Intel Xeon W9-3495X Unlocked Processor Surfaces on Geekbench, Could be Threadripper 7000WX Rival

[btarunr]

Intel is preparing to launch HEDT/workstation processors based on its "Sapphire Rapids-WS" MCM, and one of the first of these parts, the Xeon W9-3495X, surfaced on the Geekbench online database. The W9-3495X is a 56-core/112-thread processor with 56 "Golden Cove" P-cores, each with 2 MB of L2 cache, and sharing 105 MB of L3 cache in a mesh-topology layout. The processor likely features an 4-channel (8 sub-channel) DDR5 memory interface, with ECC; and supports up to 4 TB of memory. The PCI-Express Gen 5 lane counts remain unknown. Intel is expected to launch these processors along with companion W790 chipset motherboards, on February 15, 2023. This processor, running on a Supermicro-designed motherboard, and 128 GB of DDR5 memory, scored 1284 points in Geekbench 5, along with 36990 points multi-threaded.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[Vya Domus]

This is actually pretty terrible isn't it ? A 16 core 7950X scores like 23000, a 64 core Zen 4 CPU would wipe the floor with it even if we assume terrible scaling. Well, for what that's worth, geekbench is and will always be a crappy benchmark.

 

[tabascosauz]

This is actually pretty terrible isn't it ? A 16 core 7950X scores like 23000, a 64 core Zen 4 CPU would wipe the floor with it even if we assume terrible scaling. Well, for what that's worth, geekbench is and will always be a crappy benchmark.

Pretty sure firmware isn't finished and/or CPU is just ES and not clocking properly. Even lower clocked (~4.5GHz?) Golden Cove cores are well above 1500 single core.

 

[Vya Domus]

Pretty sure firmware isn't finished and/or CPU is just ES and not clocking properly. Even lower clocked (~4.5GHz?) Golden Cove cores are well above 1500 single core.

I am sure the single core performance is going to be higher but the multicore probably is not gonna differ that much.

 

[Tek-Check]

It's going to be challenging for this processor to be TR 7000 rival, as the title suggests.

 

[Quitessa]

Are you sure that's not a 28 core 56 thread chip? The L1 and L2 caches are all 28x?

 

[AnarchoPrimitiv]

This is actually pretty terrible isn't it ? A 16 core 7950X scores like 23000, a 64 core Zen 4 CPU would wipe the floor with it even if we assume terrible scaling. Well, for what that's worth, geekbench is and will always be a crappy benchmark.

That's assuming threadripper only goes up to 64 cores....we could see 72, 84, and 96 core Threadripper models as well...imagine what a 96 core Threadripper 7000 could do with a suped up motherboard made for overclocking and all cores running at 4.5+GHz...if the Epyc 9654 with 96 cores and an all core speed of 3.55Ghz is listed at 360 watts, then I would imagine a 96 core threadripper approaching or exceeding 5Ghz on all cores would be in the 600+ watt range.

 

[roberto888]

Are you sure that's not a 28 core 56 thread chip? The L1 and L2 caches are all 28x?

Yup, bit of an oversight

 

[Wirko]

But them excel-a-raiders! Can we be sure Intel didn't stick a Geekbench accelerator inside?

 

[Breit]

That's assuming threadripper only goes up to 64 cores....we could see 72, 84, and 96 core Threadripper models as well...imagine what a 96 core Threadripper 7000 could do with a suped up motherboard made for overclocking and all cores running at 4.5+GHz...if the Epyc 9654 with 96 cores and an all core speed of 3.55Ghz is listed at 360 watts, then I would imagine a 96 core threadripper approaching or exceeding 5Ghz on all cores would be in the 600+ watt range.

Unlikely. If a 96C chip runs at 360W at 3.55GHz, it probably sucks 1000W+ at 5GHz, if it runs all-core at that speed at all (which i doubt). 96 is a lot of cores!

 

[Punkenjoy]

If they really get those score, that CPU is power limited a lot.

The good news is it will probably mean Threadripper 7xxxx will release sooner since AMD might have "some" competition.

 

[Panther_Seraphin]

IF AMD release a thread ripper equivalent on the same platform as the current EPYCs then would they would be invading some of the their F sku opportunties.

What they are going to have to do is to limit the scope of the chip (PCI-E Count, Memory channels etc) otherwise why would you buy an 9x74F chip vs one of the new threadrippers. I could see something like a 64 Lane, quad channel setup with say 48 cores with high clocks being possible but I am not sure if the I/O Die of the EPYCs would be up for Higher mem speeds needed.

 

[Solaris17]

Well, for what that's worth, geekbench is and will always be a crappy benchmark.

I was going to say, the comparisons themselves are a joke given the foundation.

 

[Breit]

IF AMD release a thread ripper equivalent on the same platform as the current EPYCs then would they would be invading some of the their F sku opportunties.

This depends entirely on how much those hypothetical 7000 TR would cost. If they are the same price than their EPYC counterparts, all is good I guess. Maybe they call it Threadripper 9000 then, too?

 

[n-ster]

This is actually pretty terrible isn't it ? A 16 core 7950X scores like 23000, a 64 core Zen 4 CPU would wipe the floor with it even if we assume terrible scaling. Well, for what that's worth, geekbench is and will always be a crappy benchmark.

Yea Geekbench is terrible

 

[ir_cow]

That's assuming threadripper only goes up to 64 cores....we could see 72, 84, and 96 core Threadripper models as well...imagine what a 96 core Threadripper 7000 could do with a suped up motherboard made for overclocking and all cores running at 4.5+GHz...if the Epyc 9654 with 96 cores and an all core speed of 3.55Ghz is listed at 360 watts, then I would imagine a 96 core threadripper approaching or exceeding 5Ghz on all cores would be in the 600+ watt range.

If 8 Raptor Lake cores can pull 300 watts at 5.5 GHz, the power draw would be 2KW lol for 56 cores at the same frequency.

 

[damric]

I would think they would use an army of efficiency cores in a product like this to go with a reasonable amount of performance cores.

 

[DarthJedi]

If this is actually a 56-core CPU, it's terrible. If it's a 28-core (as suggested) it could be a really nice hit to AMD and Intel comeback to HEDT.
Unfortunately for Intel, the score pretty much aligns with the scale of what Genoa does - for 56 Genoa cores we'd expect 45000, but since Genoa cores seem to perform 15% better in single-core. about 37000 from a 56-core Xeon sound pretty much spot on.
I wouldn't put up my hopes of this being a 28-core. It's most probably what it says - a 56-core "whatever" CPU.