Passmark has some benchmarks, including the E5 v3s , updated today ...
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
"The King of the Hill" is only 2.3 GHz ?
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
"The King of the Hill" is only 2.3 GHz ?
What one will see, very quickly, is that the new SKUs generally offer
slightly lower clock speeds to maintain a 45w TDP. Maintaining this
figure while adding 50% to 100% more cores and cache is no small feat
and it makes sense that clock speeds suffer. We also see the TDP
figures rise to 65w in order to accommodate more cores and higher
clock speeds.
We introduced the Core * Base GHz and Thread * Base GHz figures just
to show how much of an improvement this is. The new chips represent
double the cores but up to about 62% more clock cycles in aggregate
over what we had as the previous fastest chip, the Intel Xeon D-1541.
We also now, in the same TDP figure, have 23% more raw compute.For servers, doing more things slightly slower is (usually) better than doing fewer things faster, so Intel usually puts core count over clock speed for their Xeon CPUs. For a desktop system that's unlikely to be doing more than 3 or 4 things at once, you can prioritize single core performance and higher clockspeeds.
It's also considerably more efficient to have more slower cores than fewer faster cores. Reducing power consumption and reducing heat is a win-win in a datacenter.
Video Encoding isn't that well multi-threaded either as it's some what linearly dependent (you can't just encode random frames without having the previous frames/key frames done for references which means you can usually do 2-4 frames at the time so run off becomes and issue when you have more cores than frames to encode), 3D rendering is also a mixed bag depending on what type of raster and post processing you use you will get substantially different scaling between number of threads vs pure clock speeds.
In any case video encoding and 3D rendering (at least the ones that one will do on a desktop) will benefit much more from multiple high end GPU's than from an increase in CPU cores, the more or less conversion is that GPU numbers give almost 1 to 1 scaling where additional CPU's (cores) give you 0.3-0.5 on average in the best case scenarios (there are a few cases where CPU scales almost as well as GPU but they aren't that common).
(I don't know what this measures, though. It seems to be about 1,900 to 2,100 for the newer chips - even the one in my laptop. The score doesn't vary us much as the clock speed, though clock speed seems to be a factor.)
The boost levels are typically defined as "bins", i.e. the max clock if 1, 2, 3, etc. cores are active. Can't find Xeon-specific info, but this page shows some general information on the topic: https://www-ssl.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/processo...