I agree, it would be useful to see video transcode performance, there's a few times when you want a media server with fast video transcode performance (i.e. real time 1080p60).
Yes! I'd love to see iGPU encoding numbers, too. I would be buying one of these Xeons to get the encoding offloading you couldn't get with a Threadripper or EPYC.
For iGPU encoding you don't need a Xeon. For that any IGP based consumer desktop CPUs like Core i3/i5 or AMD Ryzen 2400G APU will do at a much cheaper price.
@kuttan, you don't understand. I need a *server* system that has IPMI. i3/i5 or Ryzen systems don't provide IPMI. I also need a Micro ATX formfactor with 10GBASE-T NICs. Not going to happen on a i3/i5 or Ryzen system. Thanks though.
Thru-out the article I kept thinking.. Oh look a 6core product when 8core processors are becoming the norm at reasonable prices in desktop computers. In server settings I wonder why that would even be something to write home about.
Well, you really have to want/need that ECC RAM to make this worthwhile. Otherwise there is no point to going with an "E" over the equivalent desktop part.
Ya, and there are still a truly dizzying array of SKUs on display here when only maybe 4 might be justifiable for a 6-core workstation CPU market. Gotta love product segmentation.
I agree, small businesses (like me) want a small dev server to run VMs, and an eight core (no HT) single socket box could be reasonably cost effective. There's a big jump in pricing to dual socket high core counts.
These CPUs are primarily designed for workstations and purpose built servers. There is quite a huge market between home PCs and AWS datacenters. :-P
There are multiple scenarios for which these Xeons will be the most cost-effective or even the fastest ECC-enabled CPUs available. Intel can provide a perfect CPU for a particular use case, so they do. :-)
So am I reading this correctly: Intel expects people to pay extra for old Coffee Lake chips and buy a more expensive, niche motherboard just to get ECC support when every single AMD Ryzen CPU supports ECC?
That would be laughable if the 'free' market actually worked, but given the fact that Intel commands such control over the system integrators and the PC industry as a whole, SIs aren't even marketing AMD hardware to their business customers (or home users for the most part, for that matter...)
Intel has always loved to charge extra where ever they can. ECC, Virtualization and any number of other things over the years so that really isn't a surprise. On the Ryzen side my understanding is that while AMD doesn't disable it in the CPUs most consumer motherboards don't support ECC as it requires some extra memory traces. So while the AMD situation is better you can't just use ECC in any random Ryzen system.
AFAIK you are correct in that actual VIOS-side support is hit and miss and rrequires motherboard manufacturers to actually implement the watchdog calls to halt the system on a double fault (although ECC does correct single bit faults without any intervention so long as it's working.) but it requires no extra hardware and would be easily implemented by an SI trying to sell a complete Ryzen system to a customer, so that's really no excuse.
*BIOS-side, obviously (technically wrong anyway but I guess we can consider EFI a type of BIOS if we aren't going by strict definitions.) Stupid on-screen keyboard.
Doesn't it also require additional traces on the MB to transmit the ECC info as the memory controller is doing the ECC calculation and checking not the memory module itself?
Most IT departments don't build their own systems. They'll standardize with something like Dell or HP, and maybe do things like RAM/HDD upgrades, etc.
The cost of the CPU in a system is usually a relatively small cost compared to the overall total. Support costs can dwarf initial purchase costs. The more that a company can standardize their hardware, the easier it is to maintain it.
For example, IT may want to test patches before letting them be applied across the organization. If, in an ideal scenario, every system was exactly the same, then potentially only one test would be needed to make sure it works properly.
Of course that often won't be possible, but the closer they can remain to that ideal, the better.
To me it looks like AVX 512 gets a whopping 44% ( ~ 5200 / 3600 ) increase on similar equip similar CPU. It would be nice to see same cpu with and without AVX 512 enabled test.
Have my 2186G on pre-order with them as well, for over a month now. Already have the 64GB ECC UDIMMs and Asus C-246 Pro board just waiting. IMHO, the biggest let down with the Asus board is that it doesn't have USB 3.1 2.0 header on the motherboard. Have inquiry with Asus about support for 9900K CFL-R CPU's haven't heard back yet.
No. They've had them in and out of stock. If you pre-ordered and the item comes in stock for even a penny more your item will not be shipped. They will only fulfill your order when the item comes into stock for the amount you paid. This has left a very bad taste in my mouth when ordering with Provantage and I'm likely not going to order from them again.
