Haswell-EP lineup/prices leaked

melk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 21, 2014
Messages
1,054
I'm not gonna bother this time around due to the generally crappy nature of Haswell's FIVR and such. Next couple years for me will be Haswell -> Broadwell -> Skylake EP

Anyway these are still nice and the E5-2650L which is a low-power processor with 12 cores and just 65 W TDP sounds interesting.

As the core counts continue to climb I think we will need to see a move to independtly clocked cores so that the entire chip is not held back by the slowest core.
 

Skyscraper

n00b
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
Messages
63
The E5 2600 v2 CPUs can turbo up to 700 MHz over stock frequency.
I would like to know how high these v3 CPUs will turbo.

Lots of cores at below 3 GHz is not as nice as lots of cores at a higher frequency.
Even for a workstation there are many tasks that scale better with frequency than with more cores.
 

melk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 21, 2014
Messages
1,054
Which is why they really need to work on allowing cores to run at different speeds.

Independently clocked cores FTW! Having all cores suffer the fate of the slowest, when we are talking 6-18 cores is just asking to be improved upon...
 

CoreStoffer

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
242
Hmmm, that looks odd.

The top 8 and 12 cores have lower CPU Frequency than the V2 versions. What is up with that? :(

Edit: But maybe the turbo clocks are a bit higher. We shall see.
 

lutjens

Gawd
Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
792
Hmmm, that looks odd.

The top 8 and 12 cores have lower CPU Frequency than the V2 versions. What is up with that? :(

Edit: But maybe the turbo clocks are a bit higher. We shall see.

Probably to compensate for the additional heat produced by the FIVR...:(
 

lutjens

Gawd
Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
792
So no way to know how high the E5-2699 v3 will OC.



Haswell E or Haswell EP...


Unfortunately, no...no way to know yet. All I can say is that if the E5-2699 V3 is unlocked, I'll be buying at least two of them and building a new workstation. If they're locked, I'll be buying exactly nothing...;)
 

dr/owned

Gawd
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
577
Pretty worthless for enthusiasts. 8 cores * 4.5 Ghz (-E) would theoretically be pretty close to 16 cores * 2.3 Ghz. HPC apps are going to love the 18 cores * 8 sockets + TB upon TB of RAM (when -EX comes around). In memory execution FTW.

I would seriously doubt any unlocked Xeons are going to be sold. Makes no business sense to leave performance on the table ready for the end user to unlock when you can charge for it.
 

lutjens

Gawd
Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
792
Pretty worthless for enthusiasts. 8 cores * 4.5 Ghz (-E) would theoretically be pretty close to 16 cores * 2.3 Ghz. HPC apps are going to love the 18 cores * 8 sockets + TB upon TB of RAM (when -EX comes around). In memory execution FTW.

I would seriously doubt any unlocked Xeons are going to be sold. Makes no business sense to leave performance on the table ready for the end user to unlock when you can charge for it.

I think that after paying the $4100 that the top chip will sell for should purchase the end user the right to have an unlocked chip. I'd agree it makes no sense to unlock the lower end members of the Xeon lineup and allow an inexpensive chip to attain top tier performance. However, the top SKUs for each level of core count should be unlocked as their very substantial asking prices are more than sufficient recompense to Intel for providing a CPU with that functionality.
 

/dev/null

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 31, 2001
Messages
15,070
Which is why they really need to work on allowing cores to run at different speeds.

Independently clocked cores FTW! Having all cores suffer the fate of the slowest, when we are talking 6-18 cores is just asking to be improved upon...

I'm pretty sure you've been able to do this in linux for ages....
 

CoreStoffer

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
242
They have news about the CPUs E5-16xx V3 too:

Haswell-EP E5-1600 v3 Xeon

The E5-1680 v3 is bit more expensive that I like, but since these share DNA with the Haswell-E, it will be interesting to see whether you will able to overclock that one.
 

Tsumi

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
13,386
I think that after paying the $4100 that the top chip will sell for should purchase the end user the right to have an unlocked chip. I'd agree it makes no sense to unlock the lower end members of the Xeon lineup and allow an inexpensive chip to attain top tier performance. However, the top SKUs for each level of core count should be unlocked as their very substantial asking prices are more than sufficient recompense to Intel for providing a CPU with that functionality.

