The Intel Xeon 5670: Six Improved Cores
by Johan De Gelas on March 16, 2010 3:39 PM EST- Posted in
- IT Computing
Final Words
In a few weeks, there will be new dual CPU offerings from both AMD and Intel. We will need to start over again, so any conclusion we make today has a very short lifespan. For those of you who did not find the right benchmark among the ones we presented here, we will add more benchmarks then. Power consumption is also on our to do list. Our first power tests show there is little difference between the power consumption of the same server whether it contains 32 nm six-core X5670 or 45 nm quad-core X5570 CPUs.
So what can we conclude so far? Add two cores and a few tweaks to a server CPU architecture which already has the fastest cores on the market and you’ll get very impressive results. Right now, the six-core Xeon wins every comparison with a similar dual CPU configuration. The interesting thing to note is that the margin varies heavily with the type of application.
ERP applications and OLTP databases benefit a lot from the increased L3-cache, hyperthreading and the extra cores. The result is that those applications show absolutely stunning results for Intel: the dual CPU platform is just as fast as AMD best quad CPU configurations. With twice the amount of performance per core there is simply no other option than Intel.
The a similar picture appears for the well scaling native applications such as OLAP or DSS databases. The Xeon 5670 did not slaughter the competition there, but it was still significantly ahead. Be aware though that many native applications will only scale well in certain scenarios. Database size, usage patterns, disk performance and other factors must all be considered. It is not because your application runs on Oracle or SQL Server that it will automatically make good use of the extra cores and threads. A single six-core Xeon will be fast enough in a lot of cases and a second CPU might only add 30% or so.
The only server of which the performance almost always scales well with extra cores is a virtualized one, providing there are no other hardware bottlenecks of course. If you are shopping around for a server which has to house lots and lots of light VMs (VDI comes to mind), the VMmark results point only in one direction: the new six-core Xeon. At the other end of the performance spectrum is our own “heavy duty” virtualization benchmarking. Running 8 very heavy VMs requiring 24 virtual CPUs runs still best on the Intel Xeon on ESX. When it comes to Hyper-V, the difference is a lot smaller. So for those of you who want to consolidate on Hyper-V, we would advise you to wait a few more weeks. Octal cores from Intel and AMD and twelve-cores from AMD will make the next server CPU comparison much more tense.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
40 Comments
View All Comments
yinan - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - link
Bah 6 cores. 8 sockets by 8 cores is where it is at :)landerf - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - link
I always wish with these server/workstation part reviews that we could get a gaming page just for kicks. Specifically in this case I'm thinking of the upcoming dual socket EVGA board and if it will have any effect on games or if it will be only synthetics that show a benefit. I'd also like to see a modern workstation card vs it's mainstream counterpart to see if the gaming performance gap has gotten smaller or larger over the years. I think recently there's been a push to make workstation cards do better in 3d games so you can test your work on the same rig, cutting back on the number of systems.GeorgeH - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - link
I'd also be curious to see the E5620 overclocked in a consumer board, as its ~$400 price fills the hole between the ~$300 i7-920/930 and the ~$600 i7-950 rather nicely.Intel's PR people would probably get pissed, but screw 'em.
jonup - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - link
I was about to post the same. There is a lot of people using Xeons in X58 and P55 boards. Some prefer the lower power consumption others beleive the Xeons oc better. Please show us the money!DigitalFreak - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - link
You do realize that the 55xx/56xx series Xeons only work in dual socket motherboards?!?GeorgeH - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - link
I think you've got that backwards. A dual socket motherboard needs 5-series chips, but a 5-series should work in a single socket board just fine. In general it'd be silly to run only one (a 2.66GHz W3520 costs ~$300 while a 2.66GHz X5550 costs ~$1000) but if the cheapest 32nm LGA-1366 chip is a 5-series Xeon it might be worth it.jonup - Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - link
But you can get E5520 @2.26GHz for $390 and get a faster QPI.greylica - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - link
Blender 3D 2.50 in his Alpha 2 Stage supports 64 simultaneous Threads, and it's not hard to make benchmarks, and I am missing Blender 3D benchmarks in every processor launch, what happened with ''Blender 3D Character benchamrks'' ?Blender can extract blood from those ''beasts''...
JohanAnandtech - Wednesday, March 17, 2010 - link
I have indeed heard more than once that Blender is getting really popular. "Alpha 2" does not sound like the software is very stable. Any suggestion to what kind of scene I should use? The scene choice is very important as the parallel rendering part must be long enough compared to some of serial parts in the process. You can mail me at johan@anandtech.com if you like. I am open to suggestions.MySchizoBuddy - Tuesday, March 16, 2010 - link
Also add HPC related benchmarks