3 ms·

Weird using a E3-1230 v3 in 2023, it's over 10 years old. A similar modern low end CPU would be many times faster.

smarx007 3y ago
I guess they used whatever CPU gives a relative price parity with the VMs: https://www.hetzner.com/sb?country=de https://www.hetzner.com/sb?country=de
justsomehnguy 3y ago
Depends on the task/load. Modern low end wouldn't be many times faster, at least not with a lower core/thread count https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/75054/intel-xeon-processor-e31230-v3-8m-cache-3-30-ghz.html https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/75054/i...
- toast0 3y ago
  I think a modern low end Xeon (desktop socket) is something like this. https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/212263/intel-xeon-w1350-processor-12m-cache-up-to-5-00-ghz.html https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/212263/... That's 6 cores, so not quite fair, but w1350 also has a much higher boost frequency, bigger caches, more bandwidth to ram, and it's built on smaller lithography and several generations of core designs later. It's hard to find a comparison between rocket lake and haswell, but between all the differences in lowend xeon parts, you're probably seeing a significant increase in throughput if your load isn't bottlenecked on something else, but even then, 20 pci-e 4.0 lanes vs 16 pci-e 3.0 lanes is more than double the i/o capacity.
  - justsomehnguy 3y ago
    > you're probably seeing a significant increase As someone who had a chance to see the difference by it's own eyes: yes, it's faster, especially when the memory is the bottleneck. But it's not times faster in everyday tasks. Aside from the synthetic tests you are usually see more performance improvement from the overall system being faster (ie SATA to NVMe, more faster RAM) than just by CPU alone. There are some apps that are CPU bound (GHz first, RAM BW second) which gladly run way faster on these E3-16xx CPUs, than contemporary E5 multisocket monsters with tons of RAM... but waaay less GHz. These apps would be better on W1350, no questions.

I guess they used whatever CPU gives a relative price parity with the VMs: https://www.hetzner.com/sb?country=de https://www.hetzner.com/sb?country=de

justsomehnguy 3y ago

Depends on the task/load. Modern low end wouldn't be many times faster, at least not with a lower core/thread count https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/75054/intel-xeon-processor-e31230-v3-8m-cache-3-30-ghz.html https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/75054/i...

toast0 3y ago
I think a modern low end Xeon (desktop socket) is something like this. https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/212263/intel-xeon-w1350-processor-12m-cache-up-to-5-00-ghz.html https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/212263/... That's 6 cores, so not quite fair, but w1350 also has a much higher boost frequency, bigger caches, more bandwidth to ram, and it's built on smaller lithography and several generations of core designs later. It's hard to find a comparison between rocket lake and haswell, but between all the differences in lowend xeon parts, you're probably seeing a significant increase in throughput if your load isn't bottlenecked on something else, but even then, 20 pci-e 4.0 lanes vs 16 pci-e 3.0 lanes is more than double the i/o capacity.
- justsomehnguy 3y ago
  > you're probably seeing a significant increase As someone who had a chance to see the difference by it's own eyes: yes, it's faster, especially when the memory is the bottleneck. But it's not times faster in everyday tasks. Aside from the synthetic tests you are usually see more performance improvement from the overall system being faster (ie SATA to NVMe, more faster RAM) than just by CPU alone. There are some apps that are CPU bound (GHz first, RAM BW second) which gladly run way faster on these E3-16xx CPUs, than contemporary E5 multisocket monsters with tons of RAM... but waaay less GHz. These apps would be better on W1350, no questions.