Intel launches Xeon E7 v3 processors with up to 18 cores

by Mark Tyson on 6 May 2015, 10:01

Tags: Intel (NASDAQ:INTC)

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qacq7s

Add to My Vault: x

Intel has announced the Xeon processor E7-8800/4800 v3 product family. It says that these processors have been created to help provide real-time business intelligence across industries from healthcare, to retail, to telecommunications and further. It foresees the new Xeon family being used to "rapidly extract actionable insight," from huge piles of data to give businesses a competitive edge in making better decisions faster.

The Xeon E7 v3 range is said to outperform the previous generation v2 processors by 40 per cent on average and have set 20 new performance world records. Twelve new processor models make up the Xeon E7 v3 range; the Xeon E7-8890 V3, E7-8800 V3, E7-8870 V3, E7-8860 V3, E7-4850 V3, E7 4830 V3, E7-4820 V3, E7-4809 V3, E7-8891 V3, E7 -8893 V3, E7-8880L V3 and the E7-8867 V3. They are price between $1,224 to $7,175 in quantities of 1,000.

Intel's new 5.6 billion transistor flagship Xeon, the E7-8890 V3, has the following specifications: 18 physical cores and 36 threads, base/boost clock speed of 2.5GHz/3.3GHz, 45MB of L3 cache and a TDP of 165W.

All the new processors are 22nm 'Haswell' chips and socket-compatible with the previous generation of Xeons. They support DDR3 and DDR4 memory with a maximum addressable 12TB of RAM in an 8-socket system. Intel Transactional Synchronization Extensions (Intel TSX) have been implemented to improve business processing application performance six-fold.

HEXUS Forums :: 13 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
Posted by 3dcandy - Wed 06 May 2015 10:14
18 cores and HT for 36 threads ;)
Posted by LSG501 - Wed 06 May 2015 10:37
I'm all for more cores but when you do the sums and include things like overheads etc then the 18 cores aren't actually that much faster than an 8 core cpu with higher clocks (ie desktop haswell-e), ignoring xeon/versus desktop obviously.

Unless you're running ‘18 things’ that only use 1 core or need some xeon only feature (not that many if any)the odds are that in most scenarios you wouldn't actually notice any real difference.

It just doesn't make sense to me financially but then I'm not a big business who likes to spend money lol
Posted by shaithis - Wed 06 May 2015 10:51
These are for servers and extreme workstation loads…which you can probably guess from “$7,175 in quantities of 1,000.”

Having 1 server with 4 x 16 cores in is going to draw a lot less power, occupy less space and cost less to cool then 4 servers with 16 cores in each server.

Or they might be able to turn the advanced physics back on in BF4 if you had one of these ;)
Posted by aidanjt - Wed 06 May 2015 10:54
LSG501
I'm all for more cores but when you do the sums and include things like overheads etc then the 18 cores aren't actually that much faster than an 8 core cpu with higher clocks (ie desktop haswell-e), ignoring xeon/versus desktop obviously.

You're applying Windows desktop logic to servers which run many extremely parallel processes, or indeed, many many virtual servers. 18 cores turboboosting up to 3.3GHz is some serious performance.
Posted by LSG501 - Wed 06 May 2015 11:29
aidanjt
You're applying Windows desktop logic to servers which run many extremely parallel processes, or indeed, many many virtual servers. 18 cores turboboosting up to 3.3GHz is some serious performance.
I'm actually using high end 3D workstation logic….it's what I work with day in day out :)

They won't be turbo boosting in 90% of scenarios and like I said unless you're running ‘18 things’ that use just one core then you'll likely not notice any real difference, the higher core clock of the 8 core would ‘make up the difference’ over the 18 core in essence.

SEE NEWER »