Quad Xeon: the Quanta QSCC-4R Benchmark Configuration

CPU Quad Intel Xeon "Westmere-EX" E7-4870
(10 core/20 threads at 2.4GHz, 2.8GHz Turbo, 30MB L3, 32nm)
RAM 32 x 4GB (128GB) Samsung Registered DDR3-1333 at 1066MHz
Motherboard QCI QSSC-S4R 31S4RMB00B0
Chipset Intel 7500
BIOS version QSSC-S4R.QCI.01.00.S012,031420111618
PSU 4 x Delta DPS-850FB A S3F E62433-004 850W

The quad Xeon configuration is equipped with 128GB RAM to make sure that all memory channels are filled.

Dual Xeon: ASUS RS700-E6/RS4 Configuration

CPU Dual Intel Xeon “Westmere” X5670
(6 core/12 threads at 2.93GHz, 3.33GHz Turbo, 12MB L3, 32nm)
RAM 12 x 4GB (48GB) ECC Registered DDR3-1333
Motherboard ASUS Z8PS-D12-1U
Chipset Intel 5520
BIOS version Version 1.003
PSU Delta Electronics DPS-770 AB 770W

The dual Xeon server in contrast "only" has 48GB. This has no influence on the benchmark results, as the benchmarks use considerably less RAM.

Quad Opteron: Dell PowerEdge R815 Benchmarked Configuration

CPU Quad AMD Opteron "Magny-Cours" 6174
(12 cores at 2.2GHz, 12MB L3, 45nm)
RAM 16x4GB (64GB) Samsung Registered DDR3-1333 at 1333MHz
Motherboard Dell Inc 06JC9T
Chipset AMD SR5650
BIOS version v1.1.9
PSU 2 x Dell L1100A-S0 1100W

We reviewed the powerful but compact Dell R815 here. This time we're running 64GB, though again the amount of RAM was selected to make sure memory performance is optimized rather than for usage requirements.

Introduction to Server Benchmarking Cinebench Release 11.5
POST A COMMENT

52 Comments

View All Comments

  • MrSpadge - Friday, September 30, 2011 - link

    Agreed - performance of a single i7 2600 can be hard to beat, depending on the application. My Matlab code uses all physical cores through the Intel Math Kernel Library, yet is ~30% slower on 2 x X5570 (wich is about the difference in clock speed, incidently).

    MrS
    Reply
  • JohanAnandtech - Friday, September 30, 2011 - link

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/4486/server-renderin...

    the core i970 3.2 GHz is included. But indeed, it has been some time since we have used backburner.

    Is this the kind of bench you are looking for?
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/2240/7

    Backburner scales extremely well, so I suspect that especially the Quad MC Dell is a very good choice compared to a workstation.
    Reply
  • JoeKan - Friday, September 30, 2011 - link

    Yes - the backburner test is it. Although I use different rendering software, that test would be appropriate as the visualization rendering can properly represent real life usage and can stress the hardware at the same time.

    The test linked uses frames 20-29. I'd like to see a longer frame sequence.

    The reason I asked that a workstation be used as a base reference is because that gives us, the readers, a point of reference to compare against. I define a workstation as a single CPU box anyone can build with off the shelf components, like a i7-2600K, or a i7-970 - a performance CPU in the $300+ to $600 range. That allows one to compare performance on a per $ basis.

    Not a true 'workstation' as it does not use a Xeon, but it gives the ability to compare 'performance' to 'performance per buck' basis.

    By using a $1000+ class CPU for comparison the 'bang for the buck' comparison is distorted.
    Reply
  • xxtypersxx - Friday, September 30, 2011 - link

    I love reading about the high end server hardware, its like F1 compared to road cars.

    As for benchmarks, may I suggest the linux x64 Folding at Home client? We know it scales past at least 128 cores without issue and as many of us that fold are running server hardware anyway, it will attract a new audience to the reviews.
    Reply
  • rehm - Friday, September 30, 2011 - link

    Hello,
    for CFD benchmarking you could also consider the code OpenFOAM. It scales very well and is gaining a lot of interest in industry and academia. Memory behaviour should be comparable to Fluent and it can be compiled with gcc and icc.

    Regards
    Reply
  • JohanAnandtech - Friday, September 30, 2011 - link

    Very nice suggestion... but is there a sample solution/ benchmark we can measure? It is a bit hard for a hardware reviewer to come up with very specialized realworld tests :-). Reply
  • ozztheforester - Friday, September 30, 2011 - link

    I am currently using a bunch of 2600k's for rendering in the past I used some dual xeon setups but only found those being extremely inefficient on cost/performance ratio. Can you please let us know the cost and power consumption of this system?

    currently getting around 8.72 points on cinebench 11.5 on a 2600k pc @4.5ghz which is consuming less than 200 watts at full load and costing a bit less than 800usd

    also I would suggest using vray for multi thread benchmarks
    Reply
  • sicofante - Friday, September 30, 2011 - link

    Why didn't you set up a scene in Maya or Softimage and then render it with Mental Ray? THAT would be a professional test, Cinebench is not.

    BTW, no matter how powerful, these Xeon E7 systems are a no-go for studios. They are plainly anti-economical. You can have a much sensibler setup by putting ordinary Xeons or overclocked Core i7s in many racks, i.e., a rendering farm.

    (Note: I build rendering farms for studios. Since 3D rendering grows almost linearly with frequency, what matters in the end is Euros/GHz, that is normalized GHz)
    Reply
  • Phynaz - Friday, September 30, 2011 - link

    What studio renders on overclocked desktop cpu's? Reply
  • confusis - Friday, September 30, 2011 - link

    My studio does. We can't yet step up to a higher end multi-socket rendering server (finances, start-up company) so we make do with Phenom II x4's. A desktop box is good value for money at our end of the company scale. Once we grow we'll be looking at Interlagos however Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now