The Intel Xeon E5 v4 Review: Testing Broadwell-EP With Demanding Server Workloads
by Johan De Gelas on March 31, 2016 12:30 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- Intel
- Xeon
- Enterprise
- Enterprise CPUs
- Broadwell
Xeon E5 v4 SKUs and Pricing
As of press time we don't have precise Xeon E5 v4 pricing. But overall prices seem to be about 1-2% higher than the comparable Xeon E5 v3..
| Intel Xeon E5 v4 SKUs | ||||||
| Cores/Threads | TDP | Base Clockspeed | Price | |||
| E5-2699 v4 | 22/44 | 145W | 2.2GHz | $4115 | ||
| E5-2698 v4 | 20/40 | 135W | 2.2GHz | $3228 | ||
| E5-2697A v4 | 16/32 | 145W | 2.6GHz | $2891 | ||
| E5-2697 v4 | 18/36 | 145W | 2.3GHz | $2702 | ||
| E5-2695 v4 | 18/36 | 120W | 2.1GHz | $2424 | ||
| E5-2690 v4 | 14/28 | 135W | 2.6GHz | $2090 | ||
| E5-2687W v4 | 12/24 | 160W | 3.0GHz | $2141 | ||
| E5-2683 v4 | 16/32 | 120W | 2.1GHz | $1846 | ||
| E5-2680 v4 | 14/28 | 120W | 2.4GHz | $1745 | ||
| E5-2667 v4 | 8/16 | 135W | 3.2GHz | $2057 | ||
| E5-2660 v4 | 14/28 | 105W | 2.0GHz | $1445 | ||
| E5-2650L v4 | 14/28 | 65W | 1.7GHz | $1329 | ||
| E5-2650 v4 | 12/24 | 105W | 2.2GHz | $1166 | ||
| E5-2643 v4 | 6/12 | 135W | 3.4GHz | $1552 | ||
| E5-2640 v4 | 10/20 | 90W | 2.4GHz | $939 | ||
| E5-2637 v4 | 4/8 | 135W | 3.5GHz | $996 | ||
| E5-2630 v4 | 10/20 | 85W | 2.2GHz | $667 | ||
| E5-2630L v4 | 10/20 | 55W | 1.8GHz | $612 | ||
| E5-2623 v4 | 4/8 | 85W | 2.6GHz | $444 | ||
| E5-2620 v4 | 8/16 | 85W | 2.1GHz | $417 | ||
| E5-2609 v4 | 8/8 | 85W | 1.7GHz | $306 | ||
| E5-2603 v4 | 6/6 | 85W | 1.7GHz | $213 | ||
Meanwhile Intel's own performance estimations are not exactly exhilarating. Their estimates are based upon the almost perfectly scaling SPECrate benchmarks, and even these "perfect world" gains are simply modest, almost uninspiring in fact. We have said it before: this market desperately needs some competition if we want a new generation to bring more exciting improvements in performance-per-dollar metrics..
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
112 Comments
View All Comments
Kevin G - Thursday, March 31, 2016 - link
Much like how Apple skipped Haswell-EP, they also skipped a generation of cards from AMD and nVidia. So even if Apple doesn't wait for new GPUs, their is certainly an update on the GPU side.The more interesting possibility would be if Apple were to go with Xeon D in the Mac Pro instead of Broadwell-EP. Apple would need a big PLX chip considering the number of lanes they's want to use but it is possible.
bill.rookard - Thursday, March 31, 2016 - link
Another issue is that they're not under any pressure from any competition to really innovate. I don't even remember the last time I read anything about Opteron servers... let alone something about any NEW Opterons.ComputerGuy2006 - Thursday, March 31, 2016 - link
A sign of things to come for Broadwell-e?Seems like a tricky situation. Because skylake-e will come with a new platform in 2017, while broadwell-e isn't the fastest IPC and there are crazy rumors it will might cost $1500 (lol Intel). We also have Zen later this year that might give good performance with good cost/perf ratio.
extide - Thursday, March 31, 2016 - link
Yeah so Intel only gives us the LCC part for the -E platform, so we will see the 10-core SKU as the top, It will either be $1000, or $1500 ... so yeah not sure how that will end up. Although there will be 8 and 6 core options that should be pretty affordable.Hopefully they do an 8 core part with 28 lanes for under $500, as THAT would be a great deal!
dragonsqrrl - Sunday, April 3, 2016 - link
I'm hoping the 8 core SKU is around $600, the position the x930K traditionally occupies. What makes me a little worried is that there will be 4 SKUs instead of 3 this time (one 10 core, one 8 core, and two 6 core), and I'm not sure there's enough room under the $600 price point for two 6 core processors.jasonelmore - Thursday, March 31, 2016 - link
Can it run Star Citizen?theduckofdeath - Thursday, March 31, 2016 - link
A question we'll never get an answer to? :DJohanAnandtech - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link
It probably runs mostly on Xeons. Well, the back end that is :-)extide - Thursday, March 31, 2016 - link
BOOM, 454mm^2 on the worlds best process. The "other" 14/16nm processes use bigger geometry than Intel's 14nm process.Now we just need those other guys to catch up so we can see 450+mm GPU's!
Kevin G - Thursday, March 31, 2016 - link
Intel still has plenty of room to increase die size. The largest chip they've produced was the Tukwila Itanium 2 at 699 mm^2. Granted that was a 65 nm design but Haswell-EX is a juggarnaught at 662 mm^2 on Intel's more recent 22 nm process. Seems reasonable that SkyLake-EX could go to 32 cores as Intel has >200 mm^2 of rectal limit left.As for GPU's, they're also huge. nVidia's GM200 is 601 mm^2 and AMD's Fiji is 'only' 596 mm^2 both on 28 nm process. TSMC's 20 nm process was skipped so even using the looser 16 nm FinFET, GPU's will see a significant shrink compared to the those high end chips.