@Suzanna,

I am not sure what your point is here. My general advice for SQL Server is to pick the processor with the best single-threaded performance for a given core count. For example, Intel typically offers several different processors (from the same family and generation) that have eight physical cores. In order to get the best single-threaded processor performance from each relatively expensive SQL Server core license, you want to pick the fastest processor at that core count, looking at the base clock speed, the Turbo clock speed, the L3 cache size, etc. Since Microsoft charges the same license cost per core regardless of the performance of the core, this just makes simple, common sense.

Solidworks is giving the same advice, for somewhat different reasons.

Why do you think that an E5-4655 v3 processor would be “slower” than an E5-4650 processor?

http://ark.intel.com/products/64622/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-4650-20M-Cache-2_70-GHz-8_00-GTs-Intel-QPI
http://ark.intel.com/products/85763/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-4655-v3-30M-Cache-2_90-GHz

The E5-4655 v3 has a higher base clock speed, a larger L3 cache spread across few cores, and a higher QPI speed. It is also using the newer Haswell microarchitecture, and DDR4 RAM. The Turbo speed of the E5-4650 is slightly higher, but it will probably not spend much time at full turbo speed. You give up some overall CPU capacity with six cores instead of eight cores, but you will have faster cores, so overall, your capacity will be pretty close, with better single-threaded performance on the E5-4655 v3.

Are you able to provide similar advice for a 4 cpu server that a client needs for his SQL Data Warehouse environment. He is looking to replace his current 4 cpu (E5-4650 2.7Ghz 8 cores 20MB) server in order to optimise (cost of) the SQL licences – they will be moving to SQL 2014 soon.

He’s looking at a lower core count higher frequency solution – the best available in the specific server series is the E5-4655v3 processor (2.9Gh/6-core/30MB). This would save a substantial amount of $$$ for the SQL licences. However, it appears performance will be slower on this option than on the current server.

What would you advise?

Thank you!

Listing the Turbo clock speed is a relevant statistic, especially with Haswell-EP, which is more aggressive about running multiple cores at higher speeds than previous processors. That said, my argument has always been that people should look at lower core count, “frequency-optimized” processors that have higher base clock speeds, for SQL Server usage.

E5-2699 v3, 18 cores, 2.3 GHz base clock
Max Turbo Clock with 9-18 cores being used: 2.8 GHz

E5-2698 v3, 16 cores, 2.3 GHz base clock
Max Turbo Clock with 9-16 cores being used: 2.8 GHz

E5-2697 v3, 14 cores, 2.6 GHz base clock
Max Turbo Clock with 6-14 cores being used: 3.1 GHz

E5-2690 v3, 12 cores, 2.6 GHz base clock
Max Turbo Clock with 5-12 cores being used: 3.1 GHz

E5-2660 v3, 10 cores, 2.6 GHz base clock
Max Turbo Clock with 5-10 cores being used: 2.9 GHz

E5-2667 v3, 8 cores, 3.2 GHz base clock
Max Turbo Clock with 3-8 cores being used: 3.4 GHz

E5-2643 v3, 6 cores, 3.4 GHz base clock
Max Turbo Clock with 3-6 cores being used: 3.6 GHz

E5-2637 v3, 4 cores, 3.5 GHz base clock
Max Turbo Clock with 3-4 cores being used: 3.6 GHz

New with the E5-2600v3 is that AVX instructions are executed with special base- and turbo clocks that are typically 0.1 to 0.5 MHz slower than than the regular frequencies.

Source (page 11-14):
http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/specification-updates/xeon-e5-v3-spec-update.pdf