Sunday, May 9th 2021

Intel Xeon W-1300 Series "Rocket Lake" Processors Detailed

Intel has quietly let out details of its latest-generation Xeon W series workstation processors based on the 14 nm "Rocket Lake" silicon. These chips are built in the same Socket LGA1200 package as the 11th Gen Core desktop processors, but compatible with the W580 chipset. The lineup includes two 6-core/12-thread; and five 8-core/16-thread parts. Leading the pack is the Xeon W-1390P, with clock speeds of up to 5.30 GHz, followed by the W-1390, at 5.20 GHz. These two SKUs feature Thermal Velocity Boost, and are analogous with the 11th Gen Core i9 series.

Next up, are the Xeon W-1370P and W-1370, clocked at speeds of up to 5.20 GHz, and 5.10 GHz respectively, These parts lack Thermal Velocity Boost, and are comparable in many ways to the 11th Gen Core i7 SKUs. The slowest of these 8-core parts is the energy-efficient W-1390T, ticking at nominal clocks of just 1.50 GHz, with 4.90 GHz maximum boost, but a TDP of just 35 W. Among the other SKUs, the "P" SKUs have rated TDP of 125 W, while the non-P ones have 80 W. The 6-core/12-thread SKUs include the W-1350P and W-1350, clocked up to 5.10 GHz and 5.00 GHz, respectively. All Xeon W processors support up to 128 GB of dual-channel DDR4-3200 memory with ECC support.
Add your own comment

12 Comments on Intel Xeon W-1300 Series "Rocket Lake" Processors Detailed

#1
watzupken
"The slowest of these 8-core parts is the energy-efficient W-1390T, ticking at nominal clocks of just 1.50 GHz, with 4.90 GHz maximum boost, but a TDP of just 35 W."

Looking at the existing Rocket Lake stack, I am highly skeptical that this will run just at 35W at all, unless one is able to set a hard stop at 35W in the BIOS. But in doing so, you lose tremendous amount of performance with the base clock speed at a meagre 1.5 Ghz. Intel should really considering scraping the meaningless TDP since most people will not want to run their Intel chips at TDP at the expense of performance.
Posted on Reply
#2
Tardian
2014 14nm Intel Core M processors. So much progress? Whilst TSMC is developing 2nm?
Posted on Reply
#3
thesmokingman
Why even bother wasting the silicon for these?
Posted on Reply
#4
efikkan
thesmokingmanWhy even bother wasting the silicon for these?
Wasting silicon? These are the top bins for Rocket Lake-S. What else should they use their 14nm capacity on?
These will be used in large quantities by Dell, HP, Lenovo etc. for workstations.
Posted on Reply
#5
ZoneDymo
efikkanWasting silicon? These are the top bins for Rocket Lake-S. What else should they use their 14nm capacity on?
These will be used in large quantities by Dell, HP, Lenovo etc. for workstations.
gotta love having good contacts/contracts, I dont think anyone in their right mind would ever buy one of these....
Posted on Reply
#6
efikkan
ZoneDymoI dont think anyone in their right mind would ever buy one of these....
Buying reliable workstations to get actual work done? Who on earth would do that!
Thanks for sharing your wisdom, apparently every other forum member knows computers are for teenagers playing games, and that RGB LEDs are not optional! :P
Posted on Reply
#7
thesmokingman
efikkanBuying reliable workstations to get actual work done? Who on earth would do that!
Thanks for sharing your wisdom, apparently every other forum member knows computers are for teenagers playing games, and that RGB LEDs are not optional! :p
Stop crying like a baby. These are a joke, basically desktop chips they're fucking dual channel lmao. They will get crushed by a 5950x and not even gonna mention the Threadripeprs which are real workstation class not this shit.
Posted on Reply
#8
efikkan
thesmokingmanThese are a joke, basically desktop chips they're fucking dual channel lmao. They will get crushed by a 5950x and not even gonna mention the Threadripeprs which are real workstation class not this shit.
Then you don't know what a workstation is. Workstations is about reliability, not core count.
There are large numbers of workstation users in the professional world who don't need 4-8 channels of memory and 16+ cores, in fact very few real non-server workloads scale beyond 6-8 cores. This includes many developers, artists, system administrators, people in the financial industry etc. There are many who need reliability above anything else, where even a short downtime means lost productivity, without having any extreme mulithreaded workloads.
You should listen, then perhaps you'd learn, and be less full of bs.
Posted on Reply
#9
thesmokingman
efikkanThen you don't know what a workstation is. Workstations is about reliability, not core count.
There are large numbers of workstation users in the professional world who don't need 4-8 channels of memory and 16+ cores, in fact very few real non-server workloads scale beyond 6-8 cores. This includes many developers, artists, system administrators, people in the financial industry etc. There are many who need reliability above anything else, where even a short downtime means lost productivity, without having any extreme mulithreaded workloads.
You should listen, then perhaps you'd learn, and be less full of bs.
Oh yea, more dumbass you know shit others don't. gfto.
Posted on Reply
#10
evilpaul
thesmokingmanStop crying like a baby. These are a joke, basically desktop chips they're fucking dual channel lmao. They will get crushed by a 5950x and not even gonna mention the Threadripeprs which are real workstation class not this shit.
According to the review on this site, the desktop version of RKL is better for Visual Studio, Photoshop, After Effects, machine learning, and several other things.

There's also official ECC support, workstation/server boards and chipsets, etc.

There's numerous use cases where these are really nice entry level options.

The Ryzen chips are all "lol dual channel" too, by the way. So they've got half the memory bandwidth per core where that matters.

Also, look up what an Exchange Server license will cost you on a 64 core Threadripper vs. an 8 core anything. No, actually do that. Go on. Google it. It's not hard. You can do it. I'm not your mom, go on, Google it. There's other per core licensed software that grown ups use, too.
Posted on Reply
#11
1d10t
1d10tThe fact that even its predecessor W-2155 pack 10 cores makes this generation even more disgraceful. Its official then, Intel gave up on HEDT, pushing mainstream processors to workstations at server prices. But hey, you just have to EXIST these day.
My previous comment also applied here, who woulda’ thunk.
evilpaulAccording to the review on this site, the desktop version of RKL is better for Visual Studio, Photoshop, After Effects, machine learning, and several other things.

There's also official ECC support, workstation/server boards and chipsets, etc.

There's numerous use cases where these are really nice entry level options.

The Ryzen chips are all "lol dual channel" too, by the way. So they've got half the memory bandwidth per core where that matters.

Also, look up what an Exchange Server license will cost you on a 64 core Threadripper vs. an 8 core anything. No, actually do that. Go on. Google it. It's not hard. You can do it. I'm not your mom, go on, Google it. There's other per core licensed software that grown ups use, too.
Most workstations role as server or final rendering jobs, so cores count are very important and no, workstation CPU are not doing that task you mention above. And next time you reading CPU review, try examining Server and Workstation section. And about licensing, any Threadripper running virtual machine will eat it up while still providing resources to do other tasks.
Posted on Reply
#12
evilpaul
Well, you should probably let the reviewers know they're publishing worthless benchmarks, then. And, uh, I did look at the Server and Workstation section. 7% faster with 50% more cores. Super impressive results. You make excellent points.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment