It is interesting to see that LGA2066 can support 48 PCIe lanes, perhaps Cascade Lake X will support the full 48 lanes instead of being limited to just 44. On a related note, what has happened to the i9 7920X that was supposed to be launched yesterday? There are no reviews and it does not appear to be available anywhere.
Nah, the last 4 lanes are reserved to the upcoming "xeon rhodium" series. They also come with cheetah blood as TIM (terrible thermal conductivity but so damn fast). Priced at 50% above the platinum line.
It is interesting how there were no sign of Xeon W on leaked roadmaps, this one totally looks like last-minute decision, without any announces about motherboard availability or anything, even prices for 14/18 core parts, just to answer something to 1P EPYC proposition.
At the time, I found it curious that Apple was offering only 8, 10, or 18 cores in this machine, with nothing in-between.
Now it makes more sense. I suppose it would be hard to announce and design a system for the 14-core part, when the base and turbo frequencies are *still* unknown!
What's this targeted to? Does the frecuency advantage makes up for the additional x2 cores/threads? I have seen people saying frecuency doesn't really matter at least on the server side although I don't know if this is accurate.
It is way more complicated than the headline numbers imply. To AMD's credit, they've achieved a great bang-for-buck ratio for certain workloads. That being said, they did take some architectural shortcuts to get those headline numbers. If you need a CPU that has a well balanced design, Intel is still the better choice / safer default.
Are you kidding me? At the value AMD is offering, you can spend the same amount of money on CPU power that will outperform intel even at those few "architectural shortcuts" targeting, extremely narrow niche workloads, and pretty much destroy intel at everything else.
Safer... yeah, there is nothing safer than paying a 50% price premium just for the brand. But only if by "safer" you mean "dumber".
You do realize that you link to something that shows AMD beating intel bit time in everything save for the single most shamelessly biased test in human history, right?
AT's notorious "glued cores are bad for databases mkay" test, which runs a few MB worth of database on a 64 core, 128 threads, and the WHOOPING 512 GIGABYTES of ram machine.
Who does that? I mean in real life? I mean other than the expert AT crew, which carefully picked the database size small enough to fit entirely in the cache of xeons, but large enough to not fit in the cache of a zen CCX? AT sinking to a whole new level of low just to save intel the embarrassment of being whooped in every single test, be that at a completely pointless, senseless and obviously fabricated for bias test, as AT staff well knows the intellectual capacity of the bulk of its readers, and that it is low enough for that crap to pass.
The only architectural advantage intel has is AVX512, which first and foremost, is very very far from adoption, and second - makes little to no sense for servers.
To which I say "GOOD JOB AMD", for once they didn't shoot themselves in the foot by putting extra transistors into features that won't see decent adoption in the life cycle of the product and generally don't make sense in the target market.
"Who does that? I mean in real life? I mean other than the expert AT crew, which carefully picked the database size small enough to fit entirely in the cache of xeons,"
The database, though not large, was large enough not to fit into the cache of any of the processors we tested. It was around 120MB in size.
Well, it still unrealistically benefits intel chips. A database of the size AND access patterns of real-world application would have mitigated the latency penalty of inter-CCX access down to negligible. Until you go back and revise that test with a proper real world scenario, it remains obviously biassed to save face for intel. And don't give me the "we were in a hurry" nonsense, writing a script to populate a database takes a minute as does its population with several gigabytes of data on a modern machine. Or you could even invest like 10 minutes in a very useful and reusable script to also emulate the typical access patterns.
So the test with a 120 MB database unfairly favors the CPU with 11.5 MB L3 compard to the CPU with 64 MB L3? Yeah, sure... (that's what the guy was comparing that you answered to)
Honestly, I don't think there's anything AT could do to make you stop complaining.
This guy is a troll - no clue why he insists on posting or reading here since AT is such a biased and crappy site.
FYI, it doesn't matter how good AMD's iron is, our shop will only buy Intel just like 99% of other businesses. I am glad to see they have decent offerings but they will need several successful cycles before they become a real consideration to most IT departments. In 20yrs as a sys admin in companies from 20-50,000 I've literally never seen a single AMD server or workstation and just a handful of (very) low end laptops. Intel is a known quantity and businesses are loath to go into the unknown. You may not like this but it is true.
I still have my Athlon with Golden fingers in a box with a VooDoo2 and other relics, that proc was a game changer and on the desktop it looks like Ryzen may stand a chance of ending up on users desktops but again, not in the enterprise.
Balance is the key as when you look at the TCO for a server with hardware and software these price differences for some purchasers aren't relevant. For others the AMD chips are very appealing though and not just on price.
There is loads of high quality, enterprise grade server software that is completely, 100% free. You only pay for professional support, and only if you need it, and the price is not dependent on the amount of cores you run.
So software price is really kind of a moot and desperate point. Desperate to come up with advantages of buying intel hardware.
What kind of job and work environment do you exist in? This is complete BS, our largest IT expense is software licensing and support and is for everyone else unless it is a year with a build out. Just like with AMD processors the vast majority of businesses are not using this "enterprise" grade freeware you are talking about. How many hyper V installs vs VSphere do you think there are, just for an easy one?
This is like suggesting that companies would choose RC Cola and not Coke. Been out to eat recently?
Depends on your workload. If you need low latency then the faster clock and IPC of the W-2145 will be a big win for you. If you have a balanced workload that scales well and throughput is your only enemy then the 7351 will be better bang for the buck.
Given how many workloads still don't scale well to dozens of threads I'd probably buy the Xeon unless I was absolutely certain I could assign it to run a single app that works well with Epyc for 4-5 years straight.
Frequency does matter obviously, but what's most important is total work done.
Let's say we had a workload that scales perfectly with the number of cores in the system - ie. 2 cores will do 100% more work than 1 core. In that case then, 2 cores at 2.3 GHz would be able to do more work than 1 core at 4 GHz, since 2.3 * 2 = 4.6, and 4.6 > 4.0. (In practice, most workloads don't scale perfectly, but some are pretty close.)
Now another factor that can complicate the mix is licensing terms. Most workstation applications will license per system. Enterprise server applications however may license on a per-socket, or per-core basis. Obviously that can complicate the equation, as if the software is licensed per socket, there may be a cost advantage to getting fewer CPUs with the highest core count possible. If the licensing is per-core on the other hand, then it might be most cost effective to try to maximize the performance you're getting per-core and minimize the number of cores you have to license.
People will have their reasons to buy the Intel--Apple's using it and some folks have unlimited budget and would like the single-threaded perf. But, yeah, if you're looking in this segment, you have at least one task that threads well, and it's going to be awfully tempting for some folks to either up their cores or save the money with a big old AMD chip.
So... Are these the processors we should be buying instead of Skylake-X for productivity? Does ECC offer any tangible benefit .. worth TWICE THE PRICE? I get the need for Market Segmentation but ... for me ... this all feels a bit forced. Xeon-W and Skylake-X are (for the most part) competing products.
ECC can be a mission critical requirement in a professional environment. If the error rate is 1 per GB per year, and a simulation requires 365GB to run for a month - that's 30 individual bit errors if you don't have ECC that could throw your results way off.
Having just finished a 9-day simulation run on 18 cores (and run many long sims over the years), it's usually a lot less distributed/diffuse/regular than that. No errors 99.999% of the time, but either an undetected/uncorrected or a error or something that crashes such a sim can be very problematic when the lost run and the time to debug its failure are added up. Debugging software this complex is bad enough if you can trust the hardware to get it right basically 100% of the time. Add in random failures and hilarity ensues.
Evidently, according to intel enthusiasts ECC doesn't matter in the context of the technology being absent from a 2000 DOLLAR CPU. Nobody needs that, they say. So allegedly, that 2000$ CPU is just a toy, meant to play games and movies, rather than doing actual work on it.
But then again, seeing the kind of price premium intel asks for ECC, it does seem kind of a big whoop.
I say if you work with lots of data, and that data is important to you, and it depends on orders of magnitude of more intermediate data, ECC is an ABSOLUTE MUST.
Which is why ThreadRipper is so exciting, not only does it enable a whole new level of performance at a whole new level of affordability, but it also enables a whole new level of reliability by having ECC support enabled without charging half a kidney for it.
In fact, there are even some Ryzen boards which support ECC, even thou AMD is not stepping with guaranteeing that support, it seems that some mobo vendors have put in the work. Also, Ryzen pro will likely see more dedication to ECC support.
Intel too has ECC on some cheaper products, but like... atoms and such, which are entirely pathetic in terms of performance, even at running NAS, the sole purpose for their existence.
