Wednesday, September 8th 2021

Intel Intros Xeon E-2300 Series Based on 14 nm "Rocket Lake-E"

Intel today released the Xeon E-2300 series enterprise processors for entry level servers, based on the 14 nm "Rocket Lake-E" silicon. These are slightly different from the Xeon W-1300 series processors targeting workstations. The E-2300 has a more server-relevant feature-set, and is designed for high uptime. You get ECC memory support, as well as vPro, SGX, and MPX (memory encryption). You still get only client-relevant AVX-512 instructions found in 11th Gen Core processors, as well as DLBoost AI acceleration.

The "Rocket Lake-E" silicon comes with up to 8 "Cypress Cove" CPU cores, each with 512 KB of dedicated L2 cache, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The processor features a 2-channel DDR4 memory interface that supports up to 128 GB of DDR4-3200 memory. It puts out 20 PCI-Express 4.0 lanes that can be segmented in a number of ways; as well as the Intel C250 series chipset puts out 24 PCI-Express 3.0 lanes. Chips in this series come with TDP of up to 95 W.
Source: ServeTheHome
Add your own comment

14 Comments on Intel Intros Xeon E-2300 Series Based on 14 nm "Rocket Lake-E"

#1
P4-630
btarunrTDP of up to 95 W
Not bad.
Posted on Reply
#2
ZoneDymo
and you thought they could not add an extra plus
Posted on Reply
#3
Owen1982
P4-630Not bad.
:confused: Can't read any sarcasm in your comment... this number doesn't really mean anything anymore - the chip will easily pull twice that in turbo etc... isn't it something like 224w?

Bearing in mind that Alder Lake is supposedly released soon - how long until the Alder Lake Xeon's get released? 3-6 Months? I think you would have to be really desperate to buy these...
Posted on Reply
#4
Darmok N Jalad
Yeah, considering the clocks are similar, I bet the behavior is similar. The question would be, will enterprise motherboards have a setting to throw power management out the window like the enthusiast boards do? That will have a significant impact on power draw and thermals for sustained workloads.
Posted on Reply
#5
Tomgang
And here I believed they where finnally done with 14 nm++++++++++.... Eh:confused:... Oh yeah +++++++++++++. That must be enough... I hope.

But apparently not:shadedshu:
Posted on Reply
#6
Jism
Owen1982:confused: Can't read any sarcasm in your comment... this number doesn't really mean anything anymore - the chip will easily pull twice that in turbo etc... isn't it something like 224w?

Bearing in mind that Alder Lake is supposedly released soon - how long until the Alder Lake Xeon's get released? 3-6 Months? I think you would have to be really desperate to buy these...
Base clock TDP yes. If you want the boost you pay twice the power.
And in DC's you pay for power.
Posted on Reply
#7
Solid State Brain
Owen1982:confused: Can't read any sarcasm in your comment... this number doesn't really mean anything anymore - the chip will easily pull twice that in turbo etc... isn't it something like 224w?
I don't understand why people seem to think that these CPUs will draw huge amounts of power beyond user control.

Of course it all depends on the motherboard's power limits settings. Gaming / consumer motherboards will typically have high default values and sometimes unlimited short-term limits, but these can be tweaked. Server motherboards will be more likely to have defaults within Intel [recommended] specifications. You could also set the limits manually to 95W or disable PL2 so that it will not go over 95W no matter the load.
Posted on Reply
#8
Jism
Server boards are'nt bloated usually, the selection of materials and the build quality in general is far better then consumer motherboards. I mean did you ever seen a server board holding a 12 to 16 phase of VRM? Nope. You'll find most boards carry a simple 4 phase design since it's powerfull enough to keep a sustained consumption (280W for AMD for example) and even cover peak power consumption that leads to the hundred of watts for just a tiny of a second.

I always find it funny when motherboard vendors in consumers come up with the most ridiculous designs in relation of VRM power; while 99% of those users running such a board won't be even close to the peak power of what that VRM is able to provide. In my experience a VRM switching frequency is far more important (higher the better) then a massively overbuild VRM if you relate to overclocking. For normaly daily use any board is sufficient. Hence why the 50$ boards reviewed on TPU here can run a 3950x or so even in overclocked conditions.

Any board vendor has to comply to AMD's minimum recommendations. So you'll find the same from low to high-end, and youll notice that the 50$ boards are just as capable of running a CPU as a high end board. Overclocking is indeed a different story, VRM temps too, but not worth the 250 up to 400$ extra price lol.
Posted on Reply
#9
Tom Yum
Solid State BrainI don't understand why people seem to think that these CPUs will draw huge amounts of power beyond user control.

Of course it all depends on the motherboard's power limits settings. Gaming / consumer motherboards will typically have high default values and sometimes unlimited short-term limits, but these can be tweaked. Server motherboards will be more likely to have defaults within Intel [recommended] specifications. You could also set the limits manually to 95W or disable PL2 so that it will not go over 95W no matter the load.
The problem is that if you lock Rocket Lake down to those power limits, the end result is a processor that is uncompetitive with AMDs offerings. So it is either accept a much higher power draw and get a CPU that is fairly competitive in processing power, or contain PL1/PL2 boost durations and limits to actually keep within 95-110W range, and get a pretty average processor in return.
Posted on Reply
#10
ERazer
Solid State BrainI don't understand why people seem to think that these CPUs will draw huge amounts of power beyond user control.

Of course it all depends on the motherboard's power limits settings. Gaming / consumer motherboards will typically have high default values and sometimes unlimited short-term limits, but these can be tweaked. Server motherboards will be more likely to have defaults within Intel [recommended] specifications. You could also set the limits manually to 95W or disable PL2 so that it will not go over 95W no matter the load.
so buy a racing horse then cut one of its leg? :slap:
Posted on Reply
#11
johnspack
Here For Good!
Heh, dual channel on a server cpu.
Posted on Reply
#12
Crackong
Not interested
If I need a "Real" server CPU I would buy a server class CPU with tons of PCIE lanes and SAS.
If I could live up with less PCIE and no SAS in a server, I would buy 16 core Ryzen and plug it in a server MB.
Posted on Reply
#13
Solid State Brain
Tom YumThe problem is that if you lock Rocket Lake down to those power limits, the end result is a processor that is uncompetitive with AMDs offerings. So it is either accept a much higher power draw and get a CPU that is fairly competitive in processing power, or contain PL1/PL2 boost durations and limits to actually keep within 95-110W range, and get a pretty average processor in return.
I don't disagree with this but it oftentimes appears as if people are genuinely concerned with the short-term power limits, for a reason or another.

That's just seeing a very small part of the problem, since Intel Rocket Lake processors are inefficient compared to the AMD offerings also at nominal TDP (PL1), although desktop-part reviews have not focused much on this.
Posted on Reply
#14
docnorth
Owen1982Bearing in mind that Alder Lake is supposedly released soon - how long until the Alder Lake Xeon's get released? 3-6 Months? I think you would have to be really desperate to buy these...
It's all about availability. It won't be the most powerful small workstation and for sure not the most efficient, but if it's available and reasonably priced it'll get the job done.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment