Moving up the Xeon product stack, the larger and more complicated the die, the lower the yield. Intel sells its 14-18 core Xeons from a top end design that weighs in at over five billion transistors, and we have had two of the 14C models in for review: the E5-2695 V3 (2.3 GHz, 3.3 GHz turbo) and E5-2697 V3 (2.6 GHz, 3.6 GHz turbo).

The Information

It can only take one particular transistor to fail to break a whole CPU. If it happens in a core as part of the logic or caches, that core can be fused off and the die can sold as a lower core part. This is how yields are improved, by reusing the dies that have errors in removable sections. Ultimately this reduces the maximum amount of profit on offer, but it enables CPU manufacturers like Intel and AMD to sell a range of products, rather than just one from a single design. The way Intel designs its high end E5 V3 Xeons, from an 18-core die, means that its 14 core components either have at least two defects, or are perfectly fine 18 core models but need to fill up demand.

CPU Specification Comparison
  CPU Node Cores GPU Transistor Count
Die Size
Server CPUs
Intel Haswell-EP 14-18C 22nm 14-18 N/A 5.69B 662mm2
Intel Haswell-EP 10C-12C 22nm 6-12 N/A 3.84B 492mm2
Intel Haswell-EP 6C-8C 22nm 4-8 N/A 2.6B 354mm2
Intel Ivy Bridge-EP 12C-15C 22nm 10-15 N/A 4.31B 541mm2
Intel Ivy Bridge-EP 10C 22nm 6-10 N/A 2.89B 341mm2
Consumer CPUs
Intel Haswell-E 8C 22nm 8 N/A 2.6B 356mm2
Intel Haswell GT2 4C 22nm 4 GT2 1.4B 177mm2
Intel Haswell ULT GT3 2C 22nm 2 GT3 1.3B 181mm2
Intel Ivy Bridge-E 6C 22nm 6 N/A 1.86B 257mm2
Intel Ivy Bridge 4C 22nm 4 GT2 1.2B 160mm2
Intel Sandy Bridge-E 6C 32nm 6 N/A 2.27B 435mm2
Intel Sandy Bridge 4C 32nm 4 GT2 995M 216mm2
Intel Lynnfield 4C 45nm 4 N/A 774M 296mm2
AMD Trinity 4C 32nm 4 7660D 1.303B 246mm2
AMD Vishera 8C 32nm 8 N/A 1.2B 315mm2

I mentioned in the 12 core review that Intel can play fast and loose with their binning process, giving customers almost what they desire in terms of performance and power, as long as they are willing to pay that price.  The same could be said for the 14-18 core market, but rather than offer a swathe of units, Intel offers around half a dozen ranging from a 2.0 GHz 14-core to the E5-2699 V3 2.3 GHz 18-core. Intel could release a 65W, 18 core monster, and even though it might come through at 1.2 GHz, this type of SKU is not on the roadmap (unless, perhaps, you meet the high minimum order quantity). If given the opportunity, I would like to see the process by which Intel decides to select which SKUs to bin for retail vs. OEM and custom parts. I suspect it is a combination of part market demand, part yield, part wishful thinking, but I would hope it is at least systematic. Based on the core orientation image below, there might be complications dealing with that final column of six cores, against the other columns of four, either in voltage response characteristics or discrete production errors which might also have another effect.

Our samples in today come in with the E5-2695 V3 at 2.3 GHz base frequency (3.3 GHz turbo) and the E5-2697 V3 at 2.6 GHz (3.6 GHz turbo). When considering the Xeon naming stack, each number from 2695 to 2699 is taken except from 2696, and as such one might humorously postulate that Intel is merely running out of SKU names. Though an added L or W might find its way in if more models joined the list.

In our last test, as well as previous reviews, the results showed that a 2P system, such as the dual E5-2650L V3s, performed poorly in most of our testing software compared to having one big single CPU in a 1P socket in most circumstances. The 1P arrangement tends to outperform a 2P system when the software is not built to take advantage of the NUMA arrangement. Intel does sell CPUs like the E5-1691 V3, a 14 core chip for 1P systems, or we can go straight into the E5-2699 V3 for 18 cores, but there will always be a market for 2P players who need the large memory capacity or who use software similar to Cinema 4D that is NUMA aware.