For example the E-2176G was in stock with them for $1 more than I paid. Did they ship it or notify me that I could pay the extra $1 and have it ship? Nope. I'm writing up my experiences with them on the ratings site.
wonder how much of these things tested are "biased" towards making Intel look as "rosy" as possible to steer away any shortcomings.. I would imagine they have very specific test methodology to ensure "weakness" are not shown.. Probably will never happen, but it would be real nice if "everyone" raced on the same track sort of speak so the best "car" wins, not because other "cars" are hobbled by illegitimate tactics.
Yes, I suspect that Anandtech opened the "hood" on the AMD "cars" and drained their "blinker fluid" and damaged their "muffler bearings" so they couldn't "race" as well.
These look great for SMB finance/inventory management/ERP applications where low latency and high single thread performance is often most beneficial. Or where software is licensed per core. Particularly if they are available within servers with OK remote management functionality at decent price points. I'd love to be able to recommend 3 or 4 of them, and the presumably upcoming 8 core configuration when it is are available, in 1U servers to SMBs rather than Xeon-SP configurations.
The Intel Xeon-SP configurations are obviously still going to be the best performing and value for a lot of large enterprise/scale workloads but for smaller organisations and applications only used by under a 100 users, having the simplicity (i.e. no NUMA configuration/consideration requirements) and the performance benefits of a leaner configuration would be great. Plus, having 3 or 4 identical servers with SSD drives in RAID1 could dramatically simplify and improve a lot of local hardware related DR capabilities for organisations with moderate budgets and requirements (essentially an unplug of production SSD drives and move to another/test server).
From a market competition perspective, unfortunately it doesn't look like there is any other decent options for entry level server usage at this price at the moment. The AMD EPYC platform and CPUs are too expensive and at too lower clock speeds for a lot of business applications requiring quick response times/low latency and or licensing per core. And while AMD Ryzen CPUs are great for desktops, particularly where a dedicated GPU was already going to be required, this is actually one area where the Intel solutions can often end up cheaper and better when factoring platform costs - while also having far better support and availability. Therefore, it's really just Intel competing with themselves at the moment and enticing businesses to upgrade/invest. While not hopeful, it would be great if AMD and partners could change this.
Given that an 8700k in one of my desktops is already quicker than a lot of the 12 to 16 core Intel Xeon-SP configurations that we've also used, even for heavy load tests, due to frequency, latency, and IPC benefits, I'm really looking forward to these CPUs, and the 8 core version, hitting the market. Just the saving in per core licensing costs would probably make it cheaper to buy new servers with these CPUs than to configure new VMs on existing Xeon-SP servers for new setups.
Uhh... You seem to have entirely forgotten that X399 & Ryzen Threadripper exist. Plenty good single-core performance, but absolutely barnstorming multi-core for the price, ECC support, AND 64x PCIe 3.0 lanes.
Agreed about Ryzen Threadripper CPUs being great for multi-threaded workloads and also having pretty good single core performance. I didn't forget, it's what will likely be in my next workstation, I just didn't go into that detail for the purpose of brevity.
For production server purposes, atleast a basic remote management interface and support from the major vendors is generally required, though. If we could get a Ryzen Threadripper 2950X or equivalent EPYC CPU with similar frequencies in a 1RU chasis from a major vendor with decent support and management interfaces at a good price, we'd be all over it. Perhaps with the new Zen 2 EPYC CPUs about to be announced, AMD will offer something like it. I certainly hope so.
It has nothing to do with what AMD are offering, unfortunately, and everything to do with what system integrators are prepared to put out there. As long as Intel is filling their pockets with plenty of MDF then I wouldn't expect to see anything soon. Hell, HP even took the iLO out of their MicroServer when they switched back to using AMD CPUs because "reasons".
I think that it's far more likely to be a combination. System integrators still require support from manufacturers/vendors for the products/solutions that they are selling. And both AMD and Intel definitely put in mechanisms/differences to protect product lines/profit. It's not like the major vendors aren't selling EPYC systems now. A new EPYC SKU by AMD with 2950X like performance would in itself provide us with the option for a higher frequency server/EPYC CPU. Given the TDP of the Epyc 7601, it should be quite easy and practical to do from engineering and manufacturing perspectives. Or, alternatively, it should be easy enough for AMD to provide capabilities for, and to encourage, board partners to release 'server' orientated Threadripper boards. Either of which I'd love to see - but would still much prefer higher frequency EPYC SKUs due to memory and platform advantages - particularly with major system integrators already having validated EPYC server platforms.
Nice review and thanks for the Chromium results but those are professional processors which to my pov will also be employed in Linux/BSD/database/backend frameworks and so on where games don't really matter.
For example, x86 and arm cross compilations such as buildroot would be great to read.
Any word on the lower-power members of the family? I imagine Intel will still release equivalents to previous generation processors like the Xeon E3-1260L v5, or counterparts to the i7 T CPUs like the Core i7-8700T, right?
There is an interesting statement for these CPUs on ark: "Support for up to 128GB system memory capacity will be available in 2019 through a published BIOS Update. Please contact your hardware provider for availability and support." Does it mean that these will be the first mainstream CPUs with officially provided microcode for Intel memory controller to support 128GB?
Laptops with 128GB RAM support were announced several months ago by Dell, Lenovo and MSI (the latter with desktop CPUs and C246 chipset), but so far CPUs and BIOS for these laptops require custom OEM-specific CPU microcode for memory controller to really support such capacity.
I got lucky; got a 2176G on my doorstep from Provantage like Oct 20 for $330. X11SCA-W was in stock on newegg at the same time. I wanted the cheaper ASUS board but it was in stock nowhere.
Really pisses me off that AMD and mobo makers dropped the ball on ECC. It should be standard in all computers and even phones. It only needs a few extra ram traces ffs --;
I love your blog. And I always find something new here that I either hadn’t seen before or somehow managed to pass over. Thank you for this post! I am recently hoping to reach out and build my network in order to have more of a true collaboration going on, try more solution with
I'm not sure I agree that the only reason to get the top model is bragging rights. Agreed, turbo speed is very close to the lower end models, but: It can sustain a 15% faster base clock than the lower end models, which is meaningful in e.g. render time. (It would almost equal an imaginary 7 core 2136) "So buy a cpu with more cores" I hear you say... True in most cases, but I'm building a 3D workstation, where the CAD application likes high single core clock speed , which is hard to find in the models with even more cores. The same machine also does the rendering, so in this case I'm pretty sure the 2186G (or the ..76G) is the better choice.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
48 Comments
Back to Article
Jorgp2 - Monday, November 5, 2018 - link
Why don't you guys test iGPU encoding performance?speculatrix - Tuesday, November 6, 2018 - link
I agree, it would be useful to see video transcode performance, there's a few times when you want a media server with fast video transcode performance (i.e. real time 1080p60).Samus - Tuesday, November 6, 2018 - link
I'd also like to know where Quicksync performance lies on the new Xeons...mooninite - Wednesday, November 7, 2018 - link
Yes! I'd love to see iGPU encoding numbers, too. I would be buying one of these Xeons to get the encoding offloading you couldn't get with a Threadripper or EPYC.kuttan - Sunday, November 11, 2018 - link
For iGPU encoding you don't need a Xeon. For that any IGP based consumer desktop CPUs like Core i3/i5 or AMD Ryzen 2400G APU will do at a much cheaper price.mooninite - Tuesday, November 13, 2018 - link
@kuttan, you don't understand. I need a *server* system that has IPMI. i3/i5 or Ryzen systems don't provide IPMI. I also need a Micro ATX formfactor with 10GBASE-T NICs. Not going to happen on a i3/i5 or Ryzen system. Thanks though.Vidmo - Wednesday, November 7, 2018 - link
Agreed!shiznit - Wednesday, November 21, 2018 - link
no kidding... top 5 use case for these Xeons.just4U - Monday, November 5, 2018 - link
Thru-out the article I kept thinking.. Oh look a 6core product when 8core processors are becoming the norm at reasonable prices in desktop computers. In server settings I wonder why that would even be something to write home about.Ratman6161 - Monday, November 5, 2018 - link
Well, you really have to want/need that ECC RAM to make this worthwhile. Otherwise there is no point to going with an "E" over the equivalent desktop part.A5 - Monday, November 5, 2018 - link
Smaller/cheaper systems for places that still self-host? Not everyone needs (or has the budget for) a 28-core monster box.I have to admit I'm not sure why it gets a 21-page AT writeup, but I think their low-end enterprise tests do decent traffic.
