The Intel Xeon D Review: Performance Per Watt Server SoC Champion?
by Johan De Gelas on June 23, 2015 8:35 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- Intel
- Xeon-D
- Broadwell-DE
Conclusion: the Xeon D-1540 is awesome
If you only look at the integer performance of a single Broadwell core, the improvement over the Haswell based core is close to boring. But the fact that Intel was able to combine 8 of them together with dual 10 Gbit, 4 USB 3.0 controllers, 6 SATA 3 controller and quite a bit more inside a SoC that needs less than 45 W makes it an amazing product. In fact we have not seen such massive improvements from one Intel generation to another since the launch of the Xeon 5500. The performance per watt of a Xeon D-1540 is 50% better than the Haswell based E3 (Xeon E3-1230L).
Most of the design wins of the Xeon D are network and storage devices and, to a lesser degree, micro servers. Intel also positions the Xeon D machines at the Datacenter/Network edge, even as an IOT gateway.
Now, granted, market positioning slides are all about short powerful messages and leave little room for nuance. But since we have room for lengthier commentaries, our job is to talk about nuances. So we feel the Xeon D can do a lot more. It can be a mid range java server, text search engine or high-end development machine. In can be a node inside a web server cluster that takes heavy traffic.
In fact the Xeon D-1540 ($581) makes the low end of the Xeon E5 SKUs such as the E5-2630 (6 cores at 2.3 GHz, 95 W, $612) look pretty bad for a lot of workloads. Why would you pay more for such E5 server that consumes a lot more? The answer is some HPC applications, as our results show. The only advantage such a low end dual socket E5 server has is memory capacity and the fact that you can use two of them (up to 12 cores).
So as long as you do not make the mistake to use it for memory intensive HPC applications (note most HPC apps are memory intensive) and 8 cores is enough for you, the Xeon D is probably the most awesome product Intel has delivered in years, even if it is slightly hidden away from the mainstream.
Where does this leave the ARM server plans?
The Xeon D effectively puts a big almost unbreakable lock on some parts of the server market in the short and mid term (as Intel will undoubtably further improve the Xeon D line). It is hard to see how anyone can offer an server SoC in the short term that can beat the sky high performance per watt ratio when performing dynamic web serving for example.
However, the pricing and power envelope (about 60W in total for a "micro" server) of the Xeon D still leaves quite a bit of room in markets where density and pricing is everything. You do not need Xeon D power to run a caching or static web server as an Atom C2000-level of performance and a lot of DRAM slots will do. There are some chances here, but we would really like to see some real products instead of yet another slide deck with great promises. Frankly we don't think that the standard ARM designs will do. The A57 is probably not strong enough for the "non-micro server" market and it remains to be seen if the A72 will a large enough improvement. More specialized designs such as Cavium Thunder-X, Qualcomms Kryo or Broadcomm Vulcan might still capture a niche market in the foreseeable future.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
90 Comments
View All Comments
Kjella - Tuesday, June 23, 2015 - link
Server on a chip? It's not intended for use with a display, it does all it's "supposed to" do for the hyperscale market without any display.close - Tuesday, June 23, 2015 - link
"Intel was able to combine 8 of them together with dual 10 Gbit, 4 USB 3.0 controllers, 6 SATA 3 controller and quite a bit more".This ^^ makes it a SoC. Ok, a video output would be nice but that certainly doesn't disqualify it.
ats - Tuesday, June 23, 2015 - link
cause video isn't required or even wanted in this market segment. It is a SoC, which simply means system on a chip and doesn't have some ironclad definition. Hell, most "SoC" chips aren't really systems on a chip anyways and require significant supporting logic (this is true for just about any cell phone SoC on the market too).bill.rookard - Tuesday, June 23, 2015 - link
Exactly, you would tend to use remote management over the network to admin this type of a unit. I have several rackmounted servers in my basement (I do some home-serving of websites over a business class connection) and while I do have them actually hooked up to a display, I can hardly remember the last time I looked at them as 99.9% of the time I SSH into everything for administration.About the only time you'd ever really use a display is if you were doing multiple VMs of assorted types. Beyond that, it's wattage wasted.
ats - Tuesday, June 23, 2015 - link
Yeah honestly, having several SM boards with their ILM system, the only time I'd ever hook up a display is if the network was down. The SM ILM will fully proxy pretty much anything you want and give you a 1200p display that works for just about anything. And you can remotely hook up CDs, DVDs, BRs, USB, etc through it along with the stand console and keyboard/mouse functions. Its a very nice solution.nightbringer57 - Tuesday, June 23, 2015 - link
Basically, you don't need video output.Even if you do, mainboard manufacturers usually include a third-party chip with dedicated functions that, along other things, provide a VGA port usable for a server use.
In this case, the AST2400 chip offers some basic GPU functions with a VGA port along with many remote control-related stuff.
Adding all those functions to the Intel SoC would be awfully expensive. The chip only requires a simple PCIe x1 connection from the SoC, but provides hundreds of additional pins. Not only would those functions probably be hard to implement on a relatively recent 14nm process, but it would require at least 300 new pins on the SoC to add all the 3rd party chip's functions on it, which is almost impossible to do.
Th-z - Tuesday, June 23, 2015 - link
There doesn't seem to have a concrete definition for the term SoC, but it's ridiculous now with the term SoC bandwagon. Everything seems to be called "SoC" these days as long as a chip has more than one functions integrated. One of examples is people even called current console's integrated CPU and GPU chip as SoC, which doesn't even have networking and other peripheral units in it. When a system has so many "SoCs" inside, the term really has lost its meaning and significance.redzo - Tuesday, June 23, 2015 - link
I'm thinking this is a bad name for a product like this. It reminds of the infamous Celeron D and Pentium D line.nandnandnand - Tuesday, June 23, 2015 - link
Anyone who can figure out Xeon D exists can probably tell the differencewussupi83 - Tuesday, June 23, 2015 - link
I agree with redzo, I think anyone who can figure out a 'Xeon D' exists AND remembers that Pentium & Celeron D's existed would initially assume this is a budget Xeon - which it's clearly not. E4 sounds pretty logical. But sure lets just put D...