backtop


Print 24 comment(s) - last by hstewarth.. on Apr 2 at 12:12 PM

Dual-core, quad-core and processors with 24MB of cache; Intel is determined to take the top spot for servers

At the Intel Developer Forum a few weeks ago, Intel got the attention of the PC community by demonstrating its next-generation CPU architecture: Core. It almost seemed as though Intel's other products and technologies were being overshadowed by Conroe and Core, which won't be released for several months still.

On the server-side, Intel has an equally impressive lineup. For the enterprise segment, Intel's dual-core Itanium 2 MP is currently taking the top spot. Based on the Montecito core, the Itanium 2 9000 family brings 533MHz FSB to the table, which is less than the Itanium 2 9M, but with L3 cache options all the way up to a whopping 24MB. All Itanium 2 9000 series support Virtualization technology. The Itanium 2 9000 family is reserved for situations where clustering and mainframe environments are needed. Supporting up to 512-way configurations, Intel is hoping that Itanium 2 9000 will keep it leading in the high-end enterprise market.

Intel Itanium Processor Roadmap
Processor
Brand
Processor
No.

Core /
FSB
Cache Launch
Date
Price @
Launch
Itanium 2 (Dual Core)
(Montecito)
9050
1.60GHz /
533MHz
24MB Q2'06 $3,690
Itanium 2 (Dual Core)
(Montecito)
9040
1.60GHz /
533MHz
18MB Q2'06 $1,980
Itanium 2 (Dual Core)
(Montecito)
9030
1.60GHz /
533MHz
2MB Q2'06 $1,550
Itanium 2 (Dual Core)
(Montecito)
9020
1.42GHz /
533MHz
12MB Q2'06 $910
Itanium 2 (Single Core)
(Montecito)
9010
1.60GHz /
533MHz
6MB Q2'06 $700

For entry level and mid-range configurations, Intel is letting its dual-core Xeon family drive the market through into 2007. Running at 800MHz FSB, current Xeon processors are based on the Paxville core, which supports 4-way and 8-way system configurations. In Q4'06, Intel will be introducing Xeon processors based on the Tulsa core. The new core will support the same configurations as Paxville but offer 16MB L3 cache options.

Intel Xeon Processor Roadmap
Processor
Brand
Processor
No.

Core /
FSB
Cache Launch
Date
Price @
Launch
Xeon Processor DP
(Woodcrest Bin-0)
5160   3.0GHz /
1333MHz
4MB Q3'06 $850
Xeon Processor DP
(Woodcrest Bin-1)
5150   2.66GHz /
1333MHz
4MB Q3'06 $690
Xeon Processor DP
(Woodcrest Bin-2)
5140   2.33GHz /
1333MHz
4MB Q3'06 $455
Xeon Processor DP
(Woodcrest Bin-3)
5130   2.0GHz /
1333MHz
4MB Q3'06 $320
Xeon Processor DP
(Woodcrest Bin-4)
5120   1.86GHz /
106MHz
4MB Q3'06 $260
Xeon Processor DP
(Woodcrest Bin-5)
5110   1.60GHz /
1066MHz
4MB Q3'06 $210
Xeon Processor DP
(Dempsey Bin-0)
5080   3.73GHz /
1066MHz
2x2MB Q2'06 $850
Xeon Processor DP
(Dempsey Bin-??)
5070   3.46GHz /
1066MHz
2x2MB Q2'06 $690
Xeon Processor DP
(Dempsey Bin-3)
5060   3.2GHz /
1066MHz
2x2MB Q2'06 $455
Xeon Processor DP
(Dempsey Bin-5)
5050   3.0GHz /
667MHz
2x2MB Q2'06 $320

The Xeon MP 7000 series, Paxville based CPUs, will be also coexist with the new Xeon 5000 family, which is based on the Dempsey core. Dempsey focuses more on power usage, especially that now a lot of companies are talking about performance-per-watt. Xeon processors based on Bensley platform  (Xeon 5000) will be introduced in Q3'06, with support for 1333MHz FSB and will be stacked under the Xeon 5000 family. 
The push to the 1333MHz FSB will also coincide with platform adoption of FB-DIMM and Core.

