The Xeon E5-2600: Dual Sandy Bridge for Servers
by Johan De Gelas on March 6, 2012 9:27 AM EST- Posted in
- IT Computing
- Virtualization
- Xeon
- Opteron
- Cloud Computing
The massive 416 mm² large chip contains no less than 2263 million transistors. Each generation of Intel and AMD server CPUs seem to get a bit larger as you can see below.
So how does the new Xeon compare to the older Xeons and the latest Opterons? Let's take a look at the paper specs:
|
Xeon E5-2600 "Sandy Bridge EP" |
Opteron 6200 "Interlagos" |
Opteron 6100 "Magny-cours" |
Xeon 5600 "Westmere" |
|
| Cores (Modules)/Threads | 8/16 | 8/16 | 12/12 | 6/12 |
| L1 Instruction | 8x 32 KB 4-way | 8x 64 KB 2-way | 12x 64 KB 2-way | 6x 32 KB 4-way |
| L1 Data | 8x 32 KB 8-way | 16x 16 KB 4-way | 12x 64 KB 2-way | 6x 32 KB 8-way |
| L2 Cache | 8x 256 KB | 4x 2MB | 12x 0.5MB | 6x 256 KB |
| L3 Cache | 20 MB | 2x 8MB | 2x 6MB | 12MB |
|
Max. Memory Bandwidth (Per socket) |
51.2 GB/s | 51.2 GB/s | 42.6 GB/s | 32 GB/s |
| IMC Clock Speed | = corespeed | 2GHz | 1.8GHz | 2GHz |
| Interconnect | 2x QPI 2.0 (8 GT/s) | 4x HT 3.1 (6.4 GT/s) | 4x HT 3.1 (6.4 GT/s) | 2x QPI (4.8-6.4 GT/s) |
| Transistors (Billion) | 2,26 | 2x 1,2 | 2x 904 | 1,17 |
| Die Size (mm²) | 416 | 2x 315 | 2x 346 | 248 |
The new Xeon comes with a huge die, and with its ring interconnect and improved RAS, it starts to look more like a successor of the Westmere-EX than the Westmere-EP Xeon. In fact the ring of the Xeon E5 is more advanced: it has a PCIe agent, PCU and IMC on the same ring as the 8 cores.
The massive die, the two extra cores, the integration of the PCIe controller and no competition in the high-end have made it easier for Intel to justify a price increase. The Sandy Bridge EP is somewhat more expensive than its predecessor, as you can see in the table below. The first clockspeed mentioned is the regular clock, the second the turbo clock with all cores active (most realistic one) and the last the maximum turbo clock.
| Intel new vs. Intel 2-socket SKU Comparison | |||||||||
|
Xeon 5600 |
Cores/ Threads |
TDP |
Clock (GHz) |
Price |
Xeon E-5 |
Cores/ Threads |
TDP |
Clock (GHz) |
Price |
| High Performance | High Performance | ||||||||
| 2690 | 8/16 | 135W | 2.9/3.3/3.8 | $2057 | |||||
| X5690 | 6/12 | 130W | 3.46/3.6/3.73 | $1663 | 2680 | 8/16 | 130W | 2.7/3.1/3.5 | $1723 |
| 2670 | 8/16 | 115W | 2.6/3/3.3 | $1552 | |||||
| 2665 | 8/16 | 115W | 2.4/2.8/3.1 | $1440 | |||||
| X5675 | 6/12 | 95W | 3.06/3.33/3.46 | $1440 | |||||
| X5660 | 6/12 | 95W | 2.8/3.06/3.2 | $1219 | 2660 | 8/16 | 95W | 2.2/2.6/3.0 | $1329 |
| X5650 | 6/12 | 95W | 2.66/2.93/3.06 | $996 | 2650 | 8/16 | 95W | 2/2.4/2.8 | $1107 |
| Midrange | Midrange | ||||||||
| E5649 | 6/12 | 80W | 2.53/2.66/2.8 | $774 | 2640 | 6/12 | 95W | 2.5/2.5/3 | $885 |
| 2630 | 6/12 | 95W | 2.3/2.3/2.8 | $612 | |||||
| E5645 | 6/12 | 80W | 2.4/2.53/2.66 | $551 | |||||
| 2620 | 6/12 | 95W | 2/2/2.5 | $406 | |||||
| E5620 | 4/8 | 80W | 2.4/2.53/2.66 | $387 | |||||
| High clock / budget | High clock / budget | ||||||||
