![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
![Zarathustra[H]](https://cdn.hardforum.com/data/avatars/m/9/9298.jpg?1707758471){kind=avatar}
Two 8C/16T Ivy Bridge Xeon E5-2650 v2's with 256GB of ECC RAM. This would have been quite the workstation back when it was new
I lied.
New server is up and running, and I couldn't bring myself to decommission my dually, so I used it to upgrade my testbench build.
The server fans were a little much though, so I grabbed some 92mm Noctuas to replace them
View attachment 623718
Two 8C/16T Ivy Bridge Xeon E5-2650 V2's with 256GB of ECC RAM. This would have been quite the workstation back when it was new
All the PCIe lanes definitely help with all of my testbench/backup/imaging work though. And the fact that it has ECC makes me feel better about using ZFS on it.
The question is what I do with the old Sandy Bridge-E x79 Workstation board I was using in the testbench. It has been with me since 2011. I almost get a little misty-eyed at the thought of it no longer being in service somehow.
View attachment 623719
It was my main desktop from 2011 to 2019. I bought it when Bulldozer sucked at launch, and used it until I upgraded to my Threaderipper in 2019, then it went in the Testbench where it has been since.
Pass on to someone else! Working hardware, especially ones that have this level of love poured into them, deserve to continue to live on until they have nothing left in them.
That's still a beautiful board that will do great for someone's first nas build with the native 8x sata ports and x16 slots for 10Gb. It's still got a long life ahead...somewhere.
I lied.
New server is up and running, and I couldn't bring myself to decommission my dually, so I used it to upgrade my testbench build.
The server fans were a little much though, so I grabbed some 92mm Noctuas to replace them
View attachment 623718
Two 8C/16T Ivy Bridge Xeon E5-2650 V2's with 256GB of ECC RAM. This would have been quite the workstation back when it was new
All the PCIe lanes definitely help with all of my testbench/backup/imaging work though. And the fact that it has ECC makes me feel better about using ZFS on it.
The question is what I do with the old Sandy Bridge-E x79 Workstation board I was using in the testbench. It has been with me since 2011. I almost get a little misty-eyed at the thought of it no longer being in service somehow.
View attachment 623719
It was my main desktop from 2011 to 2019. I bought it when Bulldozer sucked at launch, and used it until I upgraded to my Threaderipper in 2019, then it went in the Testbench where it has been since.
So it's 8C/16T (total of 16C/32T across two sockets) E5-2667 v2 at 4Ghz OR 12C/24T (total of 24C/48T across two sockets) E5-2697 v2 at 3.5Ghz. Marginally better every day responsiveness for the testbench/imaging/IT type workloads I use it for, OR 2013 era Cinebench queen, so I can say "yeah, that box over there in the corner imaging that drive is 24C/48T over two sockets"
For funsies like this, I will usually use the passmark results to help figure out what cpu and then ebay for the pricing:I'm tempted to - for fun - go on eBay and see if I can pick up the fastest this gen of Xeon e5's had to offer. (Ivy Bridge is where this maxes out, because after that they switched to DDR4)
I'm torn. Do I go for max clock speed, something like a pair of E5-2667 v2's or 2687W v2's which both have 8C/16T and can boost to 4.0GHz, or do I go in the opposite direction and maximize core count, something like a pair of E5-2697 v2's which have 12C/24T and can boost up to 3.5Ghz...
It will probably come down to what is cheapest. This is totally just a "because I am curious" project, with little to no budget or need to justify it.
I mean, for my use case, higher clock speeds are probably going to be more beneficial, but we are only talking going from a max boost of 3.4Ghz to 4.0Ghz, a whopping 17.6% clock speed increase.
From a "10 minutes of fun, running and posting a Cinebench benchmark" perspective, the 12 core models would probably win
Looking at the options, a pair of E5-2687W v2's are the most expensive option, surprisingly still almost going for $100. 8 cores, 3.4ghz base, 4.0ghz max. A whopping 150W TDP. That might be a bit much for the little 92mm 4U compatible CPU coolers.
The E5-2667 v2's are almost identical. Same core count (8), same boost clock, (4.0Ghz), but 100 Mhz lower base clock (3.3Ghz vs 3.4Ghz). A slightly more reasonable 130W TDP. A pair of these will run me $47.99, which is a more reasonable budget for this fun little project.
A pair of 12C/24T E5-2697 v2's are about the same price. We are talking a base of 2.7Ghz, and a max clock of 3.5Ghz, so a 100Mhz increase on both base and boost clocks, but 50% more cores...
Decisions, decisions
I've eliminated the 2687W's. To expensive for a little fun curiosity project. That and the 150W TDP is a little much.
So it's E5-2667 v2 vs E5-2697 v2. Slightly better every day responsiveness for the testbench/imaging/IT type workloads I use it for, OR 2013 era Cinebench queen, so I can say "yeah, that box over there in the corner imaging that drive is 24C/48T over two sockets"
As I was typing this, it struck me that there was a missed opportunity here to have asymmetrical multi-socket systems. You know, put a high clocking, few core CPU in one socket, to handle peak low threaded loads, and a many core low clocked CPU in another for threaded stuff. It would have required the OS scheduler to be aware, which it definitely wasn't in 2013, but it would have resulted in some fun solutions.
