what I gave you guys are real facts ///// "10Gs for the Dual INTEL against Gs for the Dual AMD. You push AMD at 10k in money spent I would have a 75Bench."
I disagree here. I don't see it as factual what you wrote in above, it's very misleading in my opinion and far from truth I feel I have to comment on it because it could sway someone to even buy these (happened many times on Chaos forum, only to people desperately regret doing it), which would be pretty bad mistake. I don't want people to throw money into trash because they see apparent miracle solution on forum being very cheap now. Lot's of people buy poor performance old server systems from eBay thinking they are getting great deals)
Notwithstanding that even the most expensive E7-46xx Quad Xeon setup consting 16 000+ euros released only month ago would have trouble reaching 75+ Cinebench. That's just crazy.
(I am also confused why you explain me the negatives/positives of running multiple i7s as render nodes. I have 5x 4930k workstations, I use 4x 2680 v2 E5 Xeons as my true nodes (140 logical cores total). I might buy 4 another in summer, I value my comfort level and all the benefits much more than saving every dollar to end up with full room of boxes. But that's sideway. )
Your math doesn't add up. You hyperbolize numbers like "10Grand vs almost nothing" with little facts supporting this extravenous claims.
[Absolute comparison of 6272 vs 5650 in Maxwell, Cinebench, Blender, and all associated ] http://www.anandtech.com/show/5058/amds-opteron-interlagos-6200/14 Opteron 6272 was direct competitor for Xeon 5650 not 5670 (despite your FryBench score) and at price difference (at
start, with Interlagos Opterons being much much newer) of
800 dollars vs 1000 dollars (now both cost +/- 400 dollars), which is only 20 perc. more expensive if I do my math right ?
You compared absolutely more high-end CPU to justify flawed argument.
And at this similar price level, the Xeon ranges from 5perc. faster, to 44 perc. faster in softwares limited by Opteron Architecture {Shared FPU, CMT, floating point limitations}.
And this is comparison for pure multi-threaded performance, for Workstation purpose (as you state), it would be undisputed in favour of Xeons, again, the above benchmarks showcase this very clear with big difference. Workstation processes
are largely still based around single-threaded performance, something that very much AMD lacked in (with exception of great old Athlon 64, which was amazing at its time), and these Opterons would be beat by low-clocked i3/i5 (first gen, Westemere, to be at the same year of 2011)
Xeons don't cost an "arm and one leg" when compared to Opteron system. Both systems cost "arm and leg" when compared to regular consumer market units (i7, Bulldozers), but compared to each other, the older Xeon systems used to be more costlier by no more than 20-30perc. at
similar performance level, which doesn't apply anymore today, since E5/E7 Ivy Bridge Xeon family is top performance tier, while recent Opteron generations (Delhi, Seould), focused on micro-server architecture (not performance!) in 2012, before absolutely vanishing from market. Opteron is dead now.
Please don't assume I write this on conflicting manner, it's how I discuss HW :- ) It's all good, and I hope they serve you well. I just don't want people to buy them now. Enjoy your day !