Intel Xeon vPro and Core E "Comet Lake" Lineup Surfaces

[btarunr]

Remember DFI? Those guys are into industrial PCs and embedded systems these days, and put out data sheets of upcoming products implementing the new Intel W480 chipset. A possible step-up from Intel Qx70 series chipset family, the W480 is positioned between the Q470 and Z490, and enables certain quasi-workstation features relevant to client desktops in very big organizations. The chipset enables vPro, and certain other features that helps with remote management.

The DFI specs, without taking model numbers, names several kinds of upcoming Xeon vPro and 10th generation Core E-SKUs. Among these are Xeon vPro processors in core-counts of 10, 8, and 6; and TDP levels of 80 W, and 35 W. It's not known if the 10th gen Xeon vPro succeed the workstation-segment Xeon E-series, which typically don't work on client-segment chipsets. We also see an assortment of Core i9, Core i7, Core i5, Core i3, Pentium and Celeron processors with the "E" brand extension, across a variety of TDP options. Unless we're horribly mistaken, the "E" brand extension could denote ECC memory support, at least in the case of the W480E and Q470E chipset variants.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[Vayra86]

More like Core Eeeeeee! Run!

 

[Gundem]

I miss DFI. I still have an operable 478 board of their's.

 

[ARF]

10 cores?
Intel can do better. Say hello to 56-core Xeon Platinum 9282 @2.6 GHz Max 3.8 GHz and 77 MB total cache.

Intel® Xeon® Platinum 9282 Processor (77M Cache, 2.60 GHz) - Product Specifications | Intel

Intel® Xeon® Platinum 9282 Processor (77M Cache, 2.60 GHz) quick reference with specifications, features, and technologies.

ark.intel.com

 

[Decryptor009]

10 cores?
Intel can do better. Say hello to 56-core Xeon Platinum 9282 @2.6 GHz Max 3.8 GHz and 77 MB total cache.

Intel® Xeon® Platinum 9282 Processor (77M Cache, 2.60 GHz) - Product Specifications | Intel

Intel® Xeon® Platinum 9282 Processor (77M Cache, 2.60 GHz) quick reference with specifications, features, and technologies.

ark.intel.com

400w TDP...

 

[Daven]

I remember when certain Intel code names stirred up great excitement:

Tualatin
Conroe
Merom
Nehalem
Sandy Bridge

Now I can barely bring myself to read any news story with Intel and 'something lake' in the headline.

 

[ARF]

I remember when certain Intel code names stirred up great excitement:

Tualatin
Conroe
Merom
Nehalem
Sandy Bridge

Now I can barely bring myself to read any news story with Intel and 'something lake' in the headline.

That is pretty weird. Conroe was only the repurposed for desktop old laptop Pentium M Yonah (Banias 130nm and Dothan 90nm) technology, which previously Intel refused to give and gave only because Athlon 64 completely obliterated the Pentium 4 line.

Nehalem and Sandy Bridge were nothing interesting. Core i7 920 was almost as fast Core 2 Quad Q9650.

Sandy Bridge fixed the awful HT that was present in Nehalem.

 

[Vayra86]

I remember when certain Intel code names stirred up great excitement:

Tualatin
Conroe
Merom
Nehalem
Sandy Bridge

Now I can barely bring myself to read any news story with Intel and 'something lake' in the headline.

Same. I find myself in a strange mix of laughter and disgust. Disgusted these practices are still funded by huge capital, that is.

I mean, was and is there really market demand for yet another 14nm iteration, or is it just a shareholders dream?

 

[ARF]

Same. I find myself in a strange mix of laughter and disgust. Disgusted these practices are still funded by huge capital, that is.

I mean, was and is there really market demand for yet another 14nm iteration, or is it just a shareholders dream?

This is only because AMD failed to innovate and scale with cores with Barcelona and Bulldozer.
Intel has never innovated, and has always given incremental performance improvements, just as today.

 

[Vayra86]

This is only because AMD failed to innovate and scale with cores with Barcelona and Bulldozer.
Intel has never innovated, and has always given incremental performance improvements, just as today.

I see it differently, I think its about chasing design wins and avoiding failures. In principle, AMD's FX processors really were a step in the right direction, the idea about progress in multi threading was a good one, and its only come to fruition recently. The execution was just very very poor.

Intel had a design win with their Core design, made a leap the competition had trouble countering. Thén they stopped chasing design wins, and iterated like you say, leaning on node refinements and leadership almost exclusively. Its ironic that Intel actually stopped being serious about progress moments after AMD showed how a design failure can completely destroy your market share. One might think they'd have learned from the competition, too. Did they really think they could keep stalling core scaling like that?

And now, when its clear they can't keep iterating, they start throwing so much feces at the wall we can't even keep up. Its not really a sign of progress, but desperation.