jtd871 - Monday, November 5, 2018 - link
Ya, and there are still a truly dizzying array of SKUs on display here when only maybe 4 might be justifiable for a 6-core workstation CPU market. Gotta love product segmentation.speculatrix - Tuesday, November 6, 2018 - link
I agree, small businesses (like me) want a small dev server to run VMs, and an eight core (no HT) single socket box could be reasonably cost effective. There's a big jump in pricing to dual socket high core counts.notb - Wednesday, November 7, 2018 - link
These CPUs are primarily designed for workstations and purpose built servers. There is quite a huge market between home PCs and AWS datacenters. :-PThere are multiple scenarios for which these Xeons will be the most cost-effective or even the fastest ECC-enabled CPUs available. Intel can provide a perfect CPU for a particular use case, so they do. :-)
twtech - Sunday, November 18, 2018 - link
Workstation reliability. Consumer class systems are pretty reliable, but Xeons with ECC even more so.Azurael - Monday, November 5, 2018 - link
So am I reading this correctly: Intel expects people to pay extra for old Coffee Lake chips and buy a more expensive, niche motherboard just to get ECC support when every single AMD Ryzen CPU supports ECC?That would be laughable if the 'free' market actually worked, but given the fact that Intel commands such control over the system integrators and the PC industry as a whole, SIs aren't even marketing AMD hardware to their business customers (or home users for the most part, for that matter...)
kpb321 - Monday, November 5, 2018 - link
Intel has always loved to charge extra where ever they can. ECC, Virtualization and any number of other things over the years so that really isn't a surprise. On the Ryzen side my understanding is that while AMD doesn't disable it in the CPUs most consumer motherboards don't support ECC as it requires some extra memory traces. So while the AMD situation is better you can't just use ECC in any random Ryzen system.Azurael - Monday, November 5, 2018 - link
AFAIK you are correct in that actual VIOS-side support is hit and miss and rrequires motherboard manufacturers to actually implement the watchdog calls to halt the system on a double fault (although ECC does correct single bit faults without any intervention so long as it's working.) but it requires no extra hardware and would be easily implemented by an SI trying to sell a complete Ryzen system to a customer, so that's really no excuse.Azurael - Monday, November 5, 2018 - link
*BIOS-side, obviously (technically wrong anyway but I guess we can consider EFI a type of BIOS if we aren't going by strict definitions.) Stupid on-screen keyboard.kpb321 - Monday, November 5, 2018 - link
Doesn't it also require additional traces on the MB to transmit the ECC info as the memory controller is doing the ECC calculation and checking not the memory module itself?bolkhov - Friday, November 9, 2018 - link
Yes it does.72 for ECC vs. 64 for non-ECC.
notb - Wednesday, November 7, 2018 - link
Go ask your IT department if Ryzen's ECC "support" passes their security policy. :-)twtech - Sunday, November 18, 2018 - link
Most IT departments don't build their own systems. They'll standardize with something like Dell or HP, and maybe do things like RAM/HDD upgrades, etc.The cost of the CPU in a system is usually a relatively small cost compared to the overall total. Support costs can dwarf initial purchase costs. The more that a company can standardize their hardware, the easier it is to maintain it.
For example, IT may want to test patches before letting them be applied across the organization. If, in an ideal scenario, every system was exactly the same, then potentially only one test would be needed to make sure it works properly.
Of course that often won't be possible, but the closer they can remain to that ideal, the better.
HStewart - Monday, November 5, 2018 - link
To me it looks like AVX 512 gets a whopping 44% ( ~ 5200 / 3600 ) increase on similar equip similar CPU. It would be nice to see same cpu with and without AVX 512 enabled test.osrk - Monday, November 5, 2018 - link
FYI provantage told me they were getting in their shipment Nov 12. I have one on pre order.Dr_b_ - Monday, November 5, 2018 - link
Have my 2186G on pre-order with them as well, for over a month now. Already have the 64GB ECC UDIMMs and Asus C-246 Pro board just waiting. IMHO, the biggest let down with the Asus board is that it doesn't have USB 3.1 2.0 header on the motherboard. Have inquiry with Asus about support for 9900K CFL-R CPU's haven't heard back yet.mooninite - Tuesday, November 13, 2018 - link
Did you get yours shipped out yet? Websites are still showing either "out of stock" or "special order" for these Xeons.osrk - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link
No. They've had them in and out of stock. If you pre-ordered and the item comes in stock for even a penny more your item will not be shipped. They will only fulfill your order when the item comes into stock for the amount you paid. This has left a very bad taste in my mouth when ordering with Provantage and I'm likely not going to order from them again.For example the E-2176G was in stock with them for $1 more than I paid. Did they ship it or notify me that I could pay the extra $1 and have it ship? Nope. I'm writing up my experiences with them on the ratings site.
