe CS 5.5
- Benchmark Results: Rendering
- Benchmark Results: Transcoding
- Benchmark Results: Productivity
- Power Consumption
- Xeon E3-1200 v2 Is A Power Story, Not A Performance One
Need Ivy Bridge Goes budget.
Still Waiting this.... i3, Pentium G
Need Ivy Bridge Goes budget.
Still Waiting this.... i3, Pentium G
I went with a Sandybridge E5-1620 + discrete graphics. Twice the memory bandwidth. Twice the PCIe lanes. Comparable price. And the raw performance of the cores is only a couple % slower. A good tradeoff for GPU compute.
You don't buy Xeons for performance, you buy them for reliability. The performance for clock speed is exactly the same.
If you need the single-threaded performance, you need it. You can't get that performance by combining multiple systems. In servers or render farms, you can just add a few more machines to make up for the lesser performance, because they are dealing with tasks that are extremely well threaded – so you don't buy the fastest option, you buy the best value option. But in some cases, the single threaded performance is more important (certain workstation tasks) or you are limited to one system (many workstation tasks), so the performance matters more than value until the performance stops making a significant difference.
And I wouldn't say that it is better value, rather I'd say that it is necessary for the extra reliability.
Thanks.
Thanks.
It does whatever it wants.
AMD or ARM-BASED are not serious competitors at least for about next 2 years I guess.
I'm liking the v2 moniker; instead of inventing new codes, is it so hard to just attach a suffix like a version number of an a/b/c etc.? That's enough to convince people that it's comparable to an older model in speed, socket type etc. but the version number will denote improved performance.
Intel: Compatibility? Standards? Screw that.
Translation to Real World - One thing that has often disturbed me is the duration of many of these benches, my experience is that they often either aren't relevant or worst aren't a good measure to real world jobs which often last for HOURS not 1~2 minutes. For comparison sake and perhaps scaling it would be nice to have a 'Part 2' with E5's and UP/DP/MP.
It took me a half cup of coffee to figure out why you choose the E3-1290, I got it once I realized the clocks.
Using Stock clocks the Ivy Bridge is a good step in the right direction, but other than it's Litho it's hard for me still to consider it a 'Tock'. I'm hoping the Haswell will correct some of the IB shortcomings.
Okay, so basically it is that thing I said (the need for performance being that great). And yeah, I worded the whole 'value' bit pretty poorly, but you seem to have caught on to what I was getting at. Thanks!
Being a consumer with no knowledge of the enterprise/server sector of hardware, it's a bit difficult to see how something so seemingly small can be worth so much, but I often forget that businesses have a lot more money to spend than individuals like myself.
It depends, supposedly Q2 2013 but if the Haswell makes the Ivy Bridge-EP superfluous then it's doubtful it will ever be produced.
If you can stomach guesses and utter conjecture then here's an interesting post with external links in an effort to prove or disprove - http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2259752
E5 is the full server version of Sandy Bridge. The equivalent won't be released for Ivy Bridge until next year, so the comparison isn't valid. This is just some re-badged client Ivy Bridge parts with minor enhancements.
FYI you wasted money if you bought E5 for home use. Overclockability, which Xeons don't have, is more important that memory bandwidth or pci-e lanes.