Off-topic: Intel Core i9-9880H vs. Xeon E-2276M

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Off-topic: Intel Core i9-9880H vs. Xeon E-2276M

Alistair Grant
 
Hi All,

I hope you don't mind a somewhat off-topic question:  Does anyone
happen to know which will be faster for running Smalltalk (i.e. single
threaded application, and given the rest of the laptop is the same):

Intel Core i9-9880H vs. Xeon E-2276M


Intel® Xeon E-2276M, 6 Core, 12M Cache, 2.80GHz, 4.70GHz Turbo, 35W, vPro

Intel® CoreTM i9-9880H Processor, 8 Core, 16MB Cache, 2.30GHz, 4.80GHz
Turbo, 35W, vPro

Thanks,
Alistair
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Off-topic: Intel Core i9-9880H vs. Xeon E-2276M

Ben Coman
 
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 13:55, Alistair Grant <[hidden email]> wrote:

I hope you don't mind a somewhat off-topic question:  Does anyone
happen to know which will be faster for running Smalltalk (i.e. single
threaded application, and given the rest of the laptop is the same):

Intel Core i9-9880H vs. Xeon E-2276M


Intel® Xeon E-2276M, 6 Core, 12M Cache, 2.80GHz, 4.70GHz Turbo, 35W, vPro

Intel® CoreTM i9-9880H Processor, 8 Core, 16MB Cache, 2.30GHz, 4.80GHz
Turbo, 35W, vPro

Purely guesswork... that the 12MB cache is already huge and the 16MB not much more impactful.
Obviously we ignore the number of cores.  
Clock frequency should have the biggest impact for single-threaded apps, 
which primarily points to the Xeon, but I don't know how to judge the i9 turbo being faster.
Probably on a laptop you won't have the thermal overhead to run turbo too much.

By the numbers...

PassMark - CPU Mark - Single Thread Performance
Intel Xeon E-2276M @ 2.80GHz      2,684 (78%)          $450.00
Intel Core i9-9880H @ 2.30GHz       2,548  (74%)         $556.00


cheers -ben

 

 


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Off-topic: Intel Core i9-9880H vs. Xeon E-2276M

Alistair Grant
 
Hi Ben,

Thanks for your reply.

I'd always assumed that Xeon's were faster because they had a
different internal architecture to the Core range.  I guess the heat
and power constraints of mobiles mostly negate those differences.

Thanks again,
Alistair

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 12:41, Ben Coman <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 13:55, Alistair Grant <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I hope you don't mind a somewhat off-topic question:  Does anyone
>> happen to know which will be faster for running Smalltalk (i.e. single
>> threaded application, and given the rest of the laptop is the same):
>>
>> Intel Core i9-9880H vs. Xeon E-2276M
>>
>>
>> Intel® Xeon E-2276M, 6 Core, 12M Cache, 2.80GHz, 4.70GHz Turbo, 35W, vPro
>>
>> Intel® CoreTM i9-9880H Processor, 8 Core, 16MB Cache, 2.30GHz, 4.80GHz
>> Turbo, 35W, vPro
>
>
> Purely guesswork... that the 12MB cache is already huge and the 16MB not much more impactful.
> Obviously we ignore the number of cores.
> Clock frequency should have the biggest impact for single-threaded apps,
> which primarily points to the Xeon, but I don't know how to judge the i9 turbo being faster.
> Probably on a laptop you won't have the thermal overhead to run turbo too much.
>
> By the numbers...
>
> PassMark - CPU Mark - Single Thread Performance
> Intel Xeon E-2276M @ 2.80GHz      2,684 (78%)          $450.00
> Intel Core i9-9880H @ 2.30GHz       2,548  (74%)         $556.00
>
> https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html
> https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i9-9880H-vs-Intel-Xeon-E-2276M/3456vs3489
>
> cheers -ben
>
>
>
>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Off-topic: Intel Core i9-9880H vs. Xeon E-2276M

Ben Coman
 
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 21:12, Alistair Grant <[hidden email]> wrote:
 
Hi Ben,

Thanks for your reply.