Dragonstongue - Monday, November 5, 2018 - link
wonder how much of these things tested are "biased" towards making Intel look as "rosy" as possible to steer away any shortcomings.. I would imagine they have very specific test methodology to ensure "weakness" are not shown.. Probably will never happen, but it would be real nice if "everyone" raced on the same track sort of speak so the best "car" wins, not because other "cars" are hobbled by illegitimate tactics.AnnoyedGrunt - Tuesday, November 6, 2018 - link
Yes, I suspect that Anandtech opened the "hood" on the AMD "cars" and drained their "blinker fluid" and damaged their "muffler bearings" so they couldn't "race" as well.I'd go on, but I ran out of quotation marks.
-AG
GTVic - Monday, November 5, 2018 - link
I'm wondering what is the status on the W-Series. Seems like no update/launches for over 1 year?CallumS - Monday, November 5, 2018 - link
These look great for SMB finance/inventory management/ERP applications where low latency and high single thread performance is often most beneficial. Or where software is licensed per core. Particularly if they are available within servers with OK remote management functionality at decent price points. I'd love to be able to recommend 3 or 4 of them, and the presumably upcoming 8 core configuration when it is are available, in 1U servers to SMBs rather than Xeon-SP configurations.The Intel Xeon-SP configurations are obviously still going to be the best performing and value for a lot of large enterprise/scale workloads but for smaller organisations and applications only used by under a 100 users, having the simplicity (i.e. no NUMA configuration/consideration requirements) and the performance benefits of a leaner configuration would be great. Plus, having 3 or 4 identical servers with SSD drives in RAID1 could dramatically simplify and improve a lot of local hardware related DR capabilities for organisations with moderate budgets and requirements (essentially an unplug of production SSD drives and move to another/test server).
From a market competition perspective, unfortunately it doesn't look like there is any other decent options for entry level server usage at this price at the moment. The AMD EPYC platform and CPUs are too expensive and at too lower clock speeds for a lot of business applications requiring quick response times/low latency and or licensing per core. And while AMD Ryzen CPUs are great for desktops, particularly where a dedicated GPU was already going to be required, this is actually one area where the Intel solutions can often end up cheaper and better when factoring platform costs - while also having far better support and availability. Therefore, it's really just Intel competing with themselves at the moment and enticing businesses to upgrade/invest. While not hopeful, it would be great if AMD and partners could change this.
Given that an 8700k in one of my desktops is already quicker than a lot of the 12 to 16 core Intel Xeon-SP configurations that we've also used, even for heavy load tests, due to frequency, latency, and IPC benefits, I'm really looking forward to these CPUs, and the 8 core version, hitting the market. Just the saving in per core licensing costs would probably make it cheaper to buy new servers with these CPUs than to configure new VMs on existing Xeon-SP servers for new setups.
Cooe - Tuesday, November 6, 2018 - link
Uhh... You seem to have entirely forgotten that X399 & Ryzen Threadripper exist. Plenty good single-core performance, but absolutely barnstorming multi-core for the price, ECC support, AND 64x PCIe 3.0 lanes.CallumS - Tuesday, November 6, 2018 - link
Agreed about Ryzen Threadripper CPUs being great for multi-threaded workloads and also having pretty good single core performance. I didn't forget, it's what will likely be in my next workstation, I just didn't go into that detail for the purpose of brevity.For production server purposes, atleast a basic remote management interface and support from the major vendors is generally required, though. If we could get a Ryzen Threadripper 2950X or equivalent EPYC CPU with similar frequencies in a 1RU chasis from a major vendor with decent support and management interfaces at a good price, we'd be all over it. Perhaps with the new Zen 2 EPYC CPUs about to be announced, AMD will offer something like it. I certainly hope so.