It will take a lot more squeezing before greedy old intel finds the generosity to enable ECC support on more affordable product lines, chances are it is already there, they simply disable it on purpose to milk fools out of their money.
Ok..Exactly how is intel charging a price premium for these Xeon W processors? If you only look at the top of the line then yes, you are going to pay a premium no doubt but alas that's business. If you need 18/36 thread processing with ECC support baked in then it will cost you. I really like the design of threadripper/EPYC and i hope AMD successfully competes with Intel but you really need to do an apples to apples based comparison on YOUR processing needs and NOT what you think is a fair market price. I do options trading and I want to build a 4 GPU server and i dont need more than 1 thread per card. The xeon W 2123 would be perfect for only $300!!! Where is threadripper at this price?? I know Intel will make at least 50% of their money from the 2 lowest SKU's, the 4 core parts. You can easily run a cheap dedicated server to do one job..like pricing options and paying for it in one day!!! I wish all you Intel experts would also look at the economics that Intel is trying to live by and not take their pricing so personal!! If you want AMD because it is cheaper then go ahead and buy it. I really like what AMD is doing and the XEON W processor at least in the low end is a good response to AMD...sorry but Intel will continue to make make many billions compared to AMD if they can sell processors like the w-2123 for around $300!!!
Well, pat yourself on the back, you managed to squeeze out a use case that almost makes it convincing that intel would be a better fit for.
Let's hear it for intel - the champion of CHEAP servers LOL. That's funny in a bunch of ways.
BTW if your priority is cost of equipment, then you are really better off with a simple Ryzen solution, just pick one of the boards that is known to support ECC, where 300$ will give you EIGHT cores, which will completely destroy a 4 core xeon in terms of performance. Not to mention how much affordable the mobo is gonna be.
And surely, AMD doesn't scale its enterprise products as low as intel just to fit your requirement for a strictly quad core CPU ( I bet having more cores will really hurt you ) but you can have a full fledged 8 core EPYC chip for only 400$. But I guess those extra 100$ are simply outside of your budget, which is why you are so desperate to shop intel LOL.
It will be interesting to compare 8 core Xeon W to the 8 core i7 Skylark X, if it is like my old 5160 you probably find it significantly faster especially in the IO. I have a Dual Xeon 5160 and only until recently in last couple of years it was faster than most machines. Keep in mind, that 5160 is a Ten year old CPU - and todays Xeons are significantly faster than todays i7's
Ryzen TR only officially supports UDIMMs. Straight from James Prior and Robert Hallock - anything they've said about 1TB/2TB support on TR is down to the size of UDIMMs in the future.
EYPC 7401P is a 24C/48T CPU with 128 PCIe lanes and 155W TDP. Please correct, as you make Intel appear competitive in price/performance where it is very far from it.
Update 2017-07-13 22:35 UK So it looks like we can confirm that Threadripper will support up to 1TB of DRAM. This was actually confirmed back last month by Robert Hallock at E3, when discussing the Dell Area-51 Alienware. Video should start at 1m42:
In order to put 1TB of DRAM in the system, users will have to populate each of the eight slots with 128GB LRDIMM modules. These are 'relatively rare' - Crucial's 128GB LRDIMMs should be coming out in Q3, and will cost north of $2000 each, or we can find no-name brand modules for $4000+ today.
"You have not corrected Threadripper RAM support, which you are yourself confirmed here:"
So AMD's answer is a bit wily here. The memory size limit of Threadripper is 1TB. However it officially only supports UDIMMs; (L)RDIMMs are only supported by Epyc. So if you happen across 128GB UDIMMs, then you'd theoretically be able to get up to 1TB.
Wow, those prices. Don't these typically follow the X series prices more closely? The 8 core, for example, is nearly twice as expensive as the the i9 8 core.
TL;DR: Just get Threadripper which supports up to 1TB RAM, also has ECC support and 64 PCIe 3.0 lanes, and save yourself a packet in the process. Unless you *really* need AVX512 support, and at that point you should probably be considering Xeon Phi anyway if it's that important for you.
Looks like there are 2 more lower end CPUs that didn't make it on to the announcement, the Xeon W-2102 and W-2104. Both are 4 cores with no HT or Turbo Boost. They're linked to on the bottom of this page: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/p...