Coming in Q1'07, Intel will introduce Kentsfield, a quad-core processor for the desktop segment, which will actually be close to the same time that Merom is released. The server version of this CPU, Clovertown, appears on the roadmaps at the same time; Q1'07. Our Intel roadmaps seem to hint that Kentsfield may also make an appearance as a workstation CPU and not just an ultimate gamer "Extreme Edition" processor. 

Both AMD and Intel will be doing a lot of work on multi-core processors in 2007, but clearly the interest lies in what happens near the end of 2006. After all is said and done however, 2007 will ultimately determine whether or not the announcements made this year are worth waiting for.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

What the heck are you guys talking about?!
By mlittl3 on 4/1/2006 11:26:09 AM , Rating: 1
Tulsa???? Paxville???

There is only one processor based on Paxville and it is a 2.8 GHz 90nm net-burst processor. I'm pretty sure Tulsa was cancelled. Dempsey will be the 65 nm net-burst dual core xeons up to 3.6 GHz. Woodcrest is the 65 nm core-based dual core with 1333 MHz FSB and top out at 3.0 GHz. Dempsey is coming out in a few weeks and Woodcrest is coming out in 3Q '06. After Dempsey is released, Paxville will be completely discontinued.

What the heck are you guys talking about?!




By ChronoReverse on 4/1/2006 12:40:42 PM , Rating: 3
I hate April Fool's Day. I can't tell if things are real sometimes. I hope they'd take down or mark articles as such after today ><


By hstewarth on 4/1/2006 3:55:26 PM , Rating: 1
This is not an April Fools joke - Intel basically anounce this stuff at Intel Developers Forum - last month.

I got to say - its about time for Intel. I am glad to see it advance past the Netburst generation.

Please if don't believe this is for real - please check the articles on Intel Developer Forum for 2006. You will clear see Intel discussing these processors. Also the Quad Processor was shown. You can also see some benchmarks of the processors against AMD FX-60 over clocked.

I just can't wait to see the reviews on Motherboards / cpus and such once it clear to completion. My guess is that I will be able to build a Supermicro based dual Woodcrest in Aug/Sept 2006. Along with nVidia G80 dual core GPU.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 4/1/2006 1:18:18 PM , Rating: 2
mlittl3: You're actually incorrect. The whole lineup changed, I added some pictures from the roadmap for you.

Kristopher


RE: What the heck are you guys talking about?!
By mlittl3 on 4/1/2006 1:25:16 PM , Rating: 3
I don't understand why it changed. Your article doesn't even have the word 'Woodcrest' anywhere in the whole thing. I thought Woodcrest was the Core architecture key word for all things server/workstation at Intel. Paxville is also a 90 nm part family name. Dempsey and Paxville are exactly the same except Dempsey is 65 nm (maybe some cache differences but that's it). So is Intel making Paxville at 65 nm. If so, what is the difference between 65 nm Paxville and 65 nm Dempsey.

I just don't get Intel. They are making great changes and then they aren't. :(


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 4/1/2006 1:29:51 PM , Rating: 2
The 5110 - 5160 CPUs are Woodcrest -- I added that to the roadmap. 5050 - 5080 are Dempsey (a bunch of Dempsey SKUs were removed since the last roadmap). Paxville will always be 90nm.


By ltcommanderdata on 4/1/2006 1:47:00 PM , Rating: 2
Why does the roadmap keep changing. Before it stretched all the way down to the Xeon DP LVs and then they were removed and (Woodcrest) describtions added which was helpful, but now it's reverted back to the original.

Do you have any details on the 5063 BTW? By the 2x2MB L2 cache configuration and the Q2 launch it would appear to be a Dempsey based product, but I can't see Dempsey getting down to Sossaman's power and heat levels. I've seen it listed as a MV version in other articles.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 4/1/2006 2:04:55 PM , Rating: 2
It's a bin-2 Dempsey CPU. 3.2GHz 1066FSB with a TDP of 95W. It will debut at $369.

(by the way sorry about changing the table, I hit save on top of something I already did)


RE: What the heck are you guys talking about?!
By brownba on 4/1/2006 4:19:09 PM , Rating: 5
If I have one complaint about this website (beside the spelling mistakes),
it's that the articles seem to change often without notice.

I read an article, then come back later to read some comments and the article's title is different, sentences have been changed, and pictures/graphs are added.

If the article is not ready, it shouldn't be published.
It it needs to be changed, I'd at least like to see a note of what was changed and when.


By bjorn47 on 4/1/2006 10:14:17 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with brownba, at least make your edits visible (strike-through, red color, list at bottom of article, etc) so we understand what the early comments are about.


By coldpower27 on 4/1/2006 5:39:21 PM , Rating: 2
That can't be right can it? Xeon DP 5060 is 455US.... which is identical to 5063 save the 130W Thermal Envelope.

How can a lower wattage part 95W be cheaper??!!


RE: What the heck are you guys talking about?!
By hstewarth on 4/1/2006 3:59:35 PM , Rating: 2
One question I have is that the current Dual Core Xeons are actual Xeon 7xxx series and that could explain there price above $1100. I really look forward to 51xx because 2 of them could easly be purchase for same cost - assume that you don't desire the 2.66 or 3Ghz cpu's. I am also glad to see all the 51xx have 4Meg cache and not just 2.66/3ghz cpu - not sure about that from previous articles.


By coldpower27 on 4/1/2006 5:50:15 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is the Xeon 7xxx Series is made for the Multi Processor 4-way environment while the Xeon 5xxx Series is designed for Dual Processor configuration hence why intel charges an arm and a leg for the Xeon 7xxx Series.

It will be awhile before we see replacements for this line on Core Microarchitecture, I think the first one your likely to see is Clovertown MP, which is basically 2 x Woodcrest in a MCM.



By ltcommanderdata on 4/1/2006 1:41:10 PM , Rating: 2
Tulsa has not been cancelled. The article is a bit confusing given the formating, but Tulsa is a 65nm part with 16MB of shared L3 cache. It is targetted for the 4-way market and will be marketed as a Xeon MP replacing the Paxville MP. Tulsa is still Netburst based, but the shared cache will eliminate the cache coherency traffic between the two cores on the same die to maximize the FSB bandwidth for cache coherency between the 4 sockets. The Xeon MP line doesn't seem to be transitioning to the Core architecture this year. I believe Tulsa was supposed to be replaced by Whitefield, which appears to be cancelled and replaced by Tigerton. There also seems to be a Cloverton MP processor which may be the real successor to Tulsa in 2007, giving Intel more time to figure the Whitefield, Tigerton, OMC and CSI issues out.

Dempsey is a 2-way processor and will replace Paxville (DP). Woodcrest will then replace Dempsey in Q3. Cloverton will then replace/supplement Woodcrest in Q1 2007.


These Xeons successors to Conroe?
By bozilla on 4/1/2006 5:19:38 AM , Rating: 2
So I'm not sure what this means exactly. Are these 5000 series based on similar technology as Conroe?

I'm interested in the 3Ghz/1333 dual core Xeon. Are we talking same technology as Conroe on this one as well?

Anyone?




RE: These Xeons successors to Conroe?
By Furen on 4/1/2006 7:09:14 AM , Rating: 2
The 4MB L2 parts are Woodcrest-based (Core). The 2x2MB L2 parts are Dempsey-based (65nm Netburst). The 166MHz FSB (667 "effective"), Low Voltage part is a Sossaman part (based on Yonah), while the other one looks to be Dempsey. Intel is probably using the same series to sell both types of processors in order to be able to clear inventories more easily once Woodcrest hits the market. The 3GHz/333FSB part is indeed a Woodcrest part, though I think it'll be remarkably close to its 80W TDP ceiling. Did you notice there are no 200MHz FSB parts? That's because Benseley (the platform) cannot do FSB800. It was supposed to be a point of convergence between Xeon and Itanium (I believe), so it was made with 266MHz & 166MHz FSB speeds in mind (what was expected all Netburst CPUs would be using by now and what Itanium would require) so the lower-end Netburst chips will be insanely bottlenecked by the FSB.


RE: These Xeons successors to Conroe?
By Viditor on 4/1/2006 8:16:03 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The 4MB L2 parts are Woodcrest-based (Core)

Are you sure? The article says they are Tulsa cores (65nm version of Paxville which are Netburst uA, not NGMA)...


By jones377 on 4/1/2006 8:43:45 AM , Rating: 2
No it doesn't, read it again.


By hstewarth on 4/1/2006 12:22:15 PM , Rating: 1
From what I can tell by 3Ghz/1333 is server version of the Conroe - I seeen it group with Conroes on other sites. Doesn't the 51xx series have 4Meg of share cache - while the 50xx have 2 2Meg cache. I see no reason thinking about the 50xx series.

Also on Supermicro's site, they have PDF on SAS ( Serial SCSI ) and its lists there Dempsy motherboards - I am curious if these motherboards will support the 51xx. X7 series.

Did anybody notice that the 2.66Ghz version price drop, I thought it was $720.

I planning to build a 5160 or 5150 system - most likely with Supermicro Motherboard and Case. Some things I am curious about these motherboard, will they also have PCI slots or can PCI-X slots work with PCI boards.

I really like looking for Woodcrest info and I was glad to see this article and comments.



Why dont you buy one
By Regs on 4/1/2006 1:15:05 PM , Rating: 2
And tell me if it's conroe or not?




RE: Why dont you buy one
By hstewarth on 4/1/2006 4:07:16 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
And tell me if it's conroe or not?


The woodcrest Xeon 51xx are the server versions of conroe.. but they should not be exactly the same as the desktop chips. They support dual CPU configurations and conroe does not all. Also they have 771 socket which I believe is different than the conroes. Also support dual-independent bus. The bus also appears faster on the Woodcrest 1333Mhz instead of 1066mhz. Also I believe the conroes don't support same ram - which means that woodcrest system should allow more ram than the conroe system.

Woodcrest is NOT Netburst.. but use the same technolog as the conroe. Much lower power and faster performance for speed on the clock. Woodcrest is suppose to be 80% (1.8x) then 2.8Ghz dual core Xeon.

I believe the Conroe XE ( Extreme edition ) is basically a Woodcrest processor fitted for desktop. So in some ways you can think of dual woodcrest system as 2 conroe XE working together.


RE: Why dont you buy one
By francism on 4/2/2006 7:48:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I believe the Conroe XE ( Extreme edition ) is basically a Woodcrest processor fitted for desktop. So in some ways you can think of dual woodcrest system as 2 conroe XE working together.

The same way Dempsey resembles Presler XE... both are almost identical except that the former is validated for DP config. By employing an agressive pricing structure Intel has made its upcoming DP offerings more attractive than ever. Its current dual-core server cpu lineup is simply pathetic and has eased AMD in justifying charging a premium on the Opterons. The Woodcrest will most likely offer a superior price/performance ratio (as well as performance/watt) and help Intel turn the table around.


RE: Why dont you buy one
By hstewarth on 4/2/2006 12:12:38 PM , Rating: 2
Agree. I believe a more agressive prices will allow more people that would not normally purchase Xeon class would do so now. I have other reason why I am planning on it, but it sure helps.

Also more competive pricing and performance in the long term should lower the price even more.

I hope this pricing is not just the cpu, but the moterboards and other components. The SAS document on Supermicro site is really exciting.. I hope it means that Serial SCSI will be lower in price. Lower price will surely mean that more people would thinking about purchasing it.


Typo...
By SpaceRanger on 4/1/2006 2:47:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
current Xeon processors are baed on the Paxville core,


Baed??? Didn't you mean BASED... :)




"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki