Good question; OTOH the $3k 12core chip is powerful enough to replace a lot of 4 way servers with 2 way designs. It could just be Intel letting customers whose loads are dominated by CPU use not memory bandwidth step down to a significantly cooler 2 way server while protecting their profit margins.
Love my job, since I've been bringing in $82h… I sit at home, music playing while I work in front of my new iMac that I got now that I'm making it online. (Home more information) http://goo.gl/0kfo2t
hopefully they will release that 12 core cpu as some kind of desktop part eventually, i would love to have a 12 core to replace my 4 core 3820 - it would help me a lot with encoding movies on handbrake
Technically your motherboard will probably be updated to support most of these CPUs, but with no competition the prices will always be through the roof.
They won't. The 12 core chip is a different die than the 6 core version. That 12 core chip is just too large to sell at consumer prices and be profitable at levels Intel is comfortable with. At consumer level clocks ( >3.2 ghz ) it'll likely consume too much power too.
The only time Intel released a true server grade chip in the consumer space, the Gallatin based Pentium 4 Extreme editions was due to heavy competition from AMD with the Athlon 64. Intel still kept prices at $1000 USD.
If I had the money, I'd happily pay the 3k/CPU for a bunch of the 12-core part and use it to virtualize all my desktop crap... Hell, right now I'm starting to tinker with virtualization again (last time I did we were still at VMWare 5 or 6) thanks to Xilinx ISE flat out not working on Win8, and beyond my patince on linux...
Well high end desktops use same socket as these Xeons, also there ECC supporting xeon workstation boards for these also. So in principle you could build an a desktop around these CPU models if you have the cash. But more likely you should get an 6 or 8 core single socket version. As for these having too low clock speed for desktop use I'd say its good enough, and turbo speeds should fix remaining clockspeed problems.
To my knowledge there are no 8 core single socket CPUs. The biggest one available not is the E5-1660, with the Ivy Bridge "v2" version being announced but unreleased.
But yeah, I don't think that a 12-core running at 2.7 GHz can even beat a same-generation 6-core overclocked around 4.6GHz to 4.8GHz when it comes to raw performance. The only point of this high-core-count CPUs is energy-efficiency with software which is known to scale well.
Mac Pro due for release in Q4 this year comes with 12 Core Xeon Processor. It supports hyper-threading and should give you 24 logical-cores/threads to play with.
I will get my Xeon E5-2697 V2 12-core Desktop soon. It will be called the MacPro 2013. With Apple's ability to sell mass quantities, Apple will be able to get a huge discount on these processors. So I expect the price - including 7,000 worth of AMD GPU - to be less than 5,000.
I'm wondering if there will be a successor to the E5-1650. That processor is basically an i7-3930k with the Xeon featureset (including ECC support) and even though it comes only in OEM tray form, it's available at around $580 - not much more than the consumer variant. A tempting choice for a pro-grade workstation if one CPU is enough (it doesn't support multi-processor configurations).
Do you happen to know if the E5-16xx series is unlocked/has BCLK straps? I wouldn't mind a slight overclock (setting all 6 cores to the maximum single core turbo frequency should be stable as long as heat is kept under control), but ECC is nice to have.
I'd guess the rumor was coupled with the 16 core die having too many yield problems to make a 16core version viable; forcing Intel to copy a tactic commonly used in the GPU industry and only sell parts with at least on module disabled. A 16core IVB would probably be close to the size of a GK110 die.
They could push the 12-core chip up to 150 W and probably gain another ~200 MHz (2.9 GHz). At 15 cores they'd need to go down to 2.3 GHz without voltage scaling to stay within 150 W TDP, so let's assume the chip could run at 2.5 GHz with lowered voltage. That makes it at best (100% multicore scaling) ~8% faster than the maxed-out 12 core chip (2.5*15 / (2.9*12)). That's not enough to create a new huge die.
The 15 core chip is Ivy Bridge EX which will go into a different socket. The internal arrangement of cores is expected to be 5 x 3 which makes it native 15 core.
I understand AMD isn't competitive. But why are they not releasing something that at least try to complete? At these price there are lot of margin to understand Intel even if it means AMD will earn relatively little. So earning a consumer desktop CPU margin on a Server grade product seems doable.
