# Intel Readies a 5.1 GHz Xeon Chip Based on the "Broadwell" Architecture



## btarunr (Jan 16, 2016)

Intel's first 5-gigahertz CPU will bear an unlikely brand - Xeon. The company's upcoming Xeon E5-2602 V4 quad-core chip based on the 14 nm "Broadwell-EP" silicon, is rumored to ship with a staggering 5.10 GHz clock speed out of the box. Getting there won't be easy for this socket LGA2011v3 chip. Despite being a quad-core chip, with just four out of ten cores on the "Broadwell-EP" silicon bring physically enabled, the chip's TDP is rated at 165W. Other features include 10 MB of L3 cache, and a quad-channel DDR4 memory interface. 





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## MIRTAZAPINE (Jan 16, 2016)

A 5Ghz stock CPU intel? Wow! The gigaherts race is back?

Maybe my next cpu.


----------



## Aquinus (Jan 16, 2016)

2000-series E5s indicates it's a CPU that can be put in 2p boards. Dual 5Ghz quads anyone? That premium clock speed will be associated with a premium price though, this is Intel after all.


----------



## silentbogo (Jan 16, 2016)




----------



## RejZoR (Jan 16, 2016)

The 6700K Skylake was one of the highest clocked CPU's till they release this Xeon.

Which makes me wonder. Has Intel also hit the roof of existing architectures? I mean, every time company starts to just pump out unusually high clocked CPU's, it means the architecture has hit it's limit. It was almost always like this in the past, be it AMD or Intel. Intel had the most dramatic issue with NetBurst and Pentium 4's. It was so far not even high clock helped. AMD is facing the same issue. Most of their current high end CPU's are clocked past 4GHz.

I think they both have to come up with something significantly different, something in terms of what Core architecture was to Pentium 4 and what AMD's Zen will most likely be to Bulldozer architecture.


----------



## btarunr (Jan 16, 2016)

MIRTAZAPINE said:


> A 5Ghz stock CPU intel? Wow! The gigaherts race is back?
> 
> Maybe my next cpu.



Seeing as Intel hasn't come up with a new CPU design since 2008, and AMD since 2011, yes.


----------



## Kissamies (Jan 16, 2016)

Sweet..


----------



## Steevo (Jan 16, 2016)

Is this a move to compensate for what Zen is bringing? Possibly.

Do we still have a huge amount of single threaded workloads that haven't seen increased performance due to mediocre IPC and clock speed improvements? Yep.

If I were running unbranching serial and or dependent computations... the faster the better. I would buy this chip.


----------



## 64K (Jan 16, 2016)

Intel is hitting a wall with silicon as far as GHz is concerned and more cores isn't the solution for a lot of applications. They plan to move away from silicon after 10nm. We will probably see some really fast CPUs in a few years.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015...d-to-10nm-will-move-away-from-silicon-at-7nm/


----------



## buildzoid (Jan 16, 2016)

Hmm this might overclock up to 5.3-5.4Ghz.


----------



## RejZoR (Jan 16, 2016)

buildzoid said:


> Hmm this might overclock up to 5.3-5.4Ghz.



Which sucks. Just like 6700K. Increasing clock for ~500MHz is pathetic. Anyone who remembers Core 2, first generations Core i7 and even some newer models know what I'm talking about. Just for example, the old Core i7 920 went from stock 2.66MHz up to overclocked 4.2GHz. Or my current Core i7 5820K. From 3.3GHz to 4.5GHz. That's something to talk about. If it's under 1GHz increase it's meeeeeeh. Mostly because what you buy is basically what you end up with. But if they clock well, you can get some insane gains for moderate price.


----------



## Tuna Yücer (Jan 16, 2016)

lol old gigahertz race began! who will past 5 ghz stock? (not turbo speed)


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jan 16, 2016)

Interesting considering broadwell was the worst clocking chip Intel has put out in years and now it's taking them to 5ghz+? Combined with broadwell's great game performance per clock this would be the chip to have in any gaming rig, only it's not targeted at enthusiast. Strange situation.


----------



## vega22 (Jan 16, 2016)

i see this as an indication of the bw-e chips coming to 2011 more than anything.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jan 16, 2016)

This is hilarious. These will be super binned and overvolted heavily. The silicon is not going to like this. LEAKAGE!

If it's even true.


----------



## PP Mguire (Jan 16, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> Which sucks. Just like 6700K. Increasing clock for ~500MHz is pathetic. Anyone who remembers Core 2, first generations Core i7 and even some newer models know what I'm talking about. Just for example, the old Core i7 920 went from stock 2.66MHz up to overclocked 4.2GHz. Or my current Core i7 5820K. From 3.3GHz to 4.5GHz. That's something to talk about. If it's under 1GHz increase it's meeeeeeh. Mostly because what you buy is basically what you end up with. But if they clock well, you can get some insane gains for moderate price.


I wouldn't say this sucks dude. Stock clocks are already higher than anything Intel has on the market by 1GHz, and in a Xeon package meant for 24/7 stable usage. Not to mention only 165W TDP. If I clocked my chip with 2 cores disabled to 5GHz I'd be doing a hell of a lot more than 165W. Considering Xeons aren't meant for overclocking if you could get 500MHz out of one that's locked you're doing good.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jan 16, 2016)

PP Mguire said:


> I wouldn't say this sucks dude. Stock clocks are already higher than anything Intel has on the market by 1GHz, and in a Xeon package meant for 24/7 stable usage. Not to mention only 165W TDP. If I clocked my chip with 2 cores disabled to 5GHz I'd be doing a hell of a lot more than 165W. Considering Xeons aren't meant for overclocking if you could get 500MHz out of one that's locked you're doing good.



This thing could easily consume 200W and intel would still have a nice sounding TDP (which isn't consumption and may not even be close to accurate).


----------



## RejZoR (Jan 16, 2016)

PP Mguire said:


> I wouldn't say this sucks dude. Stock clocks are already higher than anything Intel has on the market by 1GHz, and in a Xeon package meant for 24/7 stable usage. Not to mention only 165W TDP. If I clocked my chip with 2 cores disabled to 5GHz I'd be doing a hell of a lot more than 165W. Considering Xeons aren't meant for overclocking if you could get 500MHz out of one that's locked you're doing good.



High stock clocks are only good for people who have no intention to overclock it. Probably corporate use or people who can't be bothered with overclocking.


----------



## PP Mguire (Jan 16, 2016)

TheGuruStud said:


> This thing could easily consume 200W and intel would still have a nice sounding TDP (which isn't consumption and may not even be close to accurate).


Except I'm willing to bet it's closer to 150. All the Xeons I own and use under continuous load sucks around 10W less than rated TDP from the wall. And yes, I'm fully aware of what TDP is. 



RejZoR said:


> High stock clocks are only good for people who have no intention to overclock it. Probably corporate use or people who can't be bothered with overclocking.


This is a Xeon mate, not an i7 or i5. Even IF you bought this chip for consumer work it'd be 5GHz out of the box and not even needed to be overclocked so really who cares? I have to really work to get 5GHz stable on my chips and It'd be pretty dandy to pop this bad boy in wiping the floor of all my Skylake buddies because they're capped around 4.6 due to their cooling solutions and I could theoretically run this on my H50. When I'm running single card I don't even need to OC my second gen chip for gaming so I don't really see why overclocking a Xeon of all things really matters.


----------



## iO (Jan 16, 2016)

Makes sense as most software is licensed by the core count. Or if you're code doesn't scale well more cores...


----------



## efikkan (Jan 16, 2016)

These will clearly be highly binned products, which would be fine since there are use cases where very high clock frequencies are appreciated. The E5 Xeons have a very wide range of configurations in terms of clock and core count.


----------



## Steven B (Jan 16, 2016)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Interesting considering broadwell was the worst clocking chip Intel has put out in years and now it's taking them to 5ghz+? Combined with broadwell's great game performance per clock this would be the chip to have in any gaming rig, only it's not targeted at enthusiast. Strange situation.



