Intel Xeon E3-1275 Review: Sandy Bridge Goes Professional

Features
By
published

We've already seen Sandy Bridge impress in the desktop space. Does Intel's latest processor architecture have what it takes to dominate the single-socket server and workstation space, too? We run the fastest workstation SKU through our benchmark suite.

Benchmark Results: Productivity

FineReader 10 is an OCR app—there’s no real reason that one of these setups should be any faster than the others. And yet, the Core i7-based machines turn in the better performance.

For the same reason we wouldn’t expect much differentiation in ABBYY FineReader, there’s no architectural explanation for the Xeon’s one-second advantage in WinRAR. This is a threaded benchmark that we’d expect to run just as well on Intel’s Core i7-2600K as the Xeon E3-1275.

You’ve been asking for a compile test, so we built one using Visual Studio 2010. I’m throwing it in here since it’s relevant in a workstation context. But if course it’s not going to show any difference between these three 3.4 GHz setups capable of running at up to 3.8 GHz each.

Chris Angelini
Chris Angelini
Chris Angelini is an Editor Emeritus at Tom's Hardware US. He edits hardware reviews and covers high-profile CPU and GPU launches.
44 Comments Comment from the forums
  • one-shot
    Stop teasing and give us a six core Sandy Bridge CPU!
    Reply
  • dragonsqrrl
    one-shotStop teasing and give us a six core Sandy Bridge CPU!Sandy Bridge-E, LGA 2011 X79, Q4 2011.
    Reply
  • agnickolov
    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.
    Reply
  • memadmax
    They still make xeons?
    Reply
  • DavC
    Thanks for this review Chris, very well covered. I'll probably be refering back to this when it comes to spec our next workstations.
    Reply
  • I think this is a useless review. Why are we comparing Apples to Oranges? Lets compare current generation Xeons to Previous generation Xeons.
    Reply
  • dgingeri
    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.
    Reply
  • geekapproved
    No quick sync on a Zeon??
    Reply
  • 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
    Reply
  • Very informative and useful article Mr. Angelini, thank you.
    Reply