I wonder if OpenPOWER will disrupt Intel in server market.
AMD has had 16-core Opterons for quite awhile; I bought 2 for a 2-socket server (upgrading from 1 8-core Opteron, using the same server) recently, which will be running ESXi aka VSphere with 48GB of RAM (the server can go to at least 128GB).
Intel has nothing to compete with a 32-core 2-socket server. Intel's IPC is higher, and in some cases power efficiency, but their prices are much higher too.
Opterons make great database servers too, and in some cases are great for HPC.
This was partially true with the 32nm line. Now we have 50% more cores and 50% more L3 at the same power consumption. Unfortunately in this situation Amd is not competitive in ALL kinds of server workloads, even in HPC and some (not all) database applications. It's pretty certain Amd will lose its little residual market share in server...but this is not an Intel fault, it was an Amd choice to abandon this segment of cpu business, yes because it is !! Amd has chosen to do a game Soc instead of a 2014 refresh in 28nm of the Opetron line. Frankly speaking i do not understand Amd execs, x86 cpus server market wlll grow up to 20B in 2016 from actual around 12B , this move has not a common sense. Selling cheap Socs for consoles do not gives much revenue and it is not a long term solution to consolidate a robust success in upcoming ten years. As usual ...good for Intel........it will eat all the apple.
while partially correct, it is the IT world itself which is killing AMD, if you would see how many tenders I work for demand Intel brand (mainly US and UAE regions) on top of that many older aging management IT who believe Intel is always the only possible brand for desktop - workstation-server. As if AMD is unstable, not performing etc... know your HW and it will work fine we used 1000s of AMD server since the opteron 1200 series. (the only issue at that time was the flaky Nvidia chipset) long gone those days.
The margins of pushing server opteron get real low for AMD with a share around 10%. On top of that Intel is still demanding to the OEM what to do and what to do not, no longer like the old days but they demand how they can use there platforms and give additional money to the OEM for "designing" additional Intel platforms.... so AMD needs to do the same with way less budget. So we end up in a IT world where the CPu provider is demanding what can be done and what not (even on consumers, ultrabook is a good example)
but don't worry for those who think Intel only is a good deal. look at the 2680 and 2690 series v2 now and you know what will come, way to high prices and they will never go down again, own fault. We will suffer in general. Consumer is the looser.
Today I am still happy to say that I can sell servers with 12-16core AMD cpu as a medio budget server for hypervisor. Even without calculating reductions on cpu which is way higher on an AMD then an Intel the AMD6380 will end up against Xeon E5-2640 v2 8 2 GHz 20 MB 95 Watt $1013.54
i will pass for those HT cores on a hypervisor....
AMD would like you to buy a four-socket AMD server if you want to compare with a two-socket Intel server; and it seems that the current $6000 Intel systems are no better in pure computrons than the AMD four-socket box I paid $6000 for two and a half years ago.
A four-socket 64-thread Magny Cours machine is still quite competitive with these machines, and not ludicrously expensive; the Opteron 6376 16-core 2.3GHz chip is $800 or so, so you can get four for the price of one 12-core Ivy Bridge, and the chassis with a four-socket motherboard is only about $500 more than the chassis with a two-socket Ivy Bridge board.
There is likely going to be an E5-16xx v2 line too. That should be a bit cheaper. There is the chance that To get the right core/clock count that Apple will have to use an E5-26xx line chip.
I don't think Apple ever sells Mac Pros with high end Xeon chips. Pros in the past have all been low end "E" version equivalent Xeons. In this wave of Mac Pros, I'm guessing they will be shipping with Ivy Bridge-E equivalent Xeons.
Also, Mac Pros in the past had hex-core Westmere-EP chips, which were as high end as things got with Westmere, excluding the ridiculously expensive Nehalem/Westmere-EX series.
I'm really disappointed in the pricing. I expect there to be procs in the $1000 plus range, but the $300 range is pathetic. I'd like to upgrade to something like this but at those prices I can't. I am not buying the featureless products in that range.
I would like to see a comparison with Sandy Bridge E in the low end. I wonder if there is any point in upgrading at all.
This is the current pricing. For me it seems that the new ones will be a better deal almost every time. Effectively Intel is competing with it's old processors. Not with AMD.
These are pre-order prices from some retailer not Intel's pricing. This retailer charges $250 more for the E5-2687W now and $300 for the E5-2690, they also have $3,000+ pricing on HP and Lenovo branded E5-2690s (same CPU).
How about actually doing some tests under Linux for a change? This is the server market we're talking about. I don't want Windows anywhere near my servers.
Is there any benefit to using Xeon chips over Extreme version Core chips in non server based applications? I'm just a student that does a lot of gaming and video production. I do know that Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge E are essentially just Xeon chips with manufacturing imperfection, then having parts of it disabled and marketed as i7. For my needs, does it worth it to dish out extra $100 to get the base model hexacore Xeon?
Well, you get ECC, which is nice to have for any serious work to prevent data corruption. The Xeon you want is not going to cost $100 more than the equivalent i7 though. These are all dual-socket Xeons and are priced accordingly; it sounds like you should wait for the single-socket versions.
People complaining about price need to look at the average cost of a 2p server or blade and then measure the value of the improvements. I am putting off our next UCS expansion until these are available, 12 core model is no-brainer for a vmware farm.
If i was getting a xeon I would choose the Xeon E5-2687W v2. Since these are not multiplier unlocked the 3.4ghz clock is more important to me than a couple more cores. Out of all the 8,10, and 12 core models the Xeon E5-2687W v2 will have the best single threaded performance and is only 100 mhz slower than the highest clocked 4 and 6 core chips. It seems to be the sweet spot for single and multi threaded workloads.
Best price to performance ratio i would give to Xeon E5-2643 v2 the 3.5ghz hex core with 25MB cache which is the same amount of cache as some 8 and 10 core models. Should be about 1200 dollars and will have the best single threaded performance of all chips. All the cheaper chips take 1 ghz drops or more and 10MB or more hit to the cache with the exception of the 3.5ghz quad core which is almost the same price. And the pricier chips are MUCH MUCH more costly and are clocked a good bit slower but they have more cores, not worth the 1000 dollar premium though.
Are we sure that the E5-2643 v2 is going to be hex-core with 25MB cache ? Shouldn't it be 15MB cache ? I'm not entirely sure about that model info, seems incorrect. If the info is correct and cost around $1200, I'll probably pick two of those for 12 cores @3.5 GHz workstation. But my feeling is that E5-2643 v2 is going to cost somewhere in $1500+ region.
If you look at E5-2687W v2 to its v1 counterpart, you have to pay an extra $500+ for a small 300MHz increase and whatever small percentage of performance improvement going from Sandy to Ivy.
I'll most likely go with dual E5-2630v2. But really like the dual E5-2643v2 .
Anyone know the release date of these chip ? Is the E5-2643v2 releasing at the same time or later date ?
Really disappointed that the 2687W isn't going to be at least 10-core (as it was reported on some other sites). I need all the multithreaded performance I can get out of a 2-socket system, but 6k for 48 threads at 2.7-2.9 ghz just doesn't sound that much better than 4.8K for 32 threads at 3.6 ghz. I wish they just had a ~3.3ghz base clock 10 core.
Maybe I'm being overly cynical, but Intel seems to be in full "milk the market" mode at the moment, long gone are the days that a generational increase in the number of cores came at the same price point. Prices just keep going up and up. Here's hoping for a miracle that AMD can get back in the fight.
Really what's the point? They are making 22nm chips they should have just accelerated the haswell rollout for xenon. It seems pointless to buy these considering some of haswells tsx features and how much servers might benefit from it.
Poignant means evoking a keen sense of sadness or regret. This sentence makes no sense:
"...the business aspect of these processors along the Xeon brand is arguably the more poignant and certainly the more profitable aspect of the business."
