Intel Xeon E5-2600: Doing Damage With Two Eight-Core CPUs
Intel's vaunted Sandy Bridge architecture has finally made its way to the company's dual- and quad-socket-capable Xeon processors. We got our hands on a pair of eight-core Xeon E5-2687W CPUs to compare against the older Xeon 5600- and 5500-series chips.
Benchmark Results: Media/Encoding
Although we typically consider media encoding workloads to be ideal for showing off the benefits of multi-core processors, there’s a limit to these more desktop-oriented applications’ parallelism. MainConcept takes advantage of the physical cores on our Xeon 5500 and 5600 platforms, but still doesn’t fully tax each one. As a result, scaling isn’t particularly aggressive. Moreover, the Core i7-3960X’s improved architecture helps it out-maneuver two Xeon W5580s.
A similar situation transpires in HandBrake, though now the Core i7-3960X also overtakes two Xeon X5680s as well. At least for this type of task, a dual-processor workstation is pretty clearly overkill.
So why the heck would you run Lame, then? We already know this is a single-threaded test (at least when you run one instance of it). For our purposes, we’re really just demonstrating single-core per-clock performance and the impact of Turbo Boost on these flagship processors.
Core i7-3960X spins up to 3.9 GHz with a single core active. Combining the benefits of high frequency with the Sandy Bridge architecture, a first-place finish is no surprise. Xeon E5-2687W, an eight-core beast dissipating up to 150 W, runs at up to 3.8 GHz with one active core. As expected, it falls in just behind the desktop CPU. A max Turbo Boost frequency of 3.6 GHz earns the Xeon X5680 third place.
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Current page: Benchmark Results: Media/Encoding
Prev Page Benchmark Results: Adobe Creative Suite CS5.5 Next Page Benchmark Results: Rendering-
CaedenV My brain cannot comprehend what CS5 would look like with this combined with a 1TB R4 drive, and the GTX680 version of the Quatro would look like... and I am sure my wallet cannot!Reply
Great article! I was not expecting my mind to be blown away today, and it was :) -
dalethepcman No gaming benchmarks? I know this is a high workstation / mid server build, but you know some of the boutiques will make a gaming rig out of any platform. Just out of curiosity, I would have liked to see 2x7970 or 2x580 and a few gaming benchmarks thrown in. :)Reply -
willard dalethepcmanNo gaming benchmarks? I know this is a high workstation / mid server build, but you know some of the boutiques will make a gaming rig out of any platform. Just out of curiosity, I would have liked to see 2x7970 or 2x580 and a few gaming benchmarks thrown in.I'd be really surprised to see these in gaming machines, even in the high end boutiques. That's a $2k processor they reviewed, and basically all it offers over the $1k SB-E chip (for gamers) is an extra pair of cores, which games can't make use of.Reply -
reclusiveorc I wonder how fast TempEncode would chew thru transcoding avi/wmv files to mp3/mp4Reply -
willard esreverwhy aren't AMD cpus tested too? I wouldn't mind seeing how 2x interlagos stacks up.Anandtech benched those next to the new Xeons. Went about as well as Bulldozer vs. Sandy Bridge.Reply
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5553/the-xeon-e52600-dual-sandybridge-for-servers/6 -
cangelini esreverwhy aren't AMD cpus tested too? I wouldn't mind seeing how 2x interlagos stacks up.Mentioned on the test page--I've invited them to send hardware and they haven't moved on it yet.Reply -
willard cangeliniMentioned on the test page--I've invited them to send hardware and they haven't moved on it yet.I would guess that's because Interlagos is garbage compared to the new Xeons and they know it. I don't think they're terribly eager for the front page of Tom's Hardware to show the low end Xeon's beating the best Interlagos has to offer.Reply -
Onus What, or who, was the target? Are there military applications for this weapon?Reply
Sorry, vote me down all you like, but the title was just silly.