Intel Xeon E5 2600 v3 SKU Comparison
Xeon E5 Cores/
TDP Clock Speed (GHz)
Base - Turbo 
High Performance (35-45MB LLC)
2699 v3 18/36 145W 2.3-3.6 $4115
2698 v3 16/32 135W 2.3-3.6 $3226
2697 v3 14/28 145W 2.6-3.6 $2702
2695 v3 14/28 120W 2.3-3.3 $2424
"Advanced" (20-30MB LLC)
2690 v3 12/24 135W 2.6-3.5 $2090
2685 v3 12/24 120W 2.6-3.5 $2090
2680 v3 12/24 120W 2.5-3.3 $1745
2660 v3 10/20 105W 2.6-3.3 $1445
2658 v3 (E) 12/24 105W 2.2-2.9 $1832
2650 v3 10/20 105W 2.3-3.0 $1167
Midrange (15-25MB LLC)
2640 v3 8/16 90W 2.6-3.4 $939
2630 v3 8/16 85W 2.4-3.2 $667
2620 v3 6/12 85W 2.4-3.2 $422
Frequency optimized (10-20MB LLC)
2687W v3 10/20 160W 3.1-3.5 $2141
2667 v3 8/16 135W 3.2-3.6 $2057
2643 v3 6/12 135W 3.4-3.7 $1552
2637 v3 4/8 135W 3.5-3.7 $996
Budget (15MB LLC)
2609 v3 6/6 85W 1.9 $306
2603 v3 6/6 85W 1.6 $213
Power Optimized (20-30MB LLC)
2650L v3 12/24 65W 1.8-2.5 $1329
2648L v3 (E) 12/24 75W 1.8-2.5 $1544
2630L v3 8/16 55W 1.8-2.9 $612

The big cores get a big power budget and a big price to match. The movement from the 2695 to the 2697 is only a few hundred MHz, but Intel charges and additional $278 for the privilege with a rise in 25 TDP. In terms of frequency response both of the CPUs follow the same path, marking an extra 300 MHz for the difference in power and price.

If we did some basic 24/365 100% use calculations, using the TDP and $0.10/kWh, The 2697 V3 would consume 1270 kWh and cost $127/yr compared to the 2695 V3 which would consume 1050 kWh and cost $105/yr. This is obviously not including any additional cooling needed, but the $22 difference in power per year against $278 in the CPU price difference would indicate 15 years of running to make up the difference. Clearly the cost per CPU matters more regarding how much work is going to be done per unit time. If the contract takes less time to complete, then it can sway the preference in terms of the faster CPU if the contract is CPU compute or response bound.

As this the third in our recent series of Xeon E5-2600 v3 performance coverage, we have covered most of the technical data in our previous two installments regarding 10 core and 12 core performance. We carry over the data from those tests, but refer back for details regarding chipset and DRAM information, as well as Johan’s extensive review covering in depth more of the server-focused aspects of the Xeon E5 v3 design.

Test Setup

As with the previous reviews, due to the timing available to test each of our CPU samples we were only able to get a limited range of E5-2695 V3 benchmark results. However, we were able to source two E5-2697 V3 CPUs for dual 14-core analysis leading to a 56-thread behemoth.

Test Setup
Processor Intel Xeon E5-2695 V3 (120W), 14C/28T, 2.3 GHz (3.3 GHz Turbo)
Intel Xeon E5-2697 V3 (145W), 14C/28T, 2.6 GHz (3.6 GHz Turbo)
Motherboards ASUS X99-Deluxe
ASRock X99 Extreme6
Cooling Cooler Master Nepton 140XL
Dynatron R14
Power Supply OCZ 1250W Gold ZX Series
Corsair AX1200i Platinum PSU
Memory ADATA XPG Z1 DDR4-2400 8x8 GB 1.2V
Corsair DDR4-2133 C15 4x8 GB 1.2V
G.Skill Ripjaws 4 DDR4-2133 C15 4x8 GB 1.2V
Memory Settings JEDEC @ 2133
Video Cards AMD R7 240 DDR3
Video Drivers AMD Catalyst 13.11
Hard Drive OCZ Vertex 3 256GB
Optical Drive LG GH22NS50
Case Open Test Bed
Operating System Windows 7 64-bit SP1

Many thanks to...

We must thank the following companies for kindly providing hardware for our test bed:

Thank you to OCZ for providing us with PSUs and SSDs.
Thank you to G.Skill for providing us with memory.
Thank you to Corsair for providing us with an AX1200i PSU.
Thank you to MSI for providing us with the NVIDIA GTX 770 Lightning GPUs.
Thank you to Rosewill for providing us with PSUs and RK-9100 keyboards.
Thank you to ASRock for providing us with some IO testing kit.
Thank you to Cooler Master for providing us with Nepton 140XL CLCs.
Thank you to GIGABYTE Server for loaning us some CPUs and Dynatron CPU coolers.