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
52 Comments
Back to Article
dac7nco - Friday, August 9, 2013 - link
Jesus Christ. I wonder what the 4XXX v2 are going to run.DanNeely - Friday, August 9, 2013 - link
Good question; OTOH the $3k 12core chip is powerful enough to replace a lot of 4 way servers with 2 way designs. It could just be Intel letting customers whose loads are dominated by CPU use not memory bandwidth step down to a significantly cooler 2 way server while protecting their profit margins.KurtToni - Monday, August 12, 2013 - link
Love my job, since I've been bringing in $82h… I sit at home, music playing while I work in front of my new iMac that I got now that I'm making it online. (Home more information)http://goo.gl/0kfo2t
f0d - Friday, August 9, 2013 - link
hopefully they will release that 12 core cpu as some kind of desktop part eventually, i would love to have a 12 core to replace my 4 core 3820 - it would help me a lot with encoding movies on handbrakeZink - Friday, August 9, 2013 - link
Technically your motherboard will probably be updated to support most of these CPUs, but with no competition the prices will always be through the roof.Kevin G - Friday, August 9, 2013 - link
They won't. The 12 core chip is a different die than the 6 core version. That 12 core chip is just too large to sell at consumer prices and be profitable at levels Intel is comfortable with. At consumer level clocks ( >3.2 ghz ) it'll likely consume too much power too.The only time Intel released a true server grade chip in the consumer space, the Gallatin based Pentium 4 Extreme editions was due to heavy competition from AMD with the Athlon 64. Intel still kept prices at $1000 USD.
ZeDestructor - Wednesday, August 14, 2013 - link
If I had the money, I'd happily pay the 3k/CPU for a bunch of the 12-core part and use it to virtualize all my desktop crap... Hell, right now I'm starting to tinker with virtualization again (last time I did we were still at VMWare 5 or 6) thanks to Xilinx ISE flat out not working on Win8, and beyond my patince on linux...josmala - Saturday, August 10, 2013 - link
Well high end desktops use same socket as these Xeons, also there ECC supporting xeon workstation boards for these also. So in principle you could build an a desktop around these CPU models if you have the cash. But more likely you should get an 6 or 8 core single socket version. As for these having too low clock speed for desktop use I'd say its good enough, and turbo speeds should fix remaining clockspeed problems.ShieTar - Sunday, August 18, 2013 - link
To my knowledge there are no 8 core single socket CPUs. The biggest one available not is the E5-1660, with the Ivy Bridge "v2" version being announced but unreleased.But yeah, I don't think that a 12-core running at 2.7 GHz can even beat a same-generation 6-core overclocked around 4.6GHz to 4.8GHz when it comes to raw performance. The only point of this high-core-count CPUs is energy-efficiency with software which is known to scale well.
sundevil260 - Monday, August 12, 2013 - link
Mac Pro due for release in Q4 this year comes with 12 Core Xeon Processor. It supports hyper-threading and should give you 24 logical-cores/threads to play with.toyotabedzrock - Wednesday, August 14, 2013 - link
I am still waiting on the 8 core Intel promised 5 or 6 years ago for desktop.jameskatt - Friday, August 16, 2013 - link
I will get my Xeon E5-2697 V2 12-core Desktop soon. It will be called the MacPro 2013.With Apple's ability to sell mass quantities, Apple will be able to get a huge discount on these processors. So I expect the price - including 7,000 worth of AMD GPU - to be less than 5,000.
ImSpartacus - Friday, August 9, 2013 - link
Dat cache.../chrisbrownface
brshoemak - Friday, August 9, 2013 - link
/richboyface not /chrisbrownface Regardless I LOL'd.nandnandnand - Friday, August 9, 2013 - link
"hopefully they will release that 12 core cpu as some kind of desktop part eventually"I think there is a cheaper 6-core Sandy Bridge-E coming, but nothing higher than that till 2014, and 8 cores at most.
JDG1980 - Friday, August 9, 2013 - link
I'm wondering if there will be a successor to the E5-1650. That processor is basically an i7-3930k with the Xeon featureset (including ECC support) and even though it comes only in OEM tray form, it's available at around $580 - not much more than the consumer variant. A tempting choice for a pro-grade workstation if one CPU is enough (it doesn't support multi-processor configurations).madmilk - Friday, August 9, 2013 - link
Do you happen to know if the E5-16xx series is unlocked/has BCLK straps? I wouldn't mind a slight overclock (setting all 6 cores to the maximum single core turbo frequency should be stable as long as heat is kept under control), but ECC is nice to have.Devilboy1313 - Friday, August 9, 2013 - link
"vague rumours of a 15 core chip" 15? I would have expected it to be 16. Why X^2 -1?DanNeely - Friday, August 9, 2013 - link
I'd guess the rumor was coupled with the 16 core die having too many yield problems to make a 16core version viable; forcing Intel to copy a tactic commonly used in the GPU industry and only sell parts with at least on module disabled. A 16core IVB would probably be close to the size of a GK110 die.MrSpadge - Saturday, August 10, 2013 - link
They could push the 12-core chip up to 150 W and probably gain another ~200 MHz (2.9 GHz). At 15 cores they'd need to go down to 2.3 GHz without voltage scaling to stay within 150 W TDP, so let's assume the chip could run at 2.5 GHz with lowered voltage. That makes it at best (100% multicore scaling) ~8% faster than the maxed-out 12 core chip (2.5*15 / (2.9*12)). That's not enough to create a new huge die.Kevin G - Saturday, August 10, 2013 - link
The 15 core chip is Ivy Bridge EX which will go into a different socket. The internal arrangement of cores is expected to be 5 x 3 which makes it native 15 core.iwod - Saturday, August 10, 2013 - link
I understand AMD isn't competitive. But why are they not releasing something that at least try to complete? At these price there are lot of margin to understand Intel even if it means AMD will earn relatively little. So earning a consumer desktop CPU margin on a Server grade product seems doable.I wonder if OpenPOWER will disrupt Intel in server market.
bobbozzo - Saturday, August 10, 2013 - link
AMD has had 16-core Opterons for quite awhile; I bought 2 for a 2-socket server (upgrading from 1 8-core Opteron, using the same server) recently, which will be running ESXi aka VSphere with 48GB of RAM (the server can go to at least 128GB).Intel has nothing to compete with a 32-core 2-socket server.
Intel's IPC is higher, and in some cases power efficiency, but their prices are much higher too.
Opterons make great database servers too, and in some cases are great for HPC.
Gondalf - Saturday, August 10, 2013 - link
This was partially true with the 32nm line. Now we have 50% more cores and 50% more L3 at the same power consumption. Unfortunately in this situation Amd is not competitive in ALL kinds of server workloads, even in HPC and some (not all) database applications.It's pretty certain Amd will lose its little residual market share in server...but this is not an Intel fault, it was an Amd choice to abandon this segment of cpu business, yes because it is !! Amd has chosen to do a game Soc instead of a 2014 refresh in 28nm of the Opetron line.
Frankly speaking i do not understand Amd execs, x86 cpus server market wlll grow up to 20B in 2016 from actual around 12B , this move has not a common sense. Selling cheap Socs for consoles do not gives much revenue and it is not a long term solution to consolidate a robust success in upcoming ten years.
As usual ...good for Intel........it will eat all the apple.
duploxxx - Saturday, August 10, 2013 - link
while partially correct, it is the IT world itself which is killing AMD, if you would see how many tenders I work for demand Intel brand (mainly US and UAE regions) on top of that many older aging management IT who believe Intel is always the only possible brand for desktop - workstation-server. As if AMD is unstable, not performing etc... know your HW and it will work fine we used 1000s of AMD server since the opteron 1200 series. (the only issue at that time was the flaky Nvidia chipset) long gone those days.The margins of pushing server opteron get real low for AMD with a share around 10%. On top of that Intel is still demanding to the OEM what to do and what to do not, no longer like the old days but they demand how they can use there platforms and give additional money to the OEM for "designing" additional Intel platforms.... so AMD needs to do the same with way less budget. So we end up in a IT world where the CPu provider is demanding what can be done and what not (even on consumers, ultrabook is a good example)
but don't worry for those who think Intel only is a good deal. look at the 2680 and 2690 series v2 now and you know what will come, way to high prices and they will never go down again, own fault. We will suffer in general. Consumer is the looser.
