Benefits of Dual Xeon in 2017?

[corinthos]

Aside from ECC memory advantages, what are still considered the benefits of a Dual Xeon setup in 2017, when you have products like 8+ core Ryzen, Naples on the horizon which may bring new levels of value to server/workstation applications, and Intel's i7 10-core Extreme processor, among others. They are multi-core, run at higher frequency, unless you get into the much more expensive Xeons that run in the 3ghz+ range.

Are there still benefits to a 2 x e5-2650v4 (2.2ghz, 2.9 turbo, 30mb, 12 cores, 24 threads x 2) which require 2 cpus, 2 heatsink fans, a more expensive server board?

Video Editing is my main interest, followed by using virtual machines in a production environment as well as experimental vm's, followed by some development work, followed by some light gaming. From what I've read, it seems Adobe Premiere Pro for Windows return on investment maxes out around 6 cores, while Final Cut Pro X for Mac OSX performs extremely well with relatively modest Apple hardware, and DaVinci Resolve seems to be more GPU intensive and ROI maxes out around 6-8 cores?

Would you be better off getting an Octa-core CPU with 3-4ghz frequency vs 12-core CPU with 2.2ghz frequency, overall?

What if one wants to have a solid jack of all trades system that can support simultaneously the following:

1. multiple VM's - some are production workstations, some are experimental/educational, consisting of a variety of OSes. some may be 24/7 servers/services.

2. video editing workstation (could be thru a VM if possible and powerful enough using gpu passthru), otherwise not in a VM but operating at the same time as multiple VM's.

3. development workstation ( could be thru a VM or not).. to develop applications, learn programming languages and add to skill sets; may use SQL database backends.

4. private cloud, private file server (ftp or otherwise)

5. video encoding/transcoding/ripping from CD source or live source like TV tuner card.

6. large ram disk for temporary volatile temp storage (to encrypt/decrypt/load files without hitting a platter or any actual writing/saving.

7. ability to play latest games albeit not with maxed out settings, either thru VM or not, while simultaneously serving the other above purposes. maybe allowing 2 people to play two different games on two different displays at the same time.

Would a dual Xeon e5-2650v4 be better suited for such an all-in-one machine vs a single octa-core CPU or 10-core extreme CPU running at a 3ghz+ higher frequency vs 2.2ghz w/ 24 cores?

I can get the e5-2650v4 for half the retail price thru the employee program and am not sure if i'd be better off investing in such a setup vs a 8/10 core single cpu workstation.

ALSO, what are some other neat applications for a 24 core, 48 thread dual cpu workstation/server @ 2.2ghz that wouldn't be possible or done as well on a 8/10 core single cpu setup?

Thanks in advance!

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Well, MOAR COARS, right?

But if you're talking 10 cores at ~4GHz, vs. 24 cores at ~2.2, I'd probably take the 10. Even if there is slightly fewer aggregate GHz to play with, multicore scaling is almost never perfect, and like it or not, single-threaded performance still matters. So it'd be a better all-round system.

The advantage of Xeon-anything over Ryzen would seem to be memory bandwidth. (2-channel vs. 4-channel.) Sometimes that doesn't matter, but sometimes it REALLY matters. So it's dependent on what you're doing. (Nothing you listed would be a problem AFAIK, but I'm sure somebody reading this has a use case.)

Honestly, with your use case list, I'd probably be dividing that up over 2-3 systems. (One 24/7 server/VM host, probably a used server with a bunch of cores and RAM - those are fairly affordable - and one "high end" workstation/gaming rig with a Ryzen/i7. Also possibly one or more Pi-type or NUC-type systems for, say, your TV Tuner slave or something.)

 

[Mr Evil]

One advantage of Xeon systems is that because they have been around for a while, you can sometimes pick them up really cheap second-hand.

 

[corinthos]

Well, MOAR COARS, right?

But if you're talking 10 cores at ~4GHz, vs. 24 cores at ~2.2, I'd probably take the 10. Even if there is slightly fewer aggregate GHz to play with, multicore scaling is almost never perfect, and like it or not, single-threaded performance still matters. So it'd be a better all-round system.

The advantage of Xeon-anything over Ryzen would seem to be memory bandwidth. (2-channel vs. 4-channel.) Sometimes that doesn't matter, but sometimes it REALLY matters. So it's dependent on what you're doing. (Nothing you listed would be a problem AFAIK, but I'm sure somebody reading this has a use case.)