What ever you think you'll enjoy the most.So which one would you guys go for?
Agreed. It's not quite that straight forward though. For one, faster cores improve all workloads, whereas more cores only improve some workloads.
That, and while few core max boost on the 2697 v2's is 3.5Ghz, all core turbo speed is reportedly limited to only 3Ghz.
Still, as you say, the difference is unlikely to be noticeable in anything I do. This is strictly for funsies. And since that is the case, I think the 2697 v2 might be more fun
More cores, more fun?
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbXSbP-wEFU&t=27s
Just gotta exercise them all *cough* Cinebench *cough* 
Nice case.
Agreed. It's not quite that straight forward though. For one, faster cores improve all workloads, whereas more cores only improve some workloads.
That, and while few core max boost on the 2697 v2's is 3.5Ghz, all core turbo speed is reportedly limited to only 3Ghz.
Still, as you say, the difference is unlikely to be noticeable in anything I do. This is strictly for funsies. And since that is the case, I think the 2697 v2 might be more fun
More cores, more fun?
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbXSbP-wEFU&t=27s
Well, there we go.
View attachment 626087
I have to say, that was slightly disappointing. Maybe windows update4 was screwing me in the background or something.
Going to have to re-run it at some point.
That said, this is probably pretty close to the ceiling for Ivy Bridge, at least at stock.
I could probably get a little bit more performance out of it by switching in some non-ECC UDIMM's at desktop speeds instead of the 16x16GB Registered ECC DDR3-1600. (I want to say it supports up to 1866Mhz)
Also, I wonder how much faster it would have been before the Spectre/Meltdown mitigations....
Anyway, we are talking about $1000 for the motherboard, $2600 each of for the two CPU's and another ~$1000 for the RAM back in 2013. That's ~$7,200 only to ~tie a Ryzen 5 7600x
All things considered it's fairly impressive that, albeit with 50% more cores and threads, it still manages to keep up with a first generation Threadripper system. Bonus points for that being a NUMA CPU when run in 16c mode.
My HP DL380 G5 MSRP'd for over $7000 brand new. I got it for $65 with an installed license for windows server and storage over 5 years ago.Anyway, we are talking about $1000 for the motherboard, $2600 each of for the two CPU's and another ~$1000 for the RAM back in 2013. That's ~$7,200 only to ~tie a Ryzen 5 7600x
May not be the fastest duel cpu, but it was built well for sure.
Well, there we go.
View attachment 626087
I have to say, that was slightly disappointing. Maybe windows update4 was screwing me in the background or something.
Going to have to re-run it at some point.
That said, this is probably pretty close to the ceiling for Ivy Bridge, at least at stock.
I could probably get a little bit more performance out of it by switching in some non-ECC UDIMM's at desktop speeds instead of the 16x16GB Registered ECC DDR3-1600. (I want to say it supports up to 1866Mhz)
Also, I wonder how much faster it would have been before the Spectre/Meltdown mitigations....
Anyway, we are talking about $1000 for the motherboard, $2600 each of for the two CPU's and another ~$1000 for the RAM back in 2013. That's ~$7,200 only to ~tie a Ryzen 5 7600x
Wouldn't hurt to find some use for it that it can only do. I know some legacy stuff runs better on the older hardware than emulated.
Makes sense since they're in the same generation.
Nice.
Wouldn't hurt to find some use for it that it can only do. I know some legacy stuff runs better on the older hardware than emulated.
Pretty neat and good to know!
Yeah, those summary pages aren't worth the second it takes to load them. cpubenchmark/cpumonkey/userbenchmark/etc./etc. are generally pretty useless.
Well, there we go.
View attachment 626087
I have to say, that was slightly disappointing. Maybe windows update4 was screwing me in the background or something.
Going to have to re-run it at some point.
That said, this is probably pretty close to the ceiling for Ivy Bridge, at least at stock.
I could probably get a little bit more performance out of it by switching in some non-ECC UDIMM's at desktop speeds instead of the 16x16GB Registered ECC DDR3-1600. (I want to say it supports up to 1866Mhz)
Also, I wonder how much faster it would have been before the Spectre/Meltdown mitigations....
Anyway, we are talking about $1000 for the motherboard, $2600 each of for the two CPU's and another ~$1000 for the RAM back in 2013. That's ~$7,200 only to ~tie a Ryzen 5 7600x
Might want to look at it again and break out the calculator
Might want to look at it again and break out the calculator
Xeon Haswell can be turbo-boosted on all cores with BIOS hack, though the clock will be reduced when hitting the TDP limit. I had all threads at 2.9GHz easily on 4699v3 (18C/36T) when running non-avx BOINC workload. The 2696v3 is a beast if you can run all 18C/36 threads anywhere from 3.1 or 3.6GHz but really depends on the type of workload. Note the 4669v3 TDP is only 10W lower than 2696v3 (135W vs 145W)