I'd always assumed that Xeon's were faster because they had a
different internal architecture to the Core range. 

No, that would cost more.  The distinction between Xeon/i9/i7/i5 
is simply how well they test after manufacture.

Xeons were premium because there had to be less manufacturing errors to end up with larger caches.
But your i9 there has a larger cache, so maybe that quality dimension has shifted.
This is interesting reading...

cheers -ben 

I guess the heat
and power constraints of mobiles mostly negate those differences.

Thanks again,
Alistair

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 12:41, Ben Coman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 13:55, Alistair Grant <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I hope you don't mind a somewhat off-topic question:  Does anyone
>> happen to know which will be faster for running Smalltalk (i.e. single
>> threaded application, and given the rest of the laptop is the same):
>>
>> Intel Core i9-9880H vs. Xeon E-2276M
>>
>>
>> Intel® Xeon E-2276M, 6 Core, 12M Cache, 2.80GHz, 4.70GHz Turbo, 35W, vPro
>>
>> Intel® CoreTM i9-9880H Processor, 8 Core, 16MB Cache, 2.30GHz, 4.80GHz
>> Turbo, 35W, vPro
>
>
> Purely guesswork... that the 12MB cache is already huge and the 16MB not much more impactful.
> Obviously we ignore the number of cores.
> Clock frequency should have the biggest impact for single-threaded apps,
> which primarily points to the Xeon, but I don't know how to judge the i9 turbo being faster.
> Probably on a laptop you won't have the thermal overhead to run turbo too much.
>
> By the numbers...
>
> PassMark - CPU Mark - Single Thread Performance
> Intel Xeon E-2276M @ 2.80GHz      2,684 (78%)          $450.00
> Intel Core i9-9880H @ 2.30GHz       2,548  (74%)         $556.00
>
> https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html
> https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i9-9880H-vs-Intel-Xeon-E-2276M/3456vs3489
>
> cheers -ben
>
>
>
>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Off-topic: Intel Core i9-9880H vs. Xeon E-2276M

Paul DeBruicker
 
Xeon's also get to take advantage of ECC RAM and i9's (and the other i
series) don't.  

https://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2009/10/you-really-do-need-ecc-memory/



Ben Coman wrote
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 21:12, Alistair Grant &lt;

> akgrant0710@

> &gt; wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Ben,
>>
>> Thanks for your reply.
>>
>> I'd always assumed that Xeon's were faster because they had a
>> different internal architecture to the Core range.
>
>
> No, that would cost more.  The distinction between Xeon/i9/i7/i5
> is simply how well they test after manufacture.
>
> Xeons were premium because there had to be less manufacturing errors to
> end
> up with larger caches.
> But your i9 there has a larger cache, so maybe that quality dimension has
> shifted.
> This is interesting reading...
> https://www.quora.com/How-does-Intel-design-and-produce-so-many-models-of-CPUs/answer/Jacob-VanWagoner?share=1&srid=tpqN
>
> cheers -ben
>
> I guess the heat
>> and power constraints of mobiles mostly negate those differences.
>>
>> Thanks again,
>> Alistair
>>
>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 12:41, Ben Coman &lt;

> btc@

> &gt; wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 13:55, Alistair Grant &lt;

