difference between sandy bridge and ivy bridge

According to Intel, enabling turbo allows the Xeon E5 to perform 14% better in the SAP S&D 2 tier test.

The CPU can briefly go beyond the TDP limits, and when returning to the TDP limit, the CPU can sustain higher 'steady-state' clockspeed. Other core improvements include an improved branch prediction unit and a more efficient Out-of-Order backend with larger buffers.Ī vastly improved Turbo 2.0. For example, the µop cache lowers the pressure on the decoding stages and lowers power consumption, killing two birds with one stone. Johan’s words say it best, from his article on the E5-2600 in March 2012:Ĭompared to its predecessor, the Xeon X5600, the Xeon E5-2600 offers a number of improvements:Ī completely improved core, as described here in Anand's article.

Thankfully Gigabyte was on hand to supply their GA-7TESM DP socket 1366 Xeon board and a pair of X5690s in order to run the comparison. As part of the feedback to the review, I was asked by several readers using the older Westmere-EP platform doing similar types of calculations if it was worth pushing their research budget for a move from Westmere-EP to high-end Sandy Bridge-E, and whether the jump in cores/IPC would cost effective in those simulation scenarios. Earlier this year I wrote a review of a dual processor Sandy Bridge-EP system from the point of view of the non-CS trained coder in a research group, and whether the limited knowledge of advanced processor commands (beyond basic C++ with OpenMP) was a hindrance to dual processor systems on some simple grid solvers/Brownian motion simulation.

Difference between sandy bridge and ivy bridge