Development of Intel's next-generation server platform continues, a new image of LGA7529 hit the Internet.
Detailed Image of Intel's LGA7529 Socket Leaks Online : Read more
Detailed Image of Intel's LGA7529 Socket Leaks Online : Read more
That socket is for Intel's top-of-the-line XSP stuff. We're talking multi-socket and optionally multi-chassis systems. We're way beyond small servers there. Intel will undoubtedly maintain an intermediate socket size between desktop and high-end server for everything else in-between.With mainstream server sockets getting so large, Intel is really going to have to bring back a mid-sized socket for smaller servers and workstations.
That socket will most likely be used for the entire 6th (?) Gen Xeon Scalable line. I would wager that the smallest core count will now be 16 instead of 8 just due to the physical size. For an intermediate I doubt there will be anything. You will have desktop and server, unless Intel wants to get back into HEDT. For something "smaller" from Intel we might be left with embedded systems based on either Xeon or Atom.That socket is for Intel's top-of-the-line XSP stuff. We're talking multi-socket and optionally multi-chassis systems. We're way beyond small servers there. Intel will undoubtedly maintain an intermediate socket size between desktop and high-end server for everything else in-between.
Intel also has the Xeon W line, albeit primarily pitched at workstations instead of servers. I expect that sort of "middleground" to stick around for a while.That socket will most likely be used for the entire 6th (?) Gen Xeon Scalable line. I would wager that the smallest core count will now be 16 instead of 8 just due to the physical size. For an intermediate I doubt there will be anything. You will have desktop and server, unless Intel wants to get back into HEDT. For something "smaller" from Intel we might be left with embedded systems based on either Xeon or Atom.
What has me worried is how the current generation of Xeon W uses the same socket as the Xeon Scalable server CPUs, even though they disabled & reassigned some of the pins. I hope you're right and they bring back a middle-sized socket, like we last had with LGA2066.Intel also has the Xeon W line, albeit primarily pitched at workstations instead of servers. I expect that sort of "middleground" to stick around for a while.
I actually meant what I wrote as LGA4xxx being the new middle-ground between desktop and 7000+ pins servers, not as expecting anything new being introduced between ~1700 pins desktop and 4xxx pins servers.What has me worried is how the current generation of Xeon W uses the same socket as the Xeon Scalable server CPUs, even though they disabled & reassigned some of the pins. I hope you're right and they bring back a middle-sized socket, like we last had with LGA2066.
Currently the W line uses the same socket as the other Xeons though....Intel also has the Xeon W line, albeit primarily pitched at workstations instead of servers. I expect that sort of "middleground" to stick around for a while.
As I wrote in my response to bit, I meant "middleground" as in between desktop and the new LGA7529 socket. LGA4677 is now a middleground platform and the W5-34xx are relatively affordable by server standards.Currently the W line uses the same socket as the other Xeons though....
With mainstream server sockets getting so large, Intel is really going to have to bring back a mid-sized socket for smaller servers and workstations.
And I actually meant what I wrote about that being overkill. For entry-level servers and workstations, 4-channel memory is fine. That's exactly what Intel did, in fact. So, they know this quite well.I actually meant what I wrote as LGA4xxx being the new middle-ground between desktop and 7000+ pins servers, not as expecting anything new being introduced between ~1700 pins desktop and 4xxx pins servers.
They may know it but neither AMD or Intel seems to think there is enough of a market below their 4000+ pins server chips to bother with beyond making big-socket CPUs with half the stuff disabled or missing. If they made another HEDT/small-server specific socket, we'd likely be back to 1/3 of people complaining about RAM limitations, 1/3 complaining about insufficient IO, and 1/3 saying it fits just right.And I actually meant what I wrote about that being overkill. For entry-level servers and workstations, 4-channel memory is fine. That's exactly what Intel did, in fact. So, they know this quite well.
With mainstream server sockets getting so large, Intel is really going to have to bring back a mid-sized socket for smaller servers and workstations. Our software is usually deployed on smaller servers, and I worry the platform costs of these monstrosities is getting out of hand for those who don't need quite so many cores or PCIe lanes.
Xeon W-2400 uses a monolithic die, while Xeon W-3400 uses quad-die (like the Scalable series). And yet, both use the same socket.Hopefully this is where the move to chiplet/tile based designs help them. They have definitely grown into a one size fits all model for each segment over the years.
Pin counts are growing in response to needs for memory bandwidth and capacity.second, this e-pin brandishing is getting a bit overboard.
I'm a little surprised PCIe lasted as long as it did and managed 32Gbps through a 20 years old slot, albeit with only ~3" of total trace length from source to sink before requiring regen.Further out, there's talk of silicon photonics taking over from copper, as the primary system interconnect medium (i.e. PCIe, CXL).
So, there are good reasons to believe pin-count inflation won't continue, indefinitely.
Loosely-related: back in 2017, Intel introduced some Skylake Xeon SP models with integrated OmniPath PHY, although it seems the optical transceiver was still external to the package (I recall seeing some photos that appeared to show an optical cable connected directly to it).Some 20 odd years ago, Intel had demonstrated a photonics chip capable of taking a bunch of 25Gbps channels directly from electrical to multiplexed optical and back. Back then, I imagined we'd be poking fibers into chips to connect stuff together in 10 or so years.