Pretty sure they want you to upgrade their top tier CPU with every generation, not every 3 generations.
 

ToddW2

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 8, 2004
Messages
4,018
E5-2687W v3 10 3.10 GHz

sweet! finally larger # of cores reaching past 3ghz.
 

Nathan_P

[H]ard DCOTM x2
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
3,433
On a serious note, either the 2650L or 2695 would be of interest to me. As always though its all dependant on price
 

lutjens

Gawd
Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
792
Pretty sure they want you to upgrade their top tier CPU with every generation, not every 3 generations.

Do you think that people won't upgrade to a newer unlocked chip with more cores in the future if Intel unlocks the top Xeon SKUs now? In this case, lets say an unlocked 18-core chip ends up getting offered. Will a purchaser of this chip turn his nose up at a top SKU 22-core Broadwell-EP when it become available next year?

Incredibly unlikely. The buyer of the 18-core is likely to drop it like a hot potato next year when Broadwell-EP comes out...as it offers 4 more cores, very likely better clock potential on the 14nm process, support for faster DDR4 that isn't even out yet and overall better performance.

It's like saying that enthusiasts will turn their nose up at the i7-5960X because the i7-4960X was unlocked...:rolleyes:

Demand for the top Xeon SKUs would increase if it were unlocked as performance-hungry folks who want Intel's best CPU line up to empty their wallets, in addition to those server buyers who are buying them for conventional server use. And selling more top SKU Xeons makes Intel very happy...;)
 

Tsumi

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
13,386
Do you think that people won't upgrade to a newer unlocked chip with more cores in the future if Intel unlocks the top Xeon SKUs now? In this case, lets say an unlocked 18-core chip ends up getting offered. Will a purchaser of this chip turn his nose up at a top SKU 22-core Broadwell-EP when it become available next year?

Incredibly unlikely. The buyer of the 18-core is likely to drop it like a hot potato next year when Broadwell-EP comes out...as it offers 4 more cores, very likely better clock potential on the 14nm process, support for faster DDR4 that isn't even out yet and overall better performance.

It's like saying that enthusiasts will turn their nose up at the i7-5960X because the i7-4960X was unlocked...:rolleyes:

Demand for the top Xeon SKUs would increase if it were unlocked as performance-hungry folks who want Intel's best CPU line up to empty their wallets, in addition to those server buyers who are buying them for conventional server use. And selling more top SKU Xeons makes Intel very happy...;)

If the new generation didn't clock as high as the older generation on average, yes, they will ignore it. Which has been the case with the past 3 generations of Intel CPUs.

Also, the environment top-tier Xeons were meant for place stability over performance. There is an extremely limited number of enthusiasts capable of affording a single top tier Xeon, let alone two or three. Sure, there is almost no reason for them to not have an unlocked top tier Xeon, but there's almost no reason for them to have it as well.
 

/dev/null

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 31, 2001
Messages
15,070
Really? How does that work? I thought this was strictly a limitation of the chip design itself?


Code:
hendero@ev-henderolx01:~$ sudo cpufreq-info -c 0
cpufrequtils 008: cpufreq-info (C) Dominik Brodowski 2004-2009
Report errors and bugs to cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, please.
analyzing CPU 0:
  driver: acpi-cpufreq
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 0
  maximum transition latency: 10.0 us.
  hardware limits: 1.20 GHz - 2.40 GHz
  available frequency steps: 2.40 GHz, 2.30 GHz, 2.20 GHz, 2.10 GHz, 2.00 GHz, 1.90 GHz, 1.80 GHz, 1.70 GHz, 1.60 GHz, 1.50 GHz, 1.40 GHz, 1.30 GHz, 1.20 GHz
  available cpufreq governors: conservative, ondemand, userspace, powersave, performance
  current policy: frequency should be within 1.20 GHz and 2.40 GHz.
                  The governor "ondemand" may decide which speed to use
                  within this range.
  current CPU frequency is 1.20 GHz (asserted by call to hardware).
  cpufreq stats: 2.40 GHz:0.00%, 2.30 GHz:0.00%, 2.20 GHz:0.00%, 2.10 GHz:0.00%, 2.00 GHz:0.00%, 1.90 GHz:0.00%, 1.80 GHz:0.00%, 1.70 GHz:0.00%, 1.60 GHz:0.00%, 1.50 GHz:0.00%, 1.40 GHz:0.00%, 1.30 GHz:0.00%, 1.20 GHz:100.00%  (24795)
hendero@ev-henderolx01:~$ cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep MHz
cpu MHz		: 1200.000
cpu MHz		: 1200.000
cpu MHz		: 1200.000
cpu MHz		: 1200.000
cpu MHz		: 1200.000
cpu MHz		: 1200.000
cpu MHz		: 1200.000
cpu MHz		: 1200.000
hendero@ev-henderolx01:~$ sudo cpufreq-set -c0 -f 2000MHz
hendero@ev-henderolx01:~$ cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep MHz
cpu MHz		: 2000.000
cpu MHz		: 1200.000
cpu MHz		: 1200.000
cpu MHz		: 1200.000
cpu MHz		: 1200.000
cpu MHz		: 1200.000
cpu MHz		: 1200.000
cpu MHz		: 1200.000
 