| X5647 | 4/8 | 130W | 2.93/3.06/3.2 | $774 | 2643 | 4/8 | 130W | 3.3/3.3/3.5 | $885 |
| E5630 | 4/8 | 80W | 2.53/2.66/2.8 | $551 | |||||
| E5607 | 4/4 | 80W | 2.26 | $276 | 2609 | 4/4 | 80W | 2.4 | $294 |
| Power Optimized | Power Optimized | ||||||||
| L5640 | 6/12 | 60W | 2.26/2.4/2.66 | $996 | 2650L | 8/16 | 70W | 1.8/2/2.3 | $1107 |
| 5630 | 4/8 | 40W | 2.13/2.26/2.4 | $551 | 2630L | 8/16 | 60W | 2/2/2.5 | $662 |
The Xeon E5-2690's somewhat out of the ordinary TDP (135W) is easy to explain. With a very small TDP increase (+5W) Intel's engineers noticed they could raise the clock of the best SKU with another 200 MHz from 2.7 GHz (130W) to 2.9 GHz. The E5-2690 was more or less a safeguard in the event that the Interlagos Opteron turned out to be a real "Bulldozer". As the Opteron could not meet these expectations, the high performance of the 135W chip allows Intel to ask more than $2000 for its best Xeon EP. Which is quite a bit more than what the best Xeon EP used to sell for so far ($1500-1600).
Since the new Xeon has two extra cores and integrates the I/O hub (IOH), it is understandable that the TDP values are a bit higher compared to the older Xeon.
How does these new Xeon SKUs compare to the Opteron? See below.
| AMD vs. Intel 2-socket SKU Comparison | |||||||||
|
Xeon E5 |
Cores/ Threads |
TDP |
Clock (GHz) |
Price | Opteron |
Modules/ Integer cores |
TDP |
Clock (GHz) |
Price |
| High Performance | High Performance | ||||||||
| 2665 | 8/16 | 115W | 2.4/2.8/3.1 | $1440 | |||||
| 2650 | 8/16 | 95W | 2/2.4/2.8 | $1107 | 6282 SE | 8/16 | 140W | 2.6/3.0/3.3 | $1019 |
| Midrange | Midrange | ||||||||
| 2640 | 6/12 | 95W | 2.5/2.5/3 | $885 | 6276 | 8/16 | 115W | 2.3/2.6/3.2 | $788 |
| 2630 | 6/12 | 95W | 2.3/2.3/2.8 | $639 | 6274 | 8/16 | 115W | 2.2/2.5/3.1 | $639 |
| 6272 | 8/16 | 115W | 2.0/2.4/3.0 | $523 | |||||
| 2620 | 6/12 | 95W | 2/2/2.5 | $406 | 6238 | 6/12 | 115W | 2.6/2.9/3.2 | $455 |
| 6234 | 6/12 | 115W | 2.4/2.7/3.0 | $377 | |||||
| High clock / budget | High clock / budget | ||||||||
| 2643 | 4/8 | 130W | 3.3/3.3/3.5 | $885 | |||||
| 6220 | 4/8 | 115W | 3.0/3.3/3.6 | $455 | |||||
| 2609 | 4/4 | 80W | 2.4 | $294 | 6212 | 4/8 | 115W | 2.6/2.9/3.2 | $266 |
| Power Optimized | Power Optimized | ||||||||
| 2630L | 8/16 | 60W | 2/2/2.5 | $662 | 6262HE | 8/16 | 85W | 1.6/2.1/2.9 | $523 |
Let's start with the midrange first, as the competition is the fiercest there and these SKUs are among the most popular on the market. Based on the paper specs, AMD's 6276, 6274 and Intel's 2640 and 2630 are in a neck-and-neck race. AMD offers 16 smaller integer clusters, while Intel offers 6 or 8 heavy, slightly higher clocked cores with SMT. And while we did not receive a Xeon E5-2630 for benchmarking purposes, we were able to quickly simulate one by disabling the 2 cores of our Xeon 2660, which gave us a six-core processor at 2.2 GHz with 20 MB L3-cache. This pseudo-2660 should perform very similar to the real Xeon 2630, which is clocked 4.5% higher, but has 5 MB less L3-cache.