Intel blamed Broadwell's crazy clocks on the eDRAM for the Iris Pro graphics, they said it messed up the overclocking. Broadwell is a Haswell shrink, and the shrinks usually OC higher. Devil's Canyon had a Turbo of 4.4GHz, so Broadwell could do higher. I am just impressed they can find cores to do this, but I am thinking that maybe they fix which cores can turbo to 5.1ghz and it doesn't randomly rotate. Maybe Intel has made huge steps with their yields.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Jan 16, 2016)

Steevo said:


> Is this a move to compensate for what Zen is bringing? Possibly.
> Do we still have a huge amount of single threaded workloads that haven't seen increased performance due to mediocre IPC and clock speed improvements? Yep.
> If I were running unbranching serial and or dependent computations... the faster the better. I would buy this chip.


That's pretty much the area the SKU will be aimed at. It is just the latest in the line of specialized chips that Intel tends to put out (including one-off  SKUs for customers like the E5-2692v2)

Intel's fastest stock clocked CPU is already a Xeon, the X5698 (4.4GHz) - the same frequency that the Devil's Canyon 4790K hits at max turbo. From memory, they weren't sold retail, and were aimed at fast response systems (i.e. brokering firms where fast stock analysis and trading were required).


----------



## efikkan (Jan 16, 2016)

Steven B said:


> Intel blamed Broadwell's crazy clocks on the eDRAM for the Iris Pro graphics, they said it messed up the overclocking. Broadwell is a Haswell shrink, and the shrinks usually OC higher. Devil's Canyon had a Turbo of 4.4GHz, so Broadwell could do higher. I am just impressed they can find cores to do this, but I am thinking that maybe they fix which cores can turbo to 5.1ghz and it doesn't randomly rotate. Maybe Intel has made huge steps with their yields.


Remember that Xeon E5 is a different core; Broadwell-E/-EP. So Intel have probably sorted out some of the Broadwell mess.


----------



## bogami (Jan 16, 2016)

4 core CPU  i72600k and i73770k which i have, have i without problems used at 5.2Gh(liquide colleng). Such frequency to Xenon 2011 v4 will gain response and is the only real reason for default settings, Fact that all Xeon processors do not have opened multipliers is the ground for Xeon brand .  Liquide cooling we need is rarely used on servers. I definitely recommend to be use in this case. 165 TPD .
And when the optical technology in the CPU will be available to us .. the results of the first chip are excellent, I read 


.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jan 16, 2016)

165 Tdp on a quad.

Now that's funny from intel, I'd say for them that's the GHz race done and dusted my fx pushes 8 cores to that speed at a 95Tdp,, a design that's well mocked from 4 years ago.

Yes its Ipc would be better ,obviously


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jan 16, 2016)




----------



## HumanSmoke (Jan 16, 2016)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> 165 Tdp on a quad.
> 
> Now that's funny from intel, I'd say for them that's the GHz race done and dusted my fx pushes 8 cores to that speed at a 95Tdp,, a design that's well mocked from 4 years ago.
> 
> Yes its Ipc would be better ,obviously


Bask in the glory, because it is certainty that once AMD transitions to 14nm, they'll run into the same wall that Intel is at. I'm guessing that if Zen is ~ 4Ghz (or less) with limited OC because of the demands of transistor switching power envelopes, people will be falling over themselves to blame the process node, transistor size and density.


----------



## cyneater (Jan 16, 2016)

Looks like intel has gone full retard on this one...

165w TDP wow....

And 2 of this bad boys would be good for CPU insensitive tasks...

I wonder what the price tag is ..


----------



## NC37 (Jan 16, 2016)

And only the 5 richest kings on the planet can afford it


----------



## Frick (Jan 16, 2016)

Aquinus said:


> 2000-series E5s indicates it's a CPU that can be put in 2p boards. Dual 5Ghz quads anyone? That premium clock speed will be associated with a premium price though, this is Intel after all.



EVGA Classified XR or something.


