Trending

Intel Xeon E3-1280 v2 Review: Ivy Bridge Goes Professional

By

Intel recently introduced its Xeon E3-1200 v2 CPUs, based on the Ivy Bridge architecture. Though they're very similar to the third-generation desktop Core chips, ECC memory support, four extra PCIe 3.0 lanes, and attractive pricing grab our attention.

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.

29 Comments Comment from the forums
  • aqualipt 15 August 2012 11:21
    Meeeh, Ivy bridge is a disappointment for the hardcore PC users, although is great for mobile users.
    Reply
  • tomfreak 15 August 2012 11:32
    Ivy Bridge Goes Professional


    Need Ivy Bridge Goes budget.

    Still Waiting this.... i3, Pentium G
    Reply
  • bit_user 15 August 2012 12:02
    Skip.

    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.
    Reply
  • mousseng 15 August 2012 14:03
    Okay, I'll take your word for it that a $600+ Xeon can be better value in certain scenarios than an i7. But how exactly is it better value than the ~$230 E3-1230v2, which (as far as I can tell) is exactly the same, only clocked a few hundred MHz lower? Is the need to squeeze every ounce of performance out of the server-class CPUs so great that Intel can demand a $400 price hike for 300MHz?
    Reply
  • 15 August 2012 14:14
    The 3Ds Max test doesn't make any sense unless you mention which renderer you're using (Mental Ray? Vray? Scanline?). Also it would be nice if you compared against desktop processors to see if it's worth splashing out on the Xeons
    Reply
  • PreferLinux 15 August 2012 14:55
    Skeletor1The 3Ds Max test doesn't make any sense unless you mention which renderer you're using (Mental Ray? Vray? Scanline?). Also it would be nice if you compared against desktop processors to see if it's worth splashing out on the XeonsYou don't buy Xeons for performance, you buy them for reliability. The performance for clock speed is exactly the same.
    Reply
  • PreferLinux 15 August 2012 14:57
    moussengOkay, I'll take your word for it that a $600+ Xeon can be better value in certain scenarios than an i7. But how exactly is it better value than the ~$230 E3-1230v2, which (as far as I can tell) is exactly the same, only clocked a few hundred MHz lower? Is the need to squeeze every ounce of performance out of the server-class CPUs so great that Intel can demand a $400 price hike for 300MHz?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.
    Reply
  • mandrilux 15 August 2012 15:09
    Nice review, but i'd like to view a comparasion between E3-1245v2 or E3-1275v2 versus I7-3770 or I7-3770K over a motherboard with chipset Z77 like Asrock. Because the E3 is cheaper than I7 and supports same socket.
    Thanks.
    Reply
  • mandrilux 15 August 2012 15:10
    Nice review, but i'd like to view a comparasion between E3-1245v2 or E3-1275v2 versus I7-3770 or I7-3770K over a motherboard with chipset Z77 like Asrock. Because the E3 is cheaper than I7 and supports same socket.
    Thanks.
    Reply
  • ekho 15 August 2012 15:59
    Intel doesn't compete hard these days.
    It does whatever it wants.
    AMD or ARM-BASED are not serious competitors at least for about next 2 years I guess.
    Reply