Load Delta Power Consumption

Power consumption was tested on the system while in a single MSI GTX 770 Lightning GPU configuration with a wall meter connected to the OCZ 1250W power supply. This power supply is Gold rated, and as I am in the UK on a 230-240 V supply, leads to ~75% efficiency > 50W, and 90%+ efficiency at 250W, suitable for both idle and multi-GPU loading. This method of power reading allows us to compare the power management of the UEFI and the board to supply components with power under load, and includes typical PSU losses due to efficiency.

We take the power delta difference between idle and load as our tested value, giving an indication of the power increase from the CPU when placed under stress.

Power Consumption Delta: Idle to AVX

Professional Performance
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • mapesdhs - Friday, November 21, 2014 - link

    Small point for C-ray: the benchmark home page URL is at my sgidepot site, not
    on the Blinkenlights site, because the latter is just a mirror (and it's down atm,
    hence why it should not be used as the home URL for any of my pages, ie. I have
    no control over the Blinkenlights site).

  • cynic783 - Friday, November 21, 2014 - link

    What is going on at Anand. Why are they doing desktop tests on a server?
    What happened to the server benchmarks, e.g. SQL, VM, etc.

    WGAF about browser and gaming benchmarks on a datacenter server? Seriously.
  • romrunning - Friday, November 21, 2014 - link

    I agree. No database benchmarks and especially no VM benchmarks make this a sad review.

    This is especially egregious when you add in useless web browsing tests. No one who is looking at this class of processor is really worried about web browsing on it.
  • deontologist - Friday, November 21, 2014 - link

    Looks like when Anand left he took half the intellect away from the team ... This is a piss poor review ... Where are my separate idle/load power usage data? Why are you guys benching games? Ffs this site has gone done the tubes with slow reviews and on top of that useless reviews. Anand must be so proud of you kids.
  • androticus - Saturday, November 22, 2014 - link

    Don't you people have editors? I understand not all authors are native English speakers, but sheesh at least get someone to edit before publication.
  • linuxnizer - Saturday, November 22, 2014 - link

    Sever class CPU but many many gaming and video benchmarks!!!! Seriously ?!!
    No enterprise class tests!
    Like DB tests / VM tests / Java EE tests / web tests with thousands of hits per second.
  • HollyDOL - Saturday, November 22, 2014 - link

    I have to agree... as a server cpu review those benchmarks are kind of useless.
    Anybody here who would buy $4000 cpu to play games (...most of which epically suck at utilizing 4 cores properly)? For gaming that cpu has to suck anyway since it's not it's purpose.
    It's seriously missing server usage tests... web hosting, heavy db and vm, ldap, sap, encryption etc. etc. - it was said here many times over.
  • Jurgen_modeling - Sunday, November 23, 2014 - link

    Dear Ian,

    Thank you very much for posting this 14-core review. Could you please confirm that the 2697 v3 even under full (100%), continuous load (e.g. over >6 h) has a steady-state frequency of 3.1 GHz and does not clock down to 2.6 GHz as suggested by the base frequency of the processor?

    I noticed that in your 12-core review, the same thing happened with base frequencies being below the steady-state frequencies.

    The same thing seems to have happened here for the 10-core CPUs.

    Even the 18-core model seems to have a base clock frequency of around 2.6 GHz and not 2.3 as suggested by the processor label.

    If possible, I would love to see a 2-D version of the two frequency response profiles which you published on the last site of this 14-core review. 3D is much harder to read out data.

    Thank you & Kind regards
  • Jurgen_modeling - Sunday, November 23, 2014 - link

    Another comment re gaming benchmarks and Xeon v3: These just hurt my heart. The 2P and 4P Xeon server market is already only relevant for a very specific market of people. If anyone buys a Xeon v3 server and plans to game on this CPU, I don't think any review can save such a high-end Xeon-gaming enthusiast. (-:

    Cheers, Juergen
  • daxomni - Monday, November 24, 2014 - link

    Why isn't anyone from the staff responding to the glaring omissions and repeated complaints? What's the point of having a comments section if the staff couldn't care less what the readers are actually looking for in a server review? This article reads like something you'd do during garbage time on a Friday afternoon for a weekend release, not as a core review of expensive hardware on a strict schedule.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now