Intel Xeon E5 Version 3: Up to 18 Haswell EP Cores
by Johan De Gelas on September 8, 2014 12:30 PM ESTLRDIMMs: Capacity and Real World Performance
As we have shown that Intel invested a lot of time to improve the support for LRDIMMs, we also wanted to do a few real world tests to understand when capacity or higher speed at high DPC matters.
First we test with our CDN test. We simulate our CDN test with one CDN server and three client machines on a 10 Gbit/s network. Each client machine simulates thousands of users requesting different files. Our server runs Ubuntu 13.04 with Apache.
The static files requested originate from sourceforge.org, a mirror of the /a directory, containing 1.4TB of data and 173,000 files. To model the real world load for the CDN two different usage patterns or workloads are executed simultaneously, one that accesses a limited set of files more frequently and a second that accesses less frequently requested files. This workload simulates users that are requesting both current as well as older or less frequently accessed files. You can read more about our CDN test here. We used the Xeon E5-2695 v3.
There is no doubt about it: some applications are all about caching and LRDIMMs are incredibly useful in these situations. Some HPC workloads supposedly require a lot of memory as well and can be very sensitive to memory bandwidth. Really? Even with a 35MB L3 cache? We decided to find out.
LRDIMMs are just as fast as RDIMM in a 1DPC configuration. Once you plug in two DIMMs per channel, LRDIMMs outperform RDIMMs by 18%. That is quite surprising considering that our CPU is outfitted with an exceptionally large L3. This test clearly shows there are still applications out there craving more memory bandwidth. In the case of OpenFOAM, the amount of bandwidth largely determines how many cores your CPU can keep busy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
85 Comments
View All Comments
coburn_c - Monday, September 8, 2014 - link
MY God - It's full of transistors!Samus - Monday, September 8, 2014 - link
I wish there were socket 1150 Xeon's in this class. If I could replace my quad core with an Octacore...wireframed - Saturday, September 20, 2014 - link
If you can afford an 8-core CPU, I'm sure you can afford a S2011 board - it's like 15% of the price of the CPU, so the cost relative to the rest of the platform is negligible. :)Also, s1150 is dual-channel only. With that many cores, you'll want more bandwidth.
peevee - Wednesday, March 25, 2015 - link
For many, if not most workloads it will be faster to run 4 fast (4GHz) cores on 4 fast memory channels (DDR4-2400+) than 8 slow (2-3GHz) cores on 2 memory channels. Of course, if your workload consists of a lot of trigonometry (sine/cosine etc), or thread worksets completely fit into 2nd level cache (only 256k!), you may benefit from 8/2 config. But if you have one of those, I am eager to hear what it is.tech6 - Monday, September 8, 2014 - link
The 18 core SKU is great news for those trying to increase data center density. It should allow VM hosts with 512Gb+ of memory to operate efficiently even under demanding workloads. Given the new DDR4 memory bandwidth gains I wonder if the 18 core dual socket SKUs will make quad socket servers a niche product?Kevin G - Monday, September 8, 2014 - link
In fairness, quad socket was already a niche market.That and there will be quad socket version of these chips: E5-4600v3's.
wallysb01 - Monday, September 8, 2014 - link
My lord. My thought is that this really shows that v3 isn’t the slouch many thought it would be. An added 2 cores over v2 in the same price range and turbo boosting that appears to functioning a little better, plus the clock for clock improvements and move to DDR4 make for a nice step up when all combined.I’m surprised Intel went with an 18 core monster, but holy S&%T, if they can squeeze it in and make it function, why not.
Samus - Monday, September 8, 2014 - link
I feel for AMD, this just shows how far ahead Intel is :\Thermogenic - Monday, September 8, 2014 - link
Intel isn't just ahead - they've already won.olderkid - Monday, September 8, 2014 - link
AMD saw Intel behind them and they wondered how Intel fell so far back. But really Intel was just lapping them.