Monday, February 15th 2016

Intel Gets Sixteen "Broadwell" Cores to Run at 45W TDP

The latest Intel Xeon D-1571 SoC, designed for high-density data-centers and micro-servers, sets a new benchmark for energy efficiency. If the fact that it's an SoC (a combination of CPU and chipset) wasn't enough, the chip also crams in 16 CPU cores based on the "Broadwell" architecture, with HyperThreading enabling 32 logical CPUs, running at 1.30 GHz clock speed, a dual-channel DDR4 memory controller that supports up to 128 GB ECC DDR4 memory, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache; all at a TDP rated at just 45W. On most high-density server boards, such as the X10SDV-series by Supermicro (pictured below), the chip will cooled by just a small fan-heatsink. Such specs won't come cheap. Server board vendors will buy the Xeon D-1571 at $1,222 a piece in 1000-unit quantities.


Source: CPU World
Add your own comment

11 Comments on Intel Gets Sixteen "Broadwell" Cores to Run at 45W TDP

#1
james888
I want one of these for crunching. Yes.
Posted on Reply
#2
BrainCruser
james888 said:
I want one of these for crunching. Yes.
The cpu seems like its meant for databases/micro servers not processing.
Posted on Reply
#3
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
More like virtualizing 32 thin clients at low operational cost. You know, running Office 365 and the like.
Posted on Reply
#4
VulkanBros
FordGT90Concept said:
More like virtualizing 32 thin clients at low operational cost. You know, running Office 365 and the like.
I think you are right - this is not for heavy loaded CPU intensive Sequel Servers or other in this catagory, it is more likely for vSphere, HyperV and Citrix stuff
Posted on Reply
#5
james888
I was very curious about Intel 8 core avalon platform for crunching. Crunching likes lots of cores and does not do as much with core speed. I wanted an avaton for have a high point low power crunching platform.

I was disappointed to find out that others had tested it and found out that although they had 8 cores they did not perform too great for crunching.

This broader llatta 16 core chip would do better but I would not expect much. The avaton chips were too expensive for me to test, and so are these. That does not change that I want one to play with.
Posted on Reply
#6
GhostRyder
Well that's very cool actually. Loads of VM's on a small package, sounds pretty great to me!
Posted on Reply
#7
yogurt_21
FordGT90Concept said:
More like virtualizing 32 thin clients at low operational cost. You know, running Office 365 and the like.
Except that the 1000 series are not dual cpu certified. You need a 2000 series for that (ie Xeon D 2571) So I'm not exactly sure virtualization is the target. The image also shows a micro board, not even a blade board...

I'm not sure where 16 1.3GHZ cores would fit then. They seem to be targeting the micro server market but I'm trying to think of a usage. Video survellance systems? I can't imagine they need that many cores. NAS? same no need for that many cores. Switches, firewalls? no way they spend that much on the cpu. Maybe something far more specific for military/NASA use?
Posted on Reply
#8
cheesy999
yogurt_21 said:
Except that the 1000 series are not dual cpu certified. You need a 2000 series for that (ie Xeon D 2571) So I'm not exactly sure virtualization is the target. The image also shows a micro board, not even a blade board...

I'm not sure where 16 1.3GHZ cores would fit then. They seem to be targeting the micro server market but I'm trying to think of a usage. Video survellance systems? I can't imagine they need that many cores. NAS? same no need for that many cores. Switches, firewalls? no way they spend that much on the cpu. Maybe something far more specific for military/NASA use?
I think the idea was one thread per vm
Posted on Reply
#9
Jizzler
We could just ask Intel what they think :D

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/xeon/xeon-processor-d-family.html



They do well in scale-out situations like the ones above when compared to the Xeon E3. There's also a bit of gap between the E3 (4c) and E5 (2p 4c-18c) families which this helps fill. Like, when you need E3 level features but E5 number of cores there's the Xeon-D.

Probably not too shabby with VMs as well as they support a number of virtualization technologies. Though I can guess why it didn't make it to Intel's list; they push you to use E5 and E7 because of the massive amount of RAM they can address as well as the performance due to a lot of cores/thread and clock-speed. The Xeon-D can only address up to 128GB which limits it's VM density. So it can do it, but in niche situations.
Posted on Reply
#10
hat
Enthusiast
That would be great for lengthy encoding projects too...
Posted on Reply
#11
yogurt_21
I still cannot see this in a vm environment as its single cpu limited. A standard blade is dual cpu with at least 24 memory slots, even with 16 cores you're not going to limit yourself in space by putting in a single only cpu. You'll likely go E5 for bit more wattage and have 32 cores plus 24 x16GB memory sticks (for 384GB, since 32GB sticks aren't cost effective right now). Perhaps for really small business virtualization? Ie you toss one of these in a Dell R230 and spin up 32 max vms? You'd have a crap ton of SPoFs though (single point of failure) which isn't ideal. Though you could do a pair of them plus a storage solution...at which point why not E5's on multi cpu setups?

maybe I'm thinking the wrong kind og virtualization, perhaps this is for containers?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment