Intel this week initiated end-of-life plan for two of its 2nd Generation Xeon Scalable (Cascade Lake) processors, possibly in a bid to reduce the number of SKUs in the new family. The CPUs in question are the Xeon Gold 6222 as well as Xeon Gold 6262 and Intel recommends to use different versions of these products instead.

Intel’s 20-core Xeon Gold 6222 (1.80/3.60 GHz, 27.5 MB cache) and 24-core Xeon Gold 6262 (1.9/3.6 GHz, 33 MB cache) processors with two UPI links were not officially a part of the Cascade Lake family introduced in April and were probably available to select customers only. Meanwhile, Intel’s lineup did include the Xeon Gold 6222V and Xeon Gold 6262V products that featured the same specification in terms of core count, frequency, cache size, TDP, and other, but had three UPI links to enable more versatile 4P configurations. In fact, according to Intel’s ARK database, the CPUs even carry the same tray pricing as the V counterparts.

Intel Xeon Scalable 6222 & 6262 Vs. 6222V & 6262V
  Cores Base
Freq
Turbo
Freq
L3
Cache
(MB)
TDP
(W)
Optane
DCPMM
UPI
Links
Price
(1ku)
Xeon Gold 6200
6262 V 24 1.9 3.6 33.0 135 Yes 3 $2900
6262   24 1.9 3.6 33.0 135 Yes 2 $2900
6222 V 20 1.8 3.6 27.5 115 Yes 3 $1600
6222   20 1.8 3.6 27.5 115 Yes 2 $1600

By EOLing the Xeon Gold 6222 and Xeon Gold 6262 CPUs, Intel reduces pressure on its manufacturing network as it no longer has to disable an additional UPI link inside these chips or even find silicon that has a broken UPI interface. Ultimately, having fewer SKUs is easier to manage.

Those Intel customers who need the Xeon Gold 6222 and Xeon Gold 6262 processors are advised to place their orders by December 27, 2019. The final CPUs will be shipped by November 6, 2020. Meanwhile, the Xeon Gold 6222V and Xeon Gold 6262V will continue to ship onwards.

Related Reading

Source: Intel

POST A COMMENT

19 Comments

View All Comments

  • schujj07 - Tuesday, November 12, 2019 - link

    Average high-end phone is faster made me laugh. Is if faster than a cheap PC from years 2013 probably. Is it faster than a modern i3 or Ryzen 3, probably not. We already see how bad ARM is on a heavy weight OS when you look at ARM on Windows. These ARM CPUs are not designed to do multitasking the way an AMD/Intel CPU does.

    The RISC vs CISC rant was also comical. The author forgets that when they were designed there was a large difference in them, now a RISC CPU has a lot of CISC designs in it and CISC has a lot of RISC designs in it. It is to the point that they are very similar now. Also RISC V isn't "real high end chips" at all. Most of the RISC V market is in controllers for things like servos.
    Reply
  • mode_13h - Wednesday, November 13, 2019 - link

    While the latest ARM cores (A76+) *do* look pretty competitive, phones should quickly encounter thermal throttling.

    Also, it's probably telling that Qualcomm makes a different line of SoCs for chromebooks & MS' Surface devices.
    Reply
  • ksec - Monday, November 11, 2019 - link

    Nope, Nothing to do with CISC *tax* and there isn't a thing as such. And your rambling doesn't factor in cost of R&D, and amortising of it. Reply
  • N0Spin - Tuesday, November 19, 2019 - link

    Wow. Now that's 3-4 minutes of my life I will never get back.
    I love the minimizing and misunderstanding of even MS Office on the desktop vs. mobile versions. If the author honestly believes the crap you peddled here, I truly wonder where you come from and what 'real' offices you worked in, let alone how many 'ARM' chip based PCs you have ever attempted to utilize in a production setting.
    Reply
  • Jorgp2 - Thursday, November 7, 2019 - link

    Still better than AMDs current naming and product segmentation. Reply
  • Irata - Friday, November 8, 2019 - link

    Care to elaborate ?
    Looking at AMD's server line up, they all have the same number of PCIe lanes, memory support and other features. The segmentation is wrt single / dual, core counts, clock speeds and in some cases cache.
    Reply
  • Jorgp2 - Friday, November 8, 2019 - link

    I'm mainly complaining about them dropping their previous naming scheme which denoted lower TDP parts right in the model number Reply
  • Spunjji - Friday, November 8, 2019 - link

    He can't - it was a stupid throwaway comment with no basis in fact. Reply
  • anna91 - Thursday, November 28, 2019 - link

    I really wanted to send a small word to say thanks to you for the fantastic points you are writing on this site.
    https://sites.google.com/site/tipstologin/gmail-si...
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now