Wednesday, August 15th 2007

Intel Adds Two New Xeon Server Processors

Intel Corporation launched two quad-core Intel Xeon processors. The new Intel Xeon X5365 and L5335 processors boast unprecedented combinations of performance and energy efficiency, along with a pricing strategy to move the enterprise industry to multi-core systems. Designed for companies running performance-critical server and workstation applications, the Intel Xeon Processor X5365 is the industry's first 3.0GHz quad-core processor to fit inside a standard 120 watt power envelope. The X5365 also features front-side bus speed of 1333MHz. The Intel Xeon Processor L5335 includes a 2.0 GHz clock speed and 1333MHz FSB within a 50 watt power envelope – or just 12.5 watts per processing core. The Intel Xeon X5365 and L5335 CPUs also contain new Intel Virtualization Technology processor extensions for improved interrupt handling in virtualization of 32-bit Microsoft Windows OS. Price in 1,000 unit quantities (as of Aug. 9, 2007) is $1172 for the X5365 3.0GHz Xeon version, while the L5335 CPU will be available for $380.Source: Intel
Add your own comment

10 Comments on Intel Adds Two New Xeon Server Processors

#1
DanTheBanjoman
Señor Moderator
I thought they were releasing a 1.86GHz Quad core 50W part, bah, I wanted that instead.
Posted on Reply
#2
Wile E
Power User
by: DanTheBanjoman
I thought they were releasing a 1.86GHz Quad core 50W part, bah, I wanted that instead.
Just curious, but why? Wouldn't 2Ghz at the same heat be better anyway?
Posted on Reply
#3
DanTheBanjoman
Señor Moderator
by: Wile E
Just curious, but why? Wouldn't 2Ghz at the same heat be better anyway?
The 1.86GHz parts run at 266x7, the 2GHz parts run at 333x6. Overclocking with the current generation Xeons is very limited, one option is a pinmod to change 266>333. I haven't heard of any chips that failed this. So basically the 1.86ghz is a 2.33ghz and costs less. From there all you can do is get it to about 390MHz FSB. So the 1.86GHz parts offer the best overclock, the 2.0 is stuck at about 2.33GHz. The faster parts all have the same problem and are a lot more expensive.
Posted on Reply
#4
Weer
by: DanTheBanjoman
The 1.86GHz parts run at 266x7, the 2GHz parts run at 333x6. Overclocking with the current generation Xeons is very limited, one option is a pinmod to change 266>333. I haven't heard of any chips that failed this. So basically the 1.86ghz is a 2.33ghz and costs less. From there all you can do is get it to about 390MHz FSB. So the 1.86GHz parts offer the best overclock, the 2.0 is stuck at about 2.33GHz. The faster parts all have the same problem and are a lot more expensive.
If you want a Quad-Core CPU, just buy the Q6600.
You'd have a much easier time overclocking with the new G0 stepping, a 9x multiplier and far better and much less expensive RAM than registered.
Posted on Reply
#5
kakazza
by: Weer
If you want a Quad-Core CPU, just buy the Q6600.
You'd have a much easier time overclocking with the new G0 stepping, a 9x multiplier and far better and much less expensive RAM than registered.
Q6600 is no option at 95W, I'd rather have a 50W one :)
Posted on Reply
#6
DanTheBanjoman
Señor Moderator
by: Weer
If you want a Quad-Core CPU, just buy the Q6600.
You'd have a much easier time overclocking with the new G0 stepping, a 9x multiplier and far better and much less expensive RAM than registered.
I'm perfectly aware of the options out there. Then again I already have the board and RAM, I'm planning to swap my current 5110's for a 1.86 quad, preferably LV though, the lower VID won't be a problem anyway due to the limited overclocking possible. Later on I could add another quad then.

Also, current Xeons don't just use regged memory, they use FB.
Posted on Reply
#7
lemonadesoda
I dont think its the Xeons, per se, that use FB memory, but the CHIPSET that supports dual Xeons is based on FB.
Posted on Reply
#8
DanTheBanjoman
Señor Moderator
by: lemonadesoda
I dont think its the Xeons, per se, that use FB memory, but the CHIPSET that supports dual Xeons is based on FB.
That's always the case, the memory controller defines memory support. s604 Xeons for example usually required ECC, however certain boards that used a i875 chipset did not. My point was that it's not basic registered memory that these use.
Posted on Reply
#9
WarEagleAU
Bird of Prey
How much better/worse performance are these chips compared to current conroes?
Posted on Reply
#10
kwchang007
by: WarEagleAU
How much better/worse performance are these chips compared to current conroes?
Should be the same if you could use the same board with the same ram etc. Ex. the X5365 should perform on the same level as the Qx6850. However it does produce less heat (however I think Intel could do the same with the Q line, but they want to make Xeon chips seem better)
Posted on Reply