Sponsors
Sponsor Products
Not all Xeons have virtualization support?
posted by Jean-Francois Panisset  on July 18, 2016, 4:06 p.m. (4 years, 16 days ago)
3 Responses     0 Plus One's     0 Comments  
Was reading an article on NVMe drives on The Register and this tidbit caught my attention:

===
As an aside, did you know that the 2685 v3s don't have hardware virtualization capability? Ability to turn off individual cores, but no virtualization extensions. This "metal only" CPU design is why...
===

And indeed, comparing the E5-2685v3 and E5-2690v3:

http://ark.intel.com/products/81712/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2685-v3-30M-Cache-2_60-GHz
http://ark.intel.com/products/81713/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2690-v3-30M-Cache-2_60-GHz

The 2685 shows "No" for the various virtualization-related features. Possibly due to living in a cave, I had never heard of that: a bit of Googling hasn't revealed anything, has anyone seen a discussion as to why this is a thing? Or is it just some weird feature differentiation to pad out the Xeon product line? I guess for render farm applications it mostly doesn't matter...

JF


Thread Tags:
  discuss-at-studiosysadmins 

Response from Greg Dickie @ July 18, 2016, 4:06 p.m.
I miss the "Turbo" button
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Jean-Francois Panisset <panisset@gmail.com> wrote:
Hmm, interesting. On the other hand the 2685 also doesn't support Hyper Threading, and on Arnold for instance the last time I measured this I saw around 15% better performance with HT enabled... And for well multi-threaded apps using all cores the 2685 should be at the "2" "Turbo" level so effective clock speed of 2.6 + .2 = 2.8GHz, the 2690 should be at "5" and thus 3.1GHz. So in theory it seems the 12% power increase of the 2690 is paid for by the (potential) performance increase since the parts have the same list price.

But I guess it all depends on your workload...

JF



On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Saker Klippsten <sakerk@gmail.com> wrote:
Its 11% more power efficient120w vs 135wAlso max 3.3ghz vs 3.5ghz
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/419/Intel_Xeon_E5-2685_v3_vs_Intel_Xeon_E5-2690_v3.html

Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 27, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Jean-Francois Panisset <panisset@gmail.com> wrote:

Was reading an article on NVMe drives on The Register and this tidbit caught my attention:

===
As an aside, did you know that the 2685 v3s don't have hardware virtualization capability? Ability to turn off individual cores, but no virtualization extensions. This "metal only" CPU design is why...
===

And indeed, comparing the E5-2685v3 and E5-2690v3:

http://ark.intel.com/products/81712/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2685-v3-30M-Cache-2_60-GHz
http://ark.intel.com/products/81713/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2690-v3-30M-Cache-2_60-GHz

The 2685 shows "No" for the various virtualization-related features. Possibly due to living in a cave, I had never heard of that: a bit of Googling hasn't revealed anything, has anyone seen a discussion as to why this is a thing? Or is it just some weird feature differentiation to pad out the Xeon product line? I guess for render farm applications it mostly doesn't matter...

JF

To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe

To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe


To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe



--


Greg Dickie
just a guy514-983-5400

0 Plus One's     0 Comments  
   

Response from Saker Klippsten @ July 18, 2016, 4:06 p.m.
Its 11% more power efficient120w vs 135wAlso max 3.3ghz vs 3.5ghz
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/419/Intel_Xeon_E5-2685_v3_vs_Intel_Xeon_E5-2690_v3.html

Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 27, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Jean-Francois Panisset <panisset@gmail.com> wrote:

Was reading an article on NVMe drives on The Register and this tidbit caught my attention:

===
As an aside, did you know that the 2685 v3s don't have hardware virtualization capability? Ability to turn off individual cores, but no virtualization extensions. This "metal only" CPU design is why...
===

And indeed, comparing the E5-2685v3 and E5-2690v3:

http://ark.intel.com/products/81712/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2685-v3-30M-Cache-2_60-GHz
http://ark.intel.com/products/81713/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2690-v3-30M-Cache-2_60-GHz

The 2685 shows "No" for the various virtualization-related features. Possibly due to living in a cave, I had never heard of that: a bit of Googling hasn't revealed anything, has anyone seen a discussion as to why this is a thing? Or is it just some weird feature differentiation to pad out the Xeon product line? I guess for render farm applications it mostly doesn't matter...

JF

To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe

0 Plus One's     0 Comments  
   

Response from Jean-Francois Panisset @ July 18, 2016, 4:06 p.m.
Hmm, interesting. On the other hand the 2685 also doesn't support Hyper Threading, and on Arnold for instance the last time I measured this I saw around 15% better performance with HT enabled... And for well multi-threaded apps using all cores the 2685 should be at the "2" "Turbo" level so effective clock speed of 2.6 + .2 = 2.8GHz, the 2690 should be at "5" and thus 3.1GHz. So in theory it seems the 12% power increase of the 2690 is paid for by the (potential) performance increase since the parts have the same list price.

But I guess it all depends on your workload...

JF



On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Saker Klippsten <sakerk@gmail.com> wrote:
Its 11% more power efficient120w vs 135wAlso max 3.3ghz vs 3.5ghz
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/419/Intel_Xeon_E5-2685_v3_vs_Intel_Xeon_E5-2690_v3.html

Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 27, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Jean-Francois Panisset <panisset@gmail.com> wrote:

Was reading an article on NVMe drives on The Register and this tidbit caught my attention:

===
As an aside, did you know that the 2685 v3s don't have hardware virtualization capability? Ability to turn off individual cores, but no virtualization extensions. This "metal only" CPU design is why...
===

And indeed, comparing the E5-2685v3 and E5-2690v3:

http://ark.intel.com/products/81712/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2685-v3-30M-Cache-2_60-GHz
http://ark.intel.com/products/81713/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2690-v3-30M-Cache-2_60-GHz

The 2685 shows "No" for the various virtualization-related features. Possibly due to living in a cave, I had never heard of that: a bit of Googling hasn't revealed anything, has anyone seen a discussion as to why this is a thing? Or is it just some weird feature differentiation to pad out the Xeon product line? I guess for render farm applications it mostly doesn't matter...

JF

To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe

To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:studiosysadmins-discuss-request@studiosysadmins.com?subject=unsubscribe


0 Plus One's     0 Comments