> akgrant0710@

> &gt;
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I hope you don't mind a somewhat off-topic question:  Does anyone
>> >> happen to know which will be faster for running Smalltalk (i.e. single
>> >> threaded application, and given the rest of the laptop is the same):
>> >>
>> >> Intel Core i9-9880H vs. Xeon E-2276M
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Intel® Xeon E-2276M, 6 Core, 12M Cache, 2.80GHz, 4.70GHz Turbo, 35W,
>> vPro
>> >>
>> >> Intel® CoreTM i9-9880H Processor, 8 Core, 16MB Cache, 2.30GHz, 4.80GHz
>> >> Turbo, 35W, vPro
>> >
>> >
>> > Purely guesswork... that the 12MB cache is already huge and the 16MB
>> not
>> much more impactful.
>> > Obviously we ignore the number of cores.
>> > Clock frequency should have the biggest impact for single-threaded
>> apps,
>> > which primarily points to the Xeon, but I don't know how to judge the
>> i9
>> turbo being faster.
>> > Probably on a laptop you won't have the thermal overhead to run turbo
>> too much.
>> >
>> > By the numbers...
>> >
>> > PassMark - CPU Mark - Single Thread Performance
>> > Intel Xeon E-2276M @ 2.80GHz      2,684 (78%)          $450.00
>> > Intel Core i9-9880H @ 2.30GHz       2,548  (74%)         $556.00
>> >
>> > https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html
>> >
>> https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i9-9880H-vs-Intel-Xeon-E-2276M/3456vs3489
>> >
>> > cheers -ben
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>





--
Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Squeak-VM-f104410.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Off-topic: Intel Core i9-9880H vs. Xeon E-2276M

Stephan Eggermont-3
 


> Op 24 sep. 2019 om 17:17 heeft Paul DeBruicker <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:
>
>
> Xeon's also get to take advantage of ECC RAM and i9's (and the other i
> series) don't.  

On a laptop? Unlikely. The actual speed difference is probably only dependent on the quality of the cooling and allowed temperatures. With the first 8-core MBPs there were complaints that they were not actually faster because of the heat limitations

Stephan


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Off-topic: Intel Core i9-9880H vs. Xeon E-2276M

Alistair Grant
In reply to this post by Ben Coman
 
Hi Ben,

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 16:39, Ben Coman <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 21:12, Alistair Grant <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Ben,
>>
>> Thanks for your reply.
>>
>> I'd always assumed that Xeon's were faster because they had a
>> different internal architecture to the Core range.
>
>
> No, that would cost more.  The distinction between Xeon/i9/i7/i5
> is simply how well they test after manufacture.
>
> Xeons were premium because there had to be less manufacturing errors to end up with larger caches.
> But your i9 there has a larger cache, so maybe that quality dimension has shifted.
> This is interesting reading...
> https://www.quora.com/How-does-Intel-design-and-produce-so-many-models-of-CPUs/answer/Jacob-VanWagoner?share=1&srid=tpqN

Now that you mention this, I do remember reading something similar (a
long time ago).

Thanks!
Alistair
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Off-topic: Intel Core i9-9880H vs. Xeon E-2276M

Alistair Grant
In reply to this post by Stephan Eggermont-3
 
Hi Paul & Stephan,

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 17:26, Stephan Eggermont <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Op 24 sep. 2019 om 17:17 heeft Paul DeBruicker <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:
> >
> >
> > Xeon's also get to take advantage of ECC RAM and i9's (and the other i
> > series) don't.
>
> On a laptop? Unlikely. The actual speed difference is probably only dependent on the quality of the cooling and allowed temperatures. With the first 8-core MBPs there were complaints that they were not actually faster because of the heat limitations

Right, ECC is supported on Dell's 3541 with a Xeon processor:
https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/workstations-isv-certified-dell/precision-3541-mobile-workstation/spd/precision-15-3541-laptop/xctop354115us4

Thanks,
Alistair
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Off-topic: Intel Core i9-9880H vs. Xeon E-2276M

Stephan Eggermont-3
 
Alistair Grant <[hidden email]> wrote:
>

>Right, ECC is supported on Dell's 3541 with a Xeon processor:
>https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/workstations-isv->certified-dell/precision-3541-mobile-workstation/spd/>precision-15-3541-laptop/xctop354115us4

Ah, that even looks luggable. Of course ECC memory is about 2% slower
itself. Any luck comparing the cooling? That seems not easy to find

Stephan