Honestly, with your use case list, I'd probably be dividing that up over 2-3 systems. (One 24/7 server/VM host, probably a used server with a bunch of cores and RAM - those are fairly affordable - and one "high end" workstation/gaming rig with a Ryzen/i7. Also possibly one or more Pi-type or NUC-type systems for, say, your TV Tuner slave or something.)

Any reason you recommend 2-3 systems? I guess you may mean it's more cost efficient that way and also maybe less vulnerable to downtime compared to trying to do most things on a dual e5-2650v4?

I am able to get E5-2609v4 (8 cores, 1.7ghz) for $154.00 each new. That'd be 16 cores, 32 threads for a server, but it's running at 1.7ghz (I was going to get E5-2650v4 12 cores, 24 threads, 2.2ghz each to serve as a workstation/server, jack of all trades type of machine). If I were to have 2-3 systems instead, I suppose the dual e5-2609v4 could do strictly server tasks.

Aside from that, I also have 7700K + mobo. Got it because it will serve to handle single threaded workloads that thrive on high frequency, and quad-core workloads like most games today. also because KabyLake is first to support ultra blu-ray playback on PC.. eventually i'd like to do that ultimately in hopes of ripping discs, but mainly for now to enjoy higher definition 4k blu-ray content from PC (I may re-evaluate and end up getting standalone ultra bd player if the advantages and quality are clearly superior to pc solution).

So, those 2 systems would fill gaming/single threaded workloads and server roles.. for workstation/video editing stuff, I guess Ryzen 1700+ overclocked may be a good option/value.. either that or Intel 5820k..?

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Any reason you recommend 2-3 systems?

For the money, a used rackmount servers are a lot of power; and they're easy to find with ridiculous amounts of RAM. And they're reliable as anything.

But they're loud as hell, so you can't really use them in an office or living space. (They need to be in the garage or the basement or something, preferably with some sound deadening around.)

Also, it's nice to be able to turn your gaming machine off once in a while. Or try a new version of Linux without turning your VMs off. (If you have other people in the house using those services, that might be an issue. Crashplan, Plex, Kodi, file servers, whatever.)

Also, if you only have one computer, how do you google how to fix it when it breaks?

I am able to get E5-2609v4 (8 cores, 1.7ghz) for $154.00 each new. That'd be 16 cores, 32 threads for a server, but it's running at 1.7ghz (I was going to get E5-2650v4 12 cores, 24 threads, 2.2ghz each to serve as a workstation/server, jack of all trades type of machine). If I were to have 2-3 systems instead, I suppose the dual e5-2609v4 could do strictly server tasks.

Well, again, I'm thinking you buy used for money reasons. If you're dead set on buying all new kit, then your math is all different.

 

[sm625]

Since Ryzen and broadwell have somewhat similar IPC, you could jsut multiply the number of cores by the clock speed and use that as a rough total performance number.

8x3.4 = 27.2
12x2.2 = 26.4
16x1.7 = 27.2

So a 3.4GHz Ryzen would theoretically be slightly faster than a 12 core 2.2GHz broadwell, and it would be about the same as the 16C 1.7GHz. But since the 16C would lose some performance due to core and cluster scaling, and because it is likely to use more power, you would want to go with the simpler 8C.

 

[mnewsham]

Since Ryzen and broadwell have somewhat similar IPC, you could jsut multiply the number of cores by the clock speed and use that as a rough total performance number.

8x3.4 = 27.2
12x2.2 = 26.4
16x1.7 = 27.2

So a 3.4GHz Ryzen would theoretically be slightly faster than a 12 core 2.2GHz broadwell, and it would be about the same as the 16C 1.7GHz. But since the 16C would lose some performance due to core and cluster scaling, and because it is likely to use more power, you would want to go with the simpler 8C.

That's a rather simplistic view of it
If you know the types of operations you'll be doing you can look at those operations specific performance on the architecture in question.

Even with similar IPC, certain operations can be significant worse or better depending on any number of other factors. Examining what you actually plan on using the CPU for and looking at actual real world scenarios is going to give you a better idea on expected performance. Especially if you know the software you're going to be using.


This isn't to say Ryzen wouldn't be a good option, but there is more to look at than just average IPC.

 

[crashtech]

I agree with Dave, the usage case indicates the need for at least two machines, one server and one workstation, the server taking tasks 1 and 4, as well as some of the large jobs from 2 and 5 through a VM if needed.

 

[ultimatebob]

One advantage of Xeon systems is that because they have been around for a while, you can sometimes pick them up really cheap second-hand.

Yeah, you can find old Dell PowerEdge servers on eBay for dirt cheap. I recently bought one with a quad core Xeon, 16 GB of ECC RAM, and 4 1 TB SAS drives in RAID-5 for around $200. Even older dual socket systems like a T420 or R420 are reasonably priced.

I'd buy one of those for your VM load, and use a separate system for gaming. I can only imagine what would happen to the VM's you had running when your shiny new first person shooter crashes.

 

[corinthos]

That's a rather simplistic view of it
If you know the types of operations you'll be doing you can look at those operations specific performance on the architecture in question.

Even with similar IPC, certain operations can be significant worse or better depending on any number of other factors. Examining what you actually plan on using the CPU for and looking at actual real world scenarios is going to give you a better idea on expected performance. Especially if you know the software you're going to be using.

This isn't to say Ryzen wouldn't be a good option, but there is more to look at than just average IPC.

Thanks guys. So, it sounds like the general recommendation in the thread has been to fill the aforementioned use cases with 2-3 separate machines rather than try to do it all under a single dual 12-core 2.2gh xeon system with loads of ram and maybe 2 good gfx cards in SLI.

Sounds like I should look at 1 workstation and 1 server, at least? Maybe if I needed the best performance for gaming/vr/single threaded workloads, I'd have a separate quad core 7700k gaming rig. I have a general idea of direction in terms of a chip for gaming rigs (6700k-7700k quad core 4+ghz or the like) and for 6-8 core workstations (5820k or ryzen 1700+ oc; maybe a 1p xeon in the 3ghz range?)... but for the server workloads that I'd want to do (use cases mentioned in original post), how do I determine what is the best balance between price/performance/# cores?

I am able to get E5-2650v4 at about $620 a piece (12 cores, 2.2 ghz/2.9 turbo). Motherboard would cost another $300. Loads of RAM (128GB) I can get for $400. Then there's 2 heatsink/fans needed, so maybe another $100. That's about $2200 total so far.

If I were instead to take that same money and get 1 workstation and 1 server (and maybe a dedicated gaming rig?), what would be a superior combination (superior in the sense that it's the best bang for the buck and performs well for what I want to do)? I can get pretty much any Intel CPU for half off the MSRP thru the employee program.

4k+ Video decoding/encoding/transcoding and video editing (Adobe Premiere Pro or DaVinci Resolve, or Final Cut Pro X using Hackintosh), encryption/decryption, private file server, maybe personal cloud, multiple VM's for production work on different OS images, some experimental testing also, gaming (including 4k and VR - looking at HTC VIVE or may wait for next gen), software development, maybe an MS SQL server or two, other servers/services as I come across the desire to add them.

 

[corinthos]

Bump

Any recommendations about v3 or v4 Xeon chips to use for server?

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Your best bang for the buck is going to be used servers like I linked above.

Second best (if you insist on DIY) is going to be something midrange - when you get too high up in core count or clockspeed, you start paying a heavy premium.

Since you're buying through a work discount program, I'd probably get your price list, filter it to 10 and 12-core CPUs, and go up the list until I found a GHz/$ value I was comfortable with. (E5-2650/E5-2660 is about where I get off the bus. You may have more cash to burn.) It's not really easy to recommend something more than that - I mean, they're all basically the same silicon, rated to run at different speeds, that fall along a spectrum of pricing. It's not as though there's a particular model that's an especially good deal, or that's definitely something to avoid.

The thing is, if you can go used, you get a complete system for less than the price of CPUs (even with your discount). Even if they're only 75% as fast because they're older architecture... man, that's hard to say no to.

 

[corinthos]

Your best bang for the buck is going to be used servers like I linked above.

Second best (if you insist on DIY) is going to be something midrange - when you get too high up in core count or clockspeed, you start paying a heavy premium.

Since you're buying through a work discount program, I'd probably get your price list, filter it to 10 and 12-core CPUs, and go up the list until I found a GHz/$ value I was comfortable with. (E5-2650/E5-2660 is about where I get off the bus. You may have more cash to burn.) It's not really easy to recommend something more than that - I mean, they're all basically the same silicon, rated to run at different speeds, that fall along a spectrum of pricing. It's not as though there's a particular model that's an especially good deal, or that's definitely something to avoid.

The thing is, if you can go used, you get a complete system for less than the price of CPUs (even with your discount). Even if they're only 75% as fast because they're older architecture... man, that's hard to say no to.

Thanks.. so I guess I mean how do I know if e5-2609v4 is enough vs e5-2650v4? Former costs 150 thru the employee program, latter 580. Plus tax.

Also for used, which chips and motherboard or prebuikt solution at what price would be good?

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Oh, for motherboards, SuperMicro or GTFO.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Thanks.. so I guess I mean how do I know if e5-2609v4 is enough vs e5-2650v4? Former costs 150 thru the employee program, latter 580. Plus tax.

Also for used, which chips and motherboard or prebuikt solution at what price would be good?

Ah. Well, for a VM host, I would definitely skip over anything without Hyperthreading. So that's one knock on the 2609v4. The 2650v4 does seem like good all-'rounders, particularly for that price.

For your server:

To determine what your CPU needs would be, I'd look at your estimated workload, and try to work out how many CPUs you want for each VM, and what number of VMs will be loaded at the same time. Add a little buffer just in case.

That said, if you're doing, say, automated load testing of a massively scaleable web app, you might think you need 32 cores, but at that point, I'm in the "just rent some servers from Amazon" camp.

I'd look at your specific applications and see if anything is going to be single-thread limited. (e.g., HAProxy) That would drive me towards a lower-core-count, higher-clocked CPU, like maybe the E5-2640v4. (10 cores instead of 12, but higher clocks, much higher turbo, and lower TDP.)

Also, I'd be looking at the applications you run and see if anything either 1) is clusterable, or 2) benefits from GPGPU. That will effect your hardware plans.

Adding up the stuff you mention in your first post, it seems to me that a single 2640v4 or 2650v4 would be plenty. Using a single CPU in a dual socket board is possible, but it does sometimes require specific RAM slot population. (It's nothing weird - just read the manual and put the RAM where they tell you.) You can drop in a second CPU if you need the extra overhead, but I kinda doubt you will.

In any case, I'd probably err on the side of not enough CPU in favor of MOAR RAMZ and faster storage/SSDs. If you skimp on storage and RAM, you tend not to notice UNTIL EVERYTHING COMES CRASHING DOWN AT ONCE AND IT'S ALL TERRIBLE!!!

For your workstation:

How important is gaming? If it's really important, then find somebody's i7-7700K build and copy it. Done.

If you're going to be doing more workstation stuff than gaming, I'd still be tempted to stick with a "mere mortal" desktop i7 - if you have a big render job or whatnot, you can always farm it out to the server. But if you will really be crunching data - say, doing Maya modelling or something, then go with an HEDT platform/CPU. An AsRock X99 Extreme3 and either ann i7-6840K or E5-1650v4 would make for a pretty nice setup.

 

[corinthos]

Ah. Well, for a VM host, I would definitely skip over anything without Hyperthreading. So that's one knock on the 2609v4. The 2650v4 does seem like good all-'rounders, particularly for that price.

For your server:

To determine what your CPU needs would be, I'd look at your estimated workload, and try to work out how many CPUs you want for each VM, and what number of VMs will be loaded at the same time. Add a little buffer just in case.

That said, if you're doing, say, automated load testing of a massively scaleable web app, you might think you need 32 cores, but at that point, I'm in the "just rent some servers from Amazon" camp.

I'd look at your specific applications and see if anything is going to be single-thread limited. (e.g., HAProxy) That would drive me towards a lower-core-count, higher-clocked CPU, like maybe the E5-2640v4. (10 cores instead of 12, but higher clocks, much higher turbo, and lower TDP.)

Also, I'd be looking at the applications you run and see if anything either 1) is clusterable, or 2) benefits from GPGPU. That will effect your hardware plans.

Adding up the stuff you mention in your first post, it seems to me that a single 2640v4 or 2650v4 would be plenty. Using a single CPU in a dual socket board is possible, but it does sometimes require specific RAM slot population. (It's nothing weird - just read the manual and put the RAM where they tell you.) You can drop in a second CPU if you need the extra overhead, but I kinda doubt you will.

In any case, I'd probably err on the side of not enough CPU in favor of MOAR RAMZ and faster storage/SSDs. If you skimp on storage and RAM, you tend not to notice UNTIL EVERYTHING COMES CRASHING DOWN AT ONCE AND IT'S ALL TERRIBLE!!!

For your workstation:

How important is gaming? If it's really important, then find somebody's i7-7700K build and copy it. Done.

If you're going to be doing more workstation stuff than gaming, I'd still be tempted to stick with a "mere mortal" desktop i7 - if you have a big render job or whatnot, you can always farm it out to the server. But if you will really be crunching data - say, doing Maya modelling or something, then go with an HEDT platform/CPU. An AsRock X99 Extreme3 and either ann i7-6840K or E5-1650v4 would make for a pretty nice setup.

Thanks for the feedback! While I can get a 2650v4 for half off MSRP ($620 after tax), which gives me 12 cores, 24 threads, 2.2ghz/2.9hz turbo, like you were saying earlier, I can get something like dual 2670v1 for about $200 ($100 a piece, maybe even $50 a piece if I buy used pulls), that'd give me 16 cores, 32 threads, 2.6ghz/3.x ghz turbo. But doing some reading from users who have tried this config, some are thrilled with the bang for the buck while others seem unimpressed and find it slower than a 4-6 core i7. Cinebench R15 multi-core rates a dual 2670v1 at about a score of 1800-2000, and dual 2650v4 at a score of 30xx, or roughly 50% faster. Total in CPU cost would be $100-200 vs $1250. Seems like the dual 2760v1 would be the better bang for the buck. It wouldn't include all of the newest cpu features that v4 would have, but it does have virtualization optimizations. Also might not have usb3 but an add-on card could take care of that.

Lastly, a single Ryzen 1700x seems to be neck and neck with dual 2670v1 setup in cinebench r15 results. Saw some youtube test where the Ryzen actually finished like 20 seconds faster. Cost for the total system going with Ryzen vs dual 2670v1 is roughly the same, but the frequency of the Ryzen is higher, which may help it pull ahead in single threaded benches.

Seems Ryzen 1700x or dual 2670v1 would give me best bang for the buck. Ryzen 1700x probably better all-arounder but fewer cores. Also some things don't seem ready with support for Ryzen w/ vmware exsi. So there would be some things that'd require waiting for mature Ryzen support from 3rd parties. Ryzen 1700x multi-core cinebench r15 score with 1 cpu is close to e5-2650v4 1 cpu score at around 15xx. When you have 2 e5-2650v4, the score becomes twice as high at around 30xx.

I guess I'd learn towards single ryzen 1700x ($329) or dual 2670v1 ($100-200) for pure price performance over single 2650v4 ($620), but I'm a little concerned that there may be some feature support available in xeon v4 that isn't available in v1 and at some point it'll bite me in the butt because I'll find it desirable to have that feature later). Also, v1 motherboards come with older features, but i guess i can compensate for that with add-on cards. So it seems Ryzen 1700x is a good middle ground since it should have the latest features in the cpu and motherboard, with the caveat that some 3rd party programs aren't fully supporting Ryzen or aren't supporting it at all just yet.

As for e5-2640v4, I agree with that being a good option, depending on my use cases, but it's not available on the employee purchase site so I'd be paying roughly the same for that vs 2650v4 which is half off on the employee site.

Most important for me is to have the best video editing solution. Puget Systems did a study and found that a single processor system with like 8-10 cores and higher frequency performed best for video editing (adobe premiere), and that the dual xeon combinations didn't do as well. I think they officially recommend single cpu for video editing based on their research. In that case, the best 8-10 core single chip right now is a 6950x but it comes at a premium (for me it'd be $950 or so after tax), almost 3x as much as Ryzen 1700x, 4.5-9 times more than dual 2670v1, and 50% more than a single 2650v4.. Cinebench R15 multicore is around 1792 for that 6950x (when not overclocked, when overclocked it can be as high as 27xx score.. that Puget study and remarks from some people with dual xeon setups complaining about disappointing performance makes me reluctant to jump on board the dual xeon bandwagon, yet the price/performance based on bench scores makes it very tempting.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Well, like I said upthread, if you're thinking of buying old v1 Xeons, you might as well just buy a whole used rig. Buying used parts always ends up being a headache, imo.

Yeah, they don't have the single-core performance of the new hardware, but that's not why you buy them.

I didn't mention Ryzen because I figured you worked for Intel. I'd still go with a Xeon platform for your vm host, but for a workstation it'd be ideal. There's a Xeon e5-16xx model that's on par with the i7-6950x but maybe that's not in your price list either?

Your comment about not knowing whether or not you are going to be using the features of the newer cpu architecture indicates that you don't actually know what you'll be using these for...