Meanwhile in the high performance segment we'll be comparing our six-core 2660 with the Opteron 6276. The CPUs in this comparison aren't going to be in the same price bracket, but as the AMD platform is typically a bit cheaper the 2660 and the Opteron 6276 end up having similar total platform costs. Otherwise for a more straightforward comparison based solely on CPU prices the 2660's closest competitor would be the Opteron 6274. We don't have one of those on hand, but you can get a pretty good idea of how that would compare by knocking 4% off of the performance of the 6276..
Finally, for the "Power Optimized" market there seems to be little contest over who is going to win there. Intel's chip is a bit more expensive, but it offers a much lower TDP, just as many threads, and a higher clockspeed. Considering that the Intel chip also integrates the PCIe controller, it looks like Intel will have no trouble winning this battle by a landslide. Fortunately for AMD, this review is mostly about the more popular midrange market.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
81 Comments
View All Comments
alpha754293 - Tuesday, March 6, 2012 - link
Thanks for running those.Are those results with HTT or without?
If you can write a little more about the run settings that you used (with/without HTT, number of processes), that would be great.
Very interesting results thought.
It would have been interesting to see what the power consumption and total energy consumption numbers would be for these runs (to see if having the faster processor would really be that beneficial).
Thanks!
alpha754293 - Tuesday, March 6, 2012 - link
I should work with you more to get you running some Fluent benchmarks as well.But, yes, HPC simulations DO take a VERY long time. And we beat the crap out of our systems on a regular basis.
jhh - Tuesday, March 6, 2012 - link
This is the most interesting part to me, as someone interested in high network I/O. With the packets going directly into cache, as long as they get processed before they get pushed out by subsequent packets, the packet processing code doesn't have to stall waiting for the packet to be pulled from RAM into cache. Potentially, the packet never needs to be written to RAM at all, avoiding using that memory capacity. In the other direction, web servers and the like can produce their output without ever putting the results into RAM.meloz - Tuesday, March 6, 2012 - link
I wonder if this Data Direct I/O Technology has any relevance to audio engineering? I know that latency is a big deal for those guys. In past I have read some discussion on latency at gearslutz, but the exact science is beyond me.Perhaps future versions of protools and other professional DAWs will make use of Data Direct I/O Technology.
Samus - Tuesday, March 6, 2012 - link
wow. 20MB of on-die cache. thats ridiculous.PwnBroker2 - Tuesday, March 6, 2012 - link
dont know about the others but not ATT. still using AMD even on the new workstation upgrades but then again IBM does our IT support, so who knows for the future.the new xeon's processors are beasts anyways, just wondering what the server price point will be.
tipoo - Tuesday, March 6, 2012 - link
"AMD's engineers probably the dumbest engineers in the world because any data in AMD processor is not processed but only transferred to the chipset."...What?
tipoo - Tuesday, March 6, 2012 - link
Think you've repeated that enough for one article?tipoo - Wednesday, March 7, 2012 - link
Like the Ivy bridge comments, just for future readers note that this was a reply to a deleted troll and no longer applies.IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, March 6, 2012 - link
Johan, you got the percentage numbers for LS-Dyna wrong.You said for the first one: the Xeon E5-2660 offers 20% better performance, the 2690 is 31% faster. It is interesting to note that LS-Dyna does not scale well with clockspeed: the 32% higher clockspeed of the Xeon E5-2690 results in only a 14% speed increase.
E5-2690 vs Opteron 6276: +46%(621/426)
E5-2660 vs Opteron 6276: +26%(621/492)
E5-2690 vs E5-2660: +15%(492/426)
In the conclusion you said the E5 2660 is "56% faster than X5650, 21% faster than 6276, and 6C is 8% faster than 6276"
Actually...
LS Dyna Neon-
E5-2660 vs X5650: +77%(872/492)
E5-2660 vs 6276: +26%(621/492)
E5-2660 6C vs 6276: +9%(621/570)
LS Dyna TVC-
E5-2660 vs X5650: +78%(10833/6072)
E5-2660 vs 6276: +35%(8181/6072)
E5-2660 6C vs 6276: +13%(8181/7228)
It's funny how you got the % numbers for your conclusions. It's merely the ratio of lower number vs higher number multiplied by 100.