lutjens

Gawd
Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
792
If the new generation didn't clock as high as the older generation on average, yes, they will ignore it. Which has been the case with the past 3 generations of Intel CPUs.

Also, the environment top-tier Xeons were meant for place stability over performance. There is an extremely limited number of enthusiasts capable of affording a single top tier Xeon, let alone two or three. Sure, there is almost no reason for them to not have an unlocked top tier Xeon, but there's almost no reason for them to have it as well.

The new generation will have more cores than the older generation. Combine this with a new process that will assuredly clock at least as well and likely have improved thermal characteristics (not to mention drop in socket compatibility) and you have an easy upgrade that many will perform.

Folks who can afford these processors are merely looking to utilize the built in headroom that these chips have in abundance and are more than willing to spend the money on a cooling system capable of handling their higher heat output. It's not just enthusiasts who would purchase these either. Graphics designers, programmers, Wall Street high frequency traders, and video editors are all potential customers and would buy these. These people aren't putting them under LN2 to get a world record benchmark, or have any intent of plowing 2V through them for a suicide screenshot. All they want is to use the headroom of the processor and are willing to cool it properly to do so.

In their current form, the 18-core CPU is largely useless to most of the above-mentioned users due to it's extreme single threaded performance deficiency (due to its extremely low clocks). While it's multi-threaded performance is excellent, many of these people won't buy them due to this very significant single-thread performance deficit. If they were unlocked, they'd be much more attractive and more would be sold. Keeping the top chips locked has the very real potential to hurt sales to some market segments, as clock speeds continue to fall with increasing core counts. This has the potential to keep people sitting on their wallets as the single-threaded performance penalty becomes even more acute.

Also, consider the E5-1600 series. The top SKUs have been fully unlocked since SB-E. No horror stories or problems with these chips. Most end up in workstations like the HP Z420 and are never overclocked. They haven't been discontinued or abruptly locked by Intel due to some issue. Why would the 2600 series chips be any different? They both serve the exact same market.

Bottom line...there is no good reason to lock the top SKUs of the Xeon 2600 lineup. An unlocked Xeon 2600 can be used by people who want to exploit that feature and have paid the price of admission. Those who don't want to use it, don't have to. But spending $4000 on a CPU should buy you an unlocked multiplier.
 
Last edited:

doug_7506

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 17, 2004
Messages
3,244
glad to see the 5820k will now be a six core. Really help differentiate it from the 5770k (model?).
 

drescherjm

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
14,863
The question is, are the prices listed true to Intel's planned MSRP or are the prices listed reflective of a effort by the retailer to gouge on the new product?

Hmm. Those prices are about what I expected for retail. Actually I expected the 6core / 12 threaded CPUs to be a little more expensive.
 

lutjens

Gawd
Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
792
Change the first url "CM80648" to "CM80644", you will find something interesting:D

Interesting, but they screwed up on the E5-2699 V3...there are two and the cheaper one is actually the E5-2698 V3.

Some SKUs are missing in the chiploco page.

There are two 4-core SKUs: E5-2623v3 and 2637v3. The TDP of E5-2643v3, 2667v3 is not 145W but 135W.

I doubt those 4-core SKUs would interest many people anyway...;)
 
Top