Yeah, I think I'm going to be giving AMD my money this time around. I don't know who could justify paying roughly twice as much for about the same performance. The only way to make Intel fix their pricing is to not buy their products. If they were close to the price of AMD I would probably go with Intel, but I just can't stomach the cost of an 8 core CPU from Intel right now.
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
50 Comments
Back to Article
Dark_Complex - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
It is interesting to see that LGA2066 can support 48 PCIe lanes, perhaps Cascade Lake X will support the full 48 lanes instead of being limited to just 44. On a related note, what has happened to the i9 7920X that was supposed to be launched yesterday? There are no reviews and it does not appear to be available anywhere.ddriver - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
Nah, the last 4 lanes are reserved to the upcoming "xeon rhodium" series. They also come with cheetah blood as TIM (terrible thermal conductivity but so damn fast). Priced at 50% above the platinum line.eSyr - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
It is interesting how there were no sign of Xeon W on leaked roadmaps, this one totally looks like last-minute decision, without any announces about motherboard availability or anything, even prices for 14/18 core parts, just to answer something to 1P EPYC proposition.ltcommanderdata - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
These sound like the CPUs Apple will be using in the iMac Pro, so they've been hinted at since June.DCide - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
At the time, I found it curious that Apple was offering only 8, 10, or 18 cores in this machine, with nothing in-between.Now it makes more sense. I suppose it would be hard to announce and design a system for the 14-core part, when the base and turbo frequencies are *still* unknown!
linuxgeex - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
I know... 4x4 mesh with 2 controllers; 16 - 2 = 14 seems like a magical number to me so it's bizarre that they skipped it.MrSpadge - Wednesday, August 30, 2017 - link
Because it's too close to the existing 10 and 18 core dies.prisonerX - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
AKA Intel panic.DCide - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
Not so; Gigabyte announced their MW51-HP0 motherboard yesterday.Last night I searched in vain for any information on Xeon-W outside of the Gigabyte QVL Support List.
Stankami - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
So:EPYC 7351, 16/32 @ 2.4GHz Turbo 2.9GHz, 64MB L3 Cache 128 PCI Lanes, 170W $1,100
Xeon W-2145, 8/16 @ 3.7GHz Turbo 4.5GHz, 11MB L3 Cache 48 PCI Lanes, 140W $1,100
What's this targeted to? Does the frecuency advantage makes up for the additional x2 cores/threads? I have seen people saying frecuency doesn't really matter at least on the server side although I don't know if this is accurate.
Elstar - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
It is way more complicated than the headline numbers imply. To AMD's credit, they've achieved a great bang-for-buck ratio for certain workloads. That being said, they did take some architectural shortcuts to get those headline numbers. If you need a CPU that has a well balanced design, Intel is still the better choice / safer default.ddriver - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
Are you kidding me? At the value AMD is offering, you can spend the same amount of money on CPU power that will outperform intel even at those few "architectural shortcuts" targeting, extremely narrow niche workloads, and pretty much destroy intel at everything else.Safer... yeah, there is nothing safer than paying a 50% price premium just for the brand. But only if by "safer" you mean "dumber".
Elstar - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
This is a good article on the tradeoffs between AMD and Intel's latest offerings:http://www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-...
ddriver - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
You do realize that you link to something that shows AMD beating intel bit time in everything save for the single most shamelessly biased test in human history, right?AT's notorious "glued cores are bad for databases mkay" test, which runs a few MB worth of database on a 64 core, 128 threads, and the WHOOPING 512 GIGABYTES of ram machine.
Who does that? I mean in real life? I mean other than the expert AT crew, which carefully picked the database size small enough to fit entirely in the cache of xeons, but large enough to not fit in the cache of a zen CCX? AT sinking to a whole new level of low just to save intel the embarrassment of being whooped in every single test, be that at a completely pointless, senseless and obviously fabricated for bias test, as AT staff well knows the intellectual capacity of the bulk of its readers, and that it is low enough for that crap to pass.
The only architectural advantage intel has is AVX512, which first and foremost, is very very far from adoption, and second - makes little to no sense for servers.
To which I say "GOOD JOB AMD", for once they didn't shoot themselves in the foot by putting extra transistors into features that won't see decent adoption in the life cycle of the product and generally don't make sense in the target market.
Ryan Smith - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
"Who does that? I mean in real life? I mean other than the expert AT crew, which carefully picked the database size small enough to fit entirely in the cache of xeons,"The database, though not large, was large enough not to fit into the cache of any of the processors we tested. It was around 120MB in size.
ddriver - Wednesday, August 30, 2017 - link
Well, it still unrealistically benefits intel chips. A database of the size AND access patterns of real-world application would have mitigated the latency penalty of inter-CCX access down to negligible. Until you go back and revise that test with a proper real world scenario, it remains obviously biassed to save face for intel. And don't give me the "we were in a hurry" nonsense, writing a script to populate a database takes a minute as does its population with several gigabytes of data on a modern machine. Or you could even invest like 10 minutes in a very useful and reusable script to also emulate the typical access patterns.MrSpadge - Wednesday, August 30, 2017 - link
So the test with a 120 MB database unfairly favors the CPU with 11.5 MB L3 compard to the CPU with 64 MB L3? Yeah, sure...(that's what the guy was comparing that you answered to)
Honestly, I don't think there's anything AT could do to make you stop complaining.
Icehawk - Thursday, August 31, 2017 - link
This guy is a troll - no clue why he insists on posting or reading here since AT is such a biased and crappy site.FYI, it doesn't matter how good AMD's iron is, our shop will only buy Intel just like 99% of other businesses. I am glad to see they have decent offerings but they will need several successful cycles before they become a real consideration to most IT departments. In 20yrs as a sys admin in companies from 20-50,000 I've literally never seen a single AMD server or workstation and just a handful of (very) low end laptops. Intel is a known quantity and businesses are loath to go into the unknown. You may not like this but it is true.
I still have my Athlon with Golden fingers in a box with a VooDoo2 and other relics, that proc was a game changer and on the desktop it looks like Ryzen may stand a chance of ending up on users desktops but again, not in the enterprise.
smilingcrow - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
Balance is the key as when you look at the TCO for a server with hardware and software these price differences for some purchasers aren't relevant.For others the AMD chips are very appealing though and not just on price.
ddriver - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
There is loads of high quality, enterprise grade server software that is completely, 100% free. You only pay for professional support, and only if you need it, and the price is not dependent on the amount of cores you run.So software price is really kind of a moot and desperate point. Desperate to come up with advantages of buying intel hardware.
Icehawk - Thursday, August 31, 2017 - link
What kind of job and work environment do you exist in? This is complete BS, our largest IT expense is software licensing and support and is for everyone else unless it is a year with a build out. Just like with AMD processors the vast majority of businesses are not using this "enterprise" grade freeware you are talking about. How many hyper V installs vs VSphere do you think there are, just for an easy one?This is like suggesting that companies would choose RC Cola and not Coke. Been out to eat recently?
linuxgeex - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
Depends on your workload. If you need low latency then the faster clock and IPC of the W-2145 will be a big win for you. If you have a balanced workload that scales well and throughput is your only enemy then the 7351 will be better bang for the buck.Given how many workloads still don't scale well to dozens of threads I'd probably buy the Xeon unless I was absolutely certain I could assign it to run a single app that works well with Epyc for 4-5 years straight.
twtech - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
Frequency does matter obviously, but what's most important is total work done.Let's say we had a workload that scales perfectly with the number of cores in the system - ie. 2 cores will do 100% more work than 1 core. In that case then, 2 cores at 2.3 GHz would be able to do more work than 1 core at 4 GHz, since 2.3 * 2 = 4.6, and 4.6 > 4.0. (In practice, most workloads don't scale perfectly, but some are pretty close.)
Now another factor that can complicate the mix is licensing terms. Most workstation applications will license per system. Enterprise server applications however may license on a per-socket, or per-core basis. Obviously that can complicate the equation, as if the software is licensed per socket, there may be a cost advantage to getting fewer CPUs with the highest core count possible. If the licensing is per-core on the other hand, then it might be most cost effective to try to maximize the performance you're getting per-core and minimize the number of cores you have to license.