----------



## bonehead123 (Jan 16, 2016)

Just be sure to have 4 things with you when you go to buy one of these:

A. Your banker or HIS gold card
B.  Some strong booze...
C.  Some REALLY good chemicals
D.  A Huge box of kleenex.....


----------



## GhostRyder (Jan 16, 2016)

Now this is a processor, no matter what I want to see one in action!

I am all for seeing higher clocks again, nice change of pace!


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jan 17, 2016)

HumanSmoke said:


> Bask in the glory, because it is certainty that once AMD transitions to 14nm, they'll run into the same wall that Intel is at. I'm guessing that if Zen is ~ 4Ghz (or less) with limited OC because of the demands of transistor switching power envelopes, people will be falling over themselves to blame the process node, transistor size and density.


Not me I'm educated;p , i see Intel's ipc gain as it is, using all resources in a Ht enabled core via macro ops in 1 thread if required,something bulldozer never could do, now Zens a different beast ,but yeah well see ,be interesting to see Amd(perhaps should have been  And)leverage its power gateing and optimizing tech too ,they didn't do too bad for the node size.

Anyone think this could just be a special for some super computer somewhere and not going to be widely available.


----------



## buildzoid (Jan 17, 2016)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Not me I'm educated;p , i see Intel's ipc gain as it is, using all resources in a Ht enabled core via macro ops in 1 thread if required,something bulldozer never could do, now Zens a different beast ,but yeah well see ,be interesting to see Amd(perhaps should have been  And)leverage its power gateing and optimizing tech too ,they didn't do too bad for the node size.
> 
> Anyone think this could just be a special for some super computer somewhere and not going to be widely available.



I think this chip is probably meant to compete with IBMs 5Ghz+ CPUs and AFAIK those chips are used for high frequency trading.

Personally I wouldn't mind having 8 cores clocked at 5.1Ghz with enough PCI-e lanes to run 4 way at x16 on all slots.


----------



## Scrizz (Jan 17, 2016)

bogami said:


> Fact that all Xeon processors do not have opened multipliers is the ground for Xeon brand.



No, not really. Xeons use to be very overclockable.
I think the last ones were the skt1366 ones


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 17, 2016)

The only way this makes sense is if someone (or some industry) demanded low core count/high clockspeed/redundancy for specific applications from Intel.  I can't think of what that application is but it must exist for Intel to bother with this launch.

Maybe deep learning AI?


----------



## Aquinus (Jan 17, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I can't think of what that application is but it must exist for Intel to bother with this launch.


Databases in general? Tasks like indexing and reindexing tend to be much more CPU heavy than I/O heavy and like most database related tasks, it's single-threaded for the single request that made it.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 17, 2016)

It'd be interesting to see how these processors stand up to a similarly priced two-way SPARC system running a heavily trafficked database.  That certainly would explain the redundancy.


----------



## Aquinus (Jan 17, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It'd be interesting to see how these processors stand up to a similarly priced two-way SPARC system running a heavily trafficked database.  That certainly would explain the redundancy.


Heavy database use with multiple users is inherently multi-threaded because of the individual queries that come in on separate connections. Almost always (if I/O is there,) can databases scale linearly to cores if no locking is occurring. I was very careful to say indexing and reindexing because those are two cases where it can't run on multiple cores and almost is always a CPU bottleneck. More often than not, if you want a database to scale for *users* then more cores is what you want. If you want the workload to scale better with only a handful of users (heavy weight queries, fewer users as opposed to a ton of users and lightweight queries,) then more single-threaded performance is what you'll be wanting.

I just did database maintenance at work, removed millions of duplicate historical records re-parented them based on the unique data kept. A task like that tends to be single-threaded (certainly the way I did it for safety reasons,) so instead of taking 150 minutes to run, a CPU clocked twice as high would complete is probably a little over half of that. That means under 1 1/2 hours of down time instead of 3. That alone can make a big difference if you don't consider everything else.

My point is that even within a group of server tasks like running a database, even then only in some unique situations will more clocks outpace more cores or vise versa.


----------



## geon2k2 (Jan 17, 2016)

Hmm, something is fishy.

Xeons are supposed to be ultra reliable and they typically work in servers in 24x7 mode for years.

I really don't see a 5 Ghz part doing that in a server, and even if such a part will exist if I'd be the decision maker when buying such a thing I'd for sure recommend something more conservative.


----------



## Aquinus (Jan 17, 2016)

geon2k2 said:


> Hmm, something is fishy.
> 
> Xeons are supposed to be ultra reliable and they typically work in servers in 24x7 mode for years.
> 
> I really don't see a 5 Ghz part doing that in a server, and even if such a part will exist if I'd be the decision maker when buying such a thing I'd for sure recommend something more conservative.


Nothing fishy about it. It wouldn't be the first time Intel has released a 150 watt TDP Xeon part. The Xeon X5365, X5482, X5492, and the E5-2687W are all examples of 150-watt TDP Xeon chips.


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Jan 17, 2016)

If you think releasing a Xeon part with over a GHz higher clock speed than any other model including overclocking K series consumer parts is too good to be true, it generally is.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jan 17, 2016)

GC_PaNzerFIN said:


> If you think releasing a Xeon part with over a GHz higher clock peed than any other model including overclocking K series consumer parts is too good to be true, it generally is.



But those are a lot of grains. More grains means it true!


----------



## HumanSmoke (Jan 17, 2016)

GC_PaNzerFIN said:


> If you think releasing a Xeon part with over a GHz higher clock speed than any other model including overclocking K series consumer parts is too good to be true, it generally is.


As I pointed out earlier in this thread, Intel's fastest chip is a Xeon, the X5698


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jan 17, 2016)

But dual core, which is the only way they kept consumption in check. 

We all know how these things eat power when you start overvolting and OCing even just a little.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 17, 2016)

IF intel can push 165W through their silicon, this is actually quite the triumph. I could care less about anything else other than that power consumption on such a small piece of glass. I know the chips can handle it, since many of us are pushing similar power through our overclocked chips, and have run them that way for years, too. So it's not very surprising, to be honest, be to see Intel a bit more focused on performance rather than power-savings is something new and interesting.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Jan 17, 2016)

TheGuruStud said:


> But dual core, which is the only way they kept consumption in check.
> We all know how these things eat power when you start overvolting and OCing even just a little.


Not in dispute, nor does it have any relevance to the post I quoted or my reply.


cadaveca said:


> IF intel can push 165W through their silicon, this is actually quite the triumph. I could care less about anything else other than that power consumption on such a small piece of glass. I know the chips can handle it, since many of us are pushing similar power through our overclocked chips, and have run them that way for years, too. So it's not very surprising, to be honest, be to see Intel a bit more focused on performance rather than power-savings is something new and interesting.


Intel's installed base and market share have allowed them to target virtually every possible sector. Their previous v3 (Haswell) ran to over a hundred seperate SKU's (including some models specifically of individual customers), and I'd expect the company to continue the trend of exploring every parameter ( power, core count, clock, clock turbo bins) if there's money to be made from it. Haswell's Xeon managed a range of 2 cores @ 13W to 18 cores @ 175W, so I wouldn't think it beyond the realms of possibility that Intel will continue the practice.


----------



## qubit (Jan 17, 2016)

As the stock speed is so high I wonder if it will be a good overclocker?

Percentage-wise to its stock speed, 6GHz+ should be possible on air without much effort, but I somehow doubt it.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 17, 2016)

qubit said:


> As the stock speed is so high I wonder if it will be a good overclocker?
> 
> Percentage-wise to its stock speed, 6GHz+ should be possible on air without much effort, but I somehow doubt it.


As do I, given the power consumption. I don't imagine that simply adding a few "metal layers" on top was enough. Remember the HBM vias thing? Like if they can push what would be 200-250W on decent cooling through a broadwell core, then there has been significant changes to the design here. If we are talking Boardwell-E though, then this is pretty basic, and entirely believable.


----------



## Aquinus (Jan 18, 2016)

Don't forget that the Xeon D-1541 is a 8c/16t part clocked at 2.1Ghz, 2.7Ghz turbo with a 45-watt TDP. Somehow, a quad core part with a 5Ghz boost wouldn't surprise me if you consider how awesome that D-1541, a broadwell chip, looks for what it is. The D-1541 is an SoC even which is pretty nifty IMO.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 18, 2016)

Aquinus said:


> Don't forget that the Xeon D-1541 is a 8c/16t part clocked at 2.1Ghz, 2.7Ghz turbo with a 45-watt TDP. Somehow, a quad core part with a 5Ghz boost wouldn't surprise me if you consider how awesome that D-1541, a broadwell chip, looks for what it is. The D-1541 is an SoC even which is pretty nifty IMO.


I thought that was really the whole point of Bradwell, to havea true high-performance SoC. I was pretty upset to never see it in retail, and now you link this? Where can these be bought, and what sort of board do they go into? That power consumption is amazing compared to the current SoC in NUC devices.


----------



## Disparia (Jan 18, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> I thought that was really the whole point of Bradwell, to havea true high-performance SoC. I was pretty upset to never see it in retail, and now you link this? Where can these be bought, and what sort of board do they go into? That power consumption is amazing compared to the current SoC in NUC devices.



http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon3000/#1667

http://b2b.gigabyte.com/products/list.aspx?cg=11&p=189&v=30&ck=101

Word is, there will be a 16C/32T model coming soon...


----------



## Aquinus (Jan 18, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> I thought that was really the whole point of Bradwell, to havea true high-performance SoC. I was pretty upset to never see it in retail, and now you link this? Where can these be bought, and what sort of board do they go into? That power consumption is amazing compared to the current SoC in NUC devices.


SuperMicro has had it out for several months.
http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/xeon/d/x10sdv-f.cfm
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813182964

Gigabyte just released a lineup of boards with the D-1541 and D-1521 that haven't found their way to the market yet.

It's also BGA, so you're not buying the CPU from anyone, only on an embedded system.


----------



## Dr_b_ (Jan 20, 2016)

bogami said:


> , Fact that all Xeon processors do not have opened multipliers is the ground for Xeon brand .
> .



Have a Xeon E5-1650v3 here, its not multi locked.


----------



## Aquinus (Jan 20, 2016)

Dr_b_ said:


> Have a Xeon E5-1650v3 here, its not multi locked.View attachment 71224


As I understand it, Xeons can boost 4 or 5 bins over stock so I doubt you'll get more than 4Ghz or 4.2Ghz depending on when it starts counting those 4 additional bins on the multi.

All in all, it sounds just like my 3820.


----------



## Dr_b_ (Jan 20, 2016)

Aquinus said:


> As I understand it, Xeons can boost 4 or 5 bins over stock so I doubt you'll get more than 4Ghz or 4.2Ghz depending on when it starts counting those 4 additional bins on the multi.
> 
> All in all, it sounds just like my 3820.



Not quite, its fully multi-unlocked.  People are getting them to 4.5Ghz etc.  Here I am @ 4.3Ghz.  The point i was trying to make was that "All XEONS are NOT locked"


----------



## PP Mguire (Jan 20, 2016)

Can confirm, I have a 1650v3 here and it's done 4.5. I'd use it as a daily but don't want to purchase X99.


----------



## Dr_b_ (Jan 20, 2016)

PP Mguire said:


> Can confirm, I have a 1650v3 here and it's done 4.5. I'd use it as a daily but don't want to purchase X99.



Got the Asus X99M-WS, small mATX board, with ECC ram, rock solid @ 4.0Ghz at stock voltages.  Very awesome CPU.


----------



## Aquinus (Jan 20, 2016)

It seems like the 1650 v3 is an odd one out when I did a little bit of googling. Do you know of any other E5 Xeons with the same behavior that isn't an ES chip?


----------



## PP Mguire (Jan 20, 2016)

Aquinus said:


> It seems like the 1650 v3 is an odd one out when I did a little bit of googling. Do you know of any other E5 Xeons with the same behavior that isn't an ES chip?


There are a couple from each gen like that but I couldn't tell you off the top of my head each specific model. I only know this one because I work on it every day.


----------



## pjl321 (Apr 3, 2016)

What happened to the 5.1 GHz Xeon E5-2602 V4? No where to be seen.

Its interesting that 22 cores running at 2.20GHz with 55mb Cache consumes less energy than 12 cores running at 3.00GHz and just 30mb Cache:
http://ark.intel.com/products/family/91287/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-v4-Family#@Server


----------



## TheGuruStud (Apr 3, 2016)

pjl321 said:


> What happened to the 5.1 GHz Xeon E5-2602 V4? No where to be seen.
> 
> Its interesting that 22 cores running at 2.20GHz with 55mb Cache consumes less energy than 12 cores running at 3.00GHz and just 30mb Cache:
> http://ark.intel.com/products/family/91287/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-v4-Family#@Server



This is what happens when you keep shrinking. Even with advancements, you can't beat physics. It's going to leak more. One more node shrink and high clocks will probably disappear.

Intel's "10nm" is already pretty delayed. Cannonlake may be the dream crusher and a wake up call to silicon reality.


----------



## P-40E (Aug 21, 2016)

Broadwell stinks! The lower cost i5 nonK models are actually slower or the same performance as previous gen models. I currently have a i5-3470. And even the 6600K is not worth the upgrade! Also after Intel supported SJWs and Anita Sarkeesian, I will never ever buy another Intel product again! To me that's the same as funding the nazis! Same type of freedom hating hate group. Just different political targets. And as far as I am concerned, Intel will never redeem themselves from this even if they apologize. I do not care how crappy Zen will be. If it's faster than my current i5, I will upgrade to AMD's Zen! Intel has lost me as a customer forever!


----------



## TheGuruStud (Aug 21, 2016)

P-40E said:


> Broadwell stinks! The lower cost i5 nonK models are actually slower or the same performance as previous gen models. I currently have a i5-3470. And even the 6600K is not worth the upgrade! Also after Intel supported SJWs and Anita Sarkeesian, I will never ever buy another Intel product again! To me that's the same as funding the nazis! Same type of freedom hating hate group. Just different political targets. And as far as I am concerned, Intel will never redeem themselves from this even if they apologize. I do not care how crappy Zen will be. If it's faster than my current i5, I will upgrade to AMD's Zen! Intel has lost me as a customer forever!



I'm still waiting for this 200 watt part that won't exist b/c you can't clock this crap that highly WHILE being reliable (plus no one wants the tdp).


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 22, 2016)

P-40E said:


> Broadwell stinks! The lower cost i5 nonK models are actually slower or the same performance as previous gen models. I currently have a i5-3470. And even the 6600K is not worth the upgrade! Also after Intel supported SJWs and Anita Sarkeesian, I will never ever buy another Intel product again! To me that's the same as funding the nazis! Same type of freedom hating hate group. Just different political targets. And as far as I am concerned, Intel will never redeem themselves from this even if they apologize. I do not care how crappy Zen will be. If it's faster than my current i5, I will upgrade to AMD's Zen! Intel has lost me as a customer forever!



Did you seriously just compare buying an Intel product to funding nazis?


----------



## Prima.Vera (Aug 22, 2016)

165W for a 4 core CPU???? Intel went full retard on this one!


----------



## cdawall (Aug 22, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> 165W for a 4 core CPU???? Intel went full retard on this one!



It's for a specific application. Not everyone needs more core some people need stable more speed unluckily that produces more heat.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Aug 22, 2016)

cdawall said:


> It's for a specific application. Not everyone needs more core some people need stable more speed unluckily that produces more heat.


Or this Xeon is actually an 8/10/12/ or 16 core CPU with disabled broken cores sold as a 4core oc CPU...


----------



## cdawall (Aug 22, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> Or this Xeon is actually an 8/10/12/ or 16 core CPU with disabled broken cores sold as a 4core oc CPU...



They already said it was. That doesn't change anything I said.


----------



## D007 (Aug 23, 2016)

I've been waiting for 5 ghz... I'm drooling a lil bit..lol


----------