Today I am still happy to say that I can sell servers with 12-16core AMD cpu as a medio budget server for hypervisor. Even without calculating reductions on cpu which is way higher on an AMD then an Intel the AMD6380 will end up against
Xeon E5-2640 v2 8 2 GHz 20 MB 95 Watt $1013.54
i will pass for those HT cores on a hypervisor....
FwFred - Saturday, August 10, 2013 - link
Hahaha... you're too funny. Want to check the 2-socket server market share? Think it's going to get better with Ivy?Tom Womack - Sunday, August 11, 2013 - link
AMD would like you to buy a four-socket AMD server if you want to compare with a two-socket Intel server; and it seems that the current $6000 Intel systems are no better in pure computrons than the AMD four-socket box I paid $6000 for two and a half years ago.Tom Womack - Sunday, August 11, 2013 - link
A four-socket 64-thread Magny Cours machine is still quite competitive with these machines, and not ludicrously expensive; the Opteron 6376 16-core 2.3GHz chip is $800 or so, so you can get four for the price of one 12-core Ivy Bridge, and the chassis with a four-socket motherboard is only about $500 more than the chassis with a two-socket Ivy Bridge board.Eidigean - Saturday, August 10, 2013 - link
How much is the Mac Pro likely to cost if the 12-core processor alone costs $2675 ?I wonder what kind of discount Intel is giving Apple...
Kevin G - Saturday, August 10, 2013 - link
There is likely going to be an E5-16xx v2 line too. That should be a bit cheaper. There is the chance that To get the right core/clock count that Apple will have to use an E5-26xx line chip.Hung_Low - Saturday, August 10, 2013 - link
I don't think Apple ever sells Mac Pros with high end Xeon chips. Pros in the past have all been low end "E" version equivalent Xeons. In this wave of Mac Pros, I'm guessing they will be shipping with Ivy Bridge-E equivalent Xeons.madmilk - Saturday, August 10, 2013 - link
Apple is advertising 12 cores, and there's no way they have a dual socket setup in that trash can.madmilk - Saturday, August 10, 2013 - link
Also, Mac Pros in the past had hex-core Westmere-EP chips, which were as high end as things got with Westmere, excluding the ridiculously expensive Nehalem/Westmere-EX series.Umbongo - Sunday, August 11, 2013 - link
Apple sold the top chips in their 2006, 2007 and 2008 models. The new one has benchmarks in the wild using the E5-2697 V2.eanazag - Saturday, August 10, 2013 - link
I'm really disappointed in the pricing. I expect there to be procs in the $1000 plus range, but the $300 range is pathetic. I'd like to upgrade to something like this but at those prices I can't. I am not buying the featureless products in that range.I would like to see a comparison with Sandy Bridge E in the low end. I wonder if there is any point in upgrading at all.
No competition sucks.
zepi - Saturday, August 10, 2013 - link
http://ark.intel.com/products/series/61422This is the current pricing. For me it seems that the new ones will be a better deal almost every time. Effectively Intel is competing with it's old processors. Not with AMD.
Umbongo - Sunday, August 11, 2013 - link
These are pre-order prices from some retailer not Intel's pricing. This retailer charges $250 more for the E5-2687W now and $300 for the E5-2690, they also have $3,000+ pricing on HP and Lenovo branded E5-2690s (same CPU).coder543 - Saturday, August 10, 2013 - link
How about actually doing some tests under Linux for a change? This is the server market we're talking about. I don't want Windows anywhere near my servers.Hung_Low - Saturday, August 10, 2013 - link
Is there any benefit to using Xeon chips over Extreme version Core chips in non server based applications? I'm just a student that does a lot of gaming and video production.I do know that Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge E are essentially just Xeon chips with manufacturing imperfection, then having parts of it disabled and marketed as i7. For my needs, does it worth it to dish out extra $100 to get the base model hexacore Xeon?
madmilk - Saturday, August 10, 2013 - link
Well, you get ECC, which is nice to have for any serious work to prevent data corruption. The Xeon you want is not going to cost $100 more than the equivalent i7 though. These are all dual-socket Xeons and are priced accordingly; it sounds like you should wait for the single-socket versions.vondur - Saturday, August 10, 2013 - link
I guess this is what happens when you get a monopoly on CPU's...shiznit - Saturday, August 10, 2013 - link
People complaining about price need to look at the average cost of a 2p server or blade and then measure the value of the improvements. I am putting off our next UCS expansion until these are available, 12 core model is no-brainer for a vmware farm.Laststop311 - Saturday, August 10, 2013 - link
If i was getting a xeon I would choose the Xeon E5-2687W v2. Since these are not multiplier unlocked the 3.4ghz clock is more important to me than a couple more cores. Out of all the 8,10, and 12 core models the Xeon E5-2687W v2 will have the best single threaded performance and is only 100 mhz slower than the highest clocked 4 and 6 core chips. It seems to be the sweet spot for single and multi threaded workloads.Best price to performance ratio i would give to Xeon E5-2643 v2 the 3.5ghz hex core with 25MB cache which is the same amount of cache as some 8 and 10 core models. Should be about 1200 dollars and will have the best single threaded performance of all chips. All the cheaper chips take 1 ghz drops or more and 10MB or more hit to the cache with the exception of the 3.5ghz quad core which is almost the same price. And the pricier chips are MUCH MUCH more costly and are clocked a good bit slower but they have more cores, not worth the 1000 dollar premium though.
DG4RiA - Saturday, August 10, 2013 - link
Are we sure that the E5-2643 v2 is going to be hex-core with 25MB cache ? Shouldn't it be 15MB cache ? I'm not entirely sure about that model info, seems incorrect. If the info is correct and cost around $1200, I'll probably pick two of those for 12 cores @3.5 GHz workstation. But my feeling is that E5-2643 v2 is going to cost somewhere in $1500+ region.If you look at E5-2687W v2 to its v1 counterpart, you have to pay an extra $500+ for a small 300MHz increase and whatever small percentage of performance improvement going from Sandy to Ivy.
I'll most likely go with dual E5-2630v2. But really like the dual E5-2643v2 .
Anyone know the release date of these chip ? Is the E5-2643v2 releasing at the same time or later date ?
Ytterbium - Sunday, August 11, 2013 - link
I think the 2643 will be a dual capable version of the i7-4960X basically?Carl Bicknell - Sunday, August 11, 2013 - link
Actually it's worse than that with the E5-2687W v1 compared to the new v2 version.The E5-2687W runs at 3.1 GHz but reaches 3.4 GHz on turbo with all cores running under load (I have this CPU and have tested it)
The new E5-2687W v2 CPU runs at 3.4 GHz and reaches 3.6 GHz on all cores under load (I know some people who have early samples)
So I'm afraid going from E5-2687W to the new v2 version only gives an extra 200 MHz
:(
MDenny - Sunday, August 11, 2013 - link
Really disappointed that the 2687W isn't going to be at least 10-core (as it was reported on some other sites). I need all the multithreaded performance I can get out of a 2-socket system, but 6k for 48 threads at 2.7-2.9 ghz just doesn't sound that much better than 4.8K for 32 threads at 3.6 ghz. I wish they just had a ~3.3ghz base clock 10 core.colonelclaw - Monday, August 12, 2013 - link
Maybe I'm being overly cynical, but Intel seems to be in full "milk the market" mode at the moment, long gone are the days that a generational increase in the number of cores came at the same price point. Prices just keep going up and up. Here's hoping for a miracle that AMD can get back in the fight.tech.kyle - Monday, August 12, 2013 - link
Nice to see I'm not the only person who likes CPU-World.toyotabedzrock - Wednesday, August 14, 2013 - link
Really what's the point? They are making 22nm chips they should have just accelerated the haswell rollout for xenon. It seems pointless to buy these considering some of haswells tsx features and how much servers might benefit from it.mganai - Thursday, August 22, 2013 - link
The 15 cores will be part of Ivy Bridge-EX, which is due either Q4 of this year or Q1 '14.NCM - Friday, August 23, 2013 - link
Poignant means evoking a keen sense of sadness or regret. This sentence makes no sense:"...the business aspect of these processors along the Xeon brand is arguably the more poignant and certainly the more profitable aspect of the business."