twotwotwo - Wednesday, August 30, 2017 - link
People will have their reasons to buy the Intel--Apple's using it and some folks have unlimited budget and would like the single-threaded perf. But, yeah, if you're looking in this segment, you have at least one task that threads well, and it's going to be awfully tempting for some folks to either up their cores or save the money with a big old AMD chip.peevee - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
Without REAL architectural or process improvements over the last 6 years, Intel has to resort to market fragmentation. Waste of engineers' time.TEAMSWITCHER - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
So... Are these the processors we should be buying instead of Skylake-X for productivity? Does ECC offer any tangible benefit .. worth TWICE THE PRICE? I get the need for Market Segmentation but ... for me ... this all feels a bit forced. Xeon-W and Skylake-X are (for the most part) competing products.Ian Cutress - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
ECC can be a mission critical requirement in a professional environment. If the error rate is 1 per GB per year, and a simulation requires 365GB to run for a month - that's 30 individual bit errors if you don't have ECC that could throw your results way off.cekim - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
Having just finished a 9-day simulation run on 18 cores (and run many long sims over the years), it's usually a lot less distributed/diffuse/regular than that. No errors 99.999% of the time, but either an undetected/uncorrected or a error or something that crashes such a sim can be very problematic when the lost run and the time to debug its failure are added up. Debugging software this complex is bad enough if you can trust the hardware to get it right basically 100% of the time. Add in random failures and hilarity ensues.stux - Thursday, August 31, 2017 - link
++ this.ddriver - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
Evidently, according to intel enthusiasts ECC doesn't matter in the context of the technology being absent from a 2000 DOLLAR CPU. Nobody needs that, they say. So allegedly, that 2000$ CPU is just a toy, meant to play games and movies, rather than doing actual work on it.But then again, seeing the kind of price premium intel asks for ECC, it does seem kind of a big whoop.
I say if you work with lots of data, and that data is important to you, and it depends on orders of magnitude of more intermediate data, ECC is an ABSOLUTE MUST.
Which is why ThreadRipper is so exciting, not only does it enable a whole new level of performance at a whole new level of affordability, but it also enables a whole new level of reliability by having ECC support enabled without charging half a kidney for it.
In fact, there are even some Ryzen boards which support ECC, even thou AMD is not stepping with guaranteeing that support, it seems that some mobo vendors have put in the work. Also, Ryzen pro will likely see more dedication to ECC support.
Intel too has ECC on some cheaper products, but like... atoms and such, which are entirely pathetic in terms of performance, even at running NAS, the sole purpose for their existence.
It will take a lot more squeezing before greedy old intel finds the generosity to enable ECC support on more affordable product lines, chances are it is already there, they simply disable it on purpose to milk fools out of their money.
Lemans911 - Wednesday, August 30, 2017 - link
Ok..Exactly how is intel charging a price premium for these Xeon W processors? If you only look at the top of the line then yes, you are going to pay a premium no doubt but alas that's business. If you need 18/36 thread processing with ECC support baked in then it will cost you. I really like the design of threadripper/EPYC and i hope AMD successfully competes with Intel but you really need to do an apples to apples based comparison on YOUR processing needs and NOT what you think is a fair market price. I do options trading and I want to build a 4 GPU server and i dont need more than 1 thread per card. The xeon W 2123 would be perfect for only $300!!! Where is threadripper at this price?? I know Intel will make at least 50% of their money from the 2 lowest SKU's, the 4 core parts. You can easily run a cheap dedicated server to do one job..like pricing options and paying for it in one day!!! I wish all you Intel experts would also look at the economics that Intel is trying to live by and not take their pricing so personal!! If you want AMD because it is cheaper then go ahead and buy it. I really like what AMD is doing and the XEON W processor at least in the low end is a good response to AMD...sorry but Intel will continue to make make many billions compared to AMD if they can sell processors like the w-2123 for around $300!!!ddriver - Wednesday, August 30, 2017 - link
Well, pat yourself on the back, you managed to squeeze out a use case that almost makes it convincing that intel would be a better fit for.Let's hear it for intel - the champion of CHEAP servers LOL. That's funny in a bunch of ways.
