Report: Details On Intel's Haswell Server CPUs Emerge

[N.Broekhuijsen]

More information regarding Intel's server Haswell CPUs has leaked out.

Report: Details On Intel's Haswell Server CPUs Emerge : Read more

 

[meowmix44]

Excellent prouct line

 

[MrKKBB]

Need to move up to 6 cores!

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]ankit0x1[/nom]atleast 16 core is needed[/citation]
[citation][nom]MrKKBB[/nom]Need to move up to 6 cores![/citation]

This is just the lower mid-ranged for single socket servers and workstations not based on consumer i7s. They don't need six cores. That's what the X58/X79 sort of stuff is for. Wait for their Haswell successor, assuming that it's coming next instead of an Ivy successor.

 

[thecolorblue]

still at 4 cores = pathetic Intel, really pathetic

 

[griptwister]

There is already a 8core/16threads i7 in the works guys...

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]thecolorblue[/nom]still at 4 cores = pathetic Intel, really pathetic[/citation]

What is with you people? You're all being just stupid. Intel already has CPUs with more than four cores. They'd need much larger CPUs and sockets if they were going to put in six or more cores and that'd be stupid because, again, this stuff is just the lower end Xeons. Mid-ranged Xeons will be up to six or eight cores, maybe ten for Haswell. High-end Xeons will probably be at fifteen to twenty cores. Stop trolling.

 

[edwd2]

[citation][nom]ankit0x1[/nom]atleast 16 core is needed[/citation]
[citation][nom]thecolorblue[/nom]still at 4 cores = pathetic Intel, really pathetic[/citation]

Come on guys, this is the Xeon E3 family meant for small servers and workstations. They have good value too. E3-1230V2, for example, has the performance close to i7-3770 and the price of an i5.

On the other hand, the Ivy-Bridge EP based Xeon E5s are rumored to have 10 cores / 20 threads, the EX based Xeon E7s, 15 cores / 30 threads.

 

[thecolorblue]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]What is with you people? You're all being just stupid. Intel already has CPUs with more than four cores. They'd need much larger CPUs and sockets if they were going to put in six or more cores and that'd be stupid because, again, this stuff is just the lower end Xeons. Mid-ranged Xeons will be up to six or eight cores, maybe ten for Haswell. High-end Xeons will probably be at fifteen to twenty cores. Stop trolling.[/citation]
it is not a troll, low end xeons in 2013-15 (these will be around for years) should not be limited to 4 cores. integrated graphics have no place on a workstation cpu, and servers need more not fewer cores.

 

[tadej petric]

Good for low end servers.
But why they arent making 5 core chips and fill that space with (i dont know, maybe) more cache? No really. Im not some rocket scientist so explain why not.

 

[dealcorn]

Chill out. Xeon Avoton is due prior to year end with 8 cores (16 if you count hyperthreading). They will not be Intel's penultimate power cores, but from an efficiency perspective they should blow away anything Intel has done before. For low end server chips, game time begin with Avoton at 22 nm.

Currently, Intel Xeons substantively dominate every price point at which they compete in the server space. Avoton brings competition to a lower price point and provides Xeon with a platform to dominate the micro server space if they do it right. It is based on a sorta new core design that is not all vclogged up with accumulated pixie dust and crusted up hype.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]What is with you people? You're all being just stupid. Intel already has CPUs with more than four cores. They'd need much larger CPUs and sockets if they were going to put in six or more cores and that'd be stupid because, again, this stuff is just the lower end Xeons. Mid-ranged Xeons will be up to six or eight cores, maybe ten for Haswell. High-end Xeons will probably be at fifteen to twenty cores. Stop trolling.[/citation]
it is not a troll, low end xeons in 2013-15 (these will be around for years) should not be limited to 4 cores. integrated graphics have no place on a workstation cpu, and servers need more not fewer cores.

It is being a troll. Any server that needs more cores won't be using these CPUs because they have nothing to do with them. You're mocking a product for not catering to a market that other products are intended for and that's totally nonsensical.

Low-end Xeons must be limited to four cores if they're to use the LGA 1150 interface. They'd need a larger socket or at least a larger die or smaller process node to deal with a higher core count which would increase transistor count both from the cores and the necessary extra cache for the extra cores. That's what the LGA 2011's replacement will probably be for along with the quad/octa-socket replacement.

Furthermore, even if most do need a discrete graphics card for one reason or another, any workstation or such that doesn't need a discrete graphics card is better off with integrated graphics. That's why only a few of these Xeons have it. There is perfectly good reason for that.

 

[MrKKBB]

Why do I have a Xeon rather than i7? Because I need ECC with 64 GB RAM and running codes for a day or so. The E3 are cost effective and good motherboard support with multiple PCIe x16 slots for consumer end GPUs (e.g. cheap CUDA support for MATLAB). A jump to E5 is costly and limits number of PCIe x16 slots.

If they can cram 6 cores into and i7 why not into E3s? Or is it that the on chip ECC memory controler takes up 2-core space in this socket form?

 

[blazorthon]

Why do I have a Xeon rather than i7? Because I need ECC with 64 GB RAM and running codes for a day or so. The E3 are cost effective and good motherboard support with multiple PCIe x16 slots for consumer end GPUs (e.g. cheap CUDA support for MATLAB). A jump to E5 is costly and limits number of PCIe x16 slots.

If they can cram 6 cores into and i7 why not into E3s? Or is it that the on chip ECC memory controler takes up 2-core space in this socket form?

The i7s with 6 cores are basically the E5s. They don't cram six cores into the LGA 1156/1155/1150 i7s, they did that for the LGA 1366/2011/whatever comes next (well, LGA 2011 had up to eight cores and apparently its successor is up to ten, but you get the point).

Don't forget that LGA 1150 is already cramming in more than LGA 1155 had in the CPU die such as VRM. There's probably not a whole lot of extra room.

The ECC memory controller shouldn't take up much more room, if any, than the regular 64 bit controllers. They might even be the same, just with some switch built in to stop the consumer parts from accessing that feature.