> Power-per-dollar are the smaller 2S Xeons btw. Not the massive 36-core Xeons. Could you give a quote? All I could find about performance-per-dollar was this

> Power-per-dollar are the smaller 2S Xeons btw. Not the massive 36-core Xeons. Could you give a quote? All I could find about performance-per-dollar was this excerpt from [1]: > Ultimately, the POWER8 is able to offer slightly higher raw performance than the Intel CPUs, however it just won't be able to do so at the same performance/watt. Meanwhile the reasonable pricing of the POWER8 chips should result in third party servers that are strongly competitive with the Xeon on a performance-per-dollar basis. This was in conclusion to the E5-vs-Power8 comparison. For some reason they didn't use E7, however this shouldn't change the outcome, since according to [2] the E7 is basically the same chip with the same number of cores, just with a few more features enabled (4 and 8 socket systems possible and support for more memory). So AFAIK the E5 shouldn't be looked at as a "small" version of the E7, since taken for itself in isolation for a given benchmark that doesn't have extremely high memory demand, it should deliver the same performance. Whether you need an E7 or not should be decided in terms of the architecture you want to build, not the performance you aim for. [1]http://anandtech.com/show/9193/the-xeon-e78800-v3-review/7 http://anandtech.com/show/9193/the-xeon-e78800-v3-review/7 [2]http://anandtech.com/show/9193/the-xeon-e78800-v3-review/3 http://anandtech.com/show/9193/the-xeon-e78800-v3-review/3