BTW if your priority is cost of equipment, then you are really better off with a simple Ryzen solution, just pick one of the boards that is known to support ECC, where 300$ will give you EIGHT cores, which will completely destroy a 4 core xeon in terms of performance. Not to mention how much affordable the mobo is gonna be.
ddriver - Wednesday, August 30, 2017 - link
And surely, AMD doesn't scale its enterprise products as low as intel just to fit your requirement for a strictly quad core CPU ( I bet having more cores will really hurt you ) but you can have a full fledged 8 core EPYC chip for only 400$. But I guess those extra 100$ are simply outside of your budget, which is why you are so desperate to shop intel LOL.HStewart - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
It will be interesting to compare 8 core Xeon W to the 8 core i7 Skylark X, if it is like my old 5160 you probably find it significantly faster especially in the IO. I have a Dual Xeon 5160 and only until recently in last couple of years it was faster than most machines. Keep in mind, that 5160 is a Ten year old CPU - and todays Xeons are significantly faster than todays i7'sdemu67 - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
AMD EPYC 7401P is 24 core / 48 threads CPU, and it supports 128 PCIe 3.0 channels.http://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-epyc-7401p
AMD Ryzen Threadripper platform supports 1TB RAM using 8x128GB LRDIMM modules
satai - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
Are lrdims really supported?Ian Cutress - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
Ryzen TR only officially supports UDIMMs. Straight from James Prior and Robert Hallock - anything they've said about 1TB/2TB support on TR is down to the size of UDIMMs in the future.p1esk - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
Ok, so Xeon W-2123 is the one to get for any new quad GPU builds for deep learning.ibnmadhi - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
EYPC 7401P is a 24C/48T CPU with 128 PCIe lanes and 155W TDP. Please correct, as you make Intel appear competitive in price/performance where it is very far from it.Ryan Smith - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
Thanks. Fixed!(This is what we get for copying tables around)
demu67 - Wednesday, August 30, 2017 - link
You have not corrected Threadripper RAM support, which you are yourself confirmed here:http://www.anandtech.com/show/11636/amd-ryzen-thre...
Update 2017-07-13 22:35 UK
So it looks like we can confirm that Threadripper will support up to 1TB of DRAM. This was actually confirmed back last month by Robert Hallock at E3, when discussing the Dell Area-51 Alienware. Video should start at 1m42:
In order to put 1TB of DRAM in the system, users will have to populate each of the eight slots with 128GB LRDIMM modules. These are 'relatively rare' - Crucial's 128GB LRDIMMs should be coming out in Q3, and will cost north of $2000 each, or we can find no-name brand modules for $4000+ today.
Ryan Smith - Wednesday, August 30, 2017 - link
"You have not corrected Threadripper RAM support, which you are yourself confirmed here:"So AMD's answer is a bit wily here. The memory size limit of Threadripper is 1TB. However it officially only supports UDIMMs; (L)RDIMMs are only supported by Epyc. So if you happen across 128GB UDIMMs, then you'd theoretically be able to get up to 1TB.
http://www.anandtech.com/comments/11775/intel-laun...
wallysb01 - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
Wow, those prices. Don't these typically follow the X series prices more closely? The 8 core, for example, is nearly twice as expensive as the the i9 8 core.iwod - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
Look like this is what ends up in the iMac Pro. I wish Apple could choose AMD and use the $500 savings for a higher grade GPU.r3loaded - Wednesday, August 30, 2017 - link
TL;DR: Just get Threadripper which supports up to 1TB RAM, also has ECC support and 64 PCIe 3.0 lanes, and save yourself a packet in the process. Unless you *really* need AVX512 support, and at that point you should probably be considering Xeon Phi anyway if it's that important for you.Burpo - Wednesday, August 30, 2017 - link
Errors in above slides/spreadsheets..There is no Xeon W-1245..
Should be Xeon W-2145..
jackywebdesign - Thursday, August 31, 2017 - link
Looks like there are 2 more lower end CPUs that didn't make it on to the announcement, the Xeon W-2102 and W-2104. Both are 4 cores with no HT or Turbo Boost. They're linked to on the bottom of this page: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/p...Stokkolm - Friday, September 1, 2017 - link
Yeah, I think I'm going to be giving AMD my money this time around. I don't know who could justify paying roughly twice as much for about the same performance. The only way to make Intel fix their pricing is to not buy their products. If they were close to the price of AMD I would probably go with Intel, but I just can't stomach the cost of an 8 core CPU from Intel right now.snakyjake - Tuesday, September 26, 2017 - link
What does the Xeon W provide the Xeon E3 1200 series does not? Value/Price?12Parsecs - Wednesday, February 21, 2018 - link
Anyone have solid all core turbo numbers on:W-2155
W-2175
W-2195
10, 14, 18 respectively.
Thank you brains trust from Sydney, Australia.