Spunjji - Tuesday, November 6, 2018 - link
It has nothing to do with what AMD are offering, unfortunately, and everything to do with what system integrators are prepared to put out there. As long as Intel is filling their pockets with plenty of MDF then I wouldn't expect to see anything soon. Hell, HP even took the iLO out of their MicroServer when they switched back to using AMD CPUs because "reasons".CallumS - Tuesday, November 6, 2018 - link
I think that it's far more likely to be a combination. System integrators still require support from manufacturers/vendors for the products/solutions that they are selling. And both AMD and Intel definitely put in mechanisms/differences to protect product lines/profit. It's not like the major vendors aren't selling EPYC systems now. A new EPYC SKU by AMD with 2950X like performance would in itself provide us with the option for a higher frequency server/EPYC CPU. Given the TDP of the Epyc 7601, it should be quite easy and practical to do from engineering and manufacturing perspectives. Or, alternatively, it should be easy enough for AMD to provide capabilities for, and to encourage, board partners to release 'server' orientated Threadripper boards. Either of which I'd love to see - but would still much prefer higher frequency EPYC SKUs due to memory and platform advantages - particularly with major system integrators already having validated EPYC server platforms.Dusk_Star - Monday, November 5, 2018 - link
Corsair Ballistix4x4GB
DDR4-2666
I feel like this should be *Crucial Ballistix* to match the rest of the "Test Setup" table.
watersb - Tuesday, November 6, 2018 - link
Awesome review, many thanks.I usually build my systems with ECC DRAM, whenever possible, but that has become a huge pain point over the past few generations.
I prefer to hear the news on these parts from AnandTech. ServeTheHome is fantastic, but nothing but $10,000+ systems gets a bit discouraging.
mkaibear - Tuesday, November 6, 2018 - link
Can I just say how much the header text (EEEEEEEE) made me laugh?Not sure why, think it just appealed to my inner surrealist.
Cheers!
CyrIng - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
Nice review and thanks for the Chromium results but those are professional processors which to my pov will also be employed in Linux/BSD/database/backend frameworks and so on where games don't really matter.For example, x86 and arm cross compilations such as buildroot would be great to read.
As an engineer Windows is out of the scope
unsleepable - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
Any word on the lower-power members of the family? I imagine Intel will still release equivalents to previous generation processors like the Xeon E3-1260L v5, or counterparts to the i7 T CPUs like the Core i7-8700T, right?Chaitan - Saturday, November 10, 2018 - link
There is an interesting statement for these CPUs on ark: "Support for up to 128GB system memory capacity will be available in 2019 through a published BIOS Update. Please contact your hardware provider for availability and support."Does it mean that these will be the first mainstream CPUs with officially provided microcode for Intel memory controller to support 128GB?
Laptops with 128GB RAM support were announced several months ago by Dell, Lenovo and MSI (the latter with desktop CPUs and C246 chipset), but so far CPUs and BIOS for these laptops require custom OEM-specific CPU microcode for memory controller to really support such capacity.
Madao - Saturday, November 10, 2018 - link
I got lucky; got a 2176G on my doorstep from Provantage like Oct 20 for $330. X11SCA-W was in stock on newegg at the same time. I wanted the cheaper ASUS board but it was in stock nowhere.Really pisses me off that AMD and mobo makers dropped the ball on ECC. It should be standard in all computers and even phones. It only needs a few extra ram traces ffs --;
rannyjohns - Thursday, November 15, 2018 - link
I love your blog. And I always find something new here that I either hadn’t seen before or somehow managed to pass over. Thank you for this post! I am recently hoping to reach out and build my network in order to have more of a true collaboration going on, try more solution withasgehrj - Friday, December 14, 2018 - link
I'm not sure I agree that the only reason to get the top model is bragging rights.Agreed, turbo speed is very close to the lower end models, but:
It can sustain a 15% faster base clock than the lower end models, which is meaningful in e.g. render time. (It would almost equal an imaginary 7 core 2136)
"So buy a cpu with more cores" I hear you say...
True in most cases, but I'm building a 3D workstation, where the CAD application likes high single core clock speed , which is hard to find in the models with even more cores. The same machine also does the rendering, so in this case I'm pretty sure the 2186G (or the ..76G) is the better choice.