Slashdot Mirror
Intel Launches Xeon E7-8800 and E7-4800 V3 Processor Families
MojoKid writes: Intel is taking the wraps off of its latest processors for enterprise server and pro workstation applications today, dubbed the Xeon E7-8800 / 4800 v3. Like its high-end desktop processors, the Xeon E7-8800 / 4800 v3 product families are based on the Haswell-EX CPU core. These new Xeons, however, offer a plethora of other enhancements and are packing significantly more cores than any current desktop processor. The highest-end Xeon E7-8800 series processors, for example, are 18 core chips. Previous generation Xeon E7 v2 processors were based on the Ivy Bridge-EX core, while the new E7 v3 parts are based on Haswell-EX, though both are manufactured on Intel's 22nm process node. Next generation Broadwell-EX based Xeons will make the move to 14nm. Xeon E7-8800 / 4800 v3 series processors have 32-lanes of PCIe 3.0 connectivity per socket, TSX is enabled in all SKUs, they offer support for both DDR3 and DDR4 memory (though, not simultaneously), and can address up to 6TB of memory in a 4-socket configuration or 12TB in an 8-socket setup. Intel has also goosed the chip's QPI interface speeds to 9.6GT/s.
Looks good for my EM simulation needs. Too bad the licensing to take advantage of all those cores is very expensive.
Why is this sarcastically just what you need? Why is this uninteresting if this isn't for laptops? Also what laptop workload uses 18 cores?
Where do I trade my shitty Intel HD gfx for the extra 14 cores in my i7?
Get the i7-4790k which runs up to 4.4ghz and is unlocked so you can overclock it to 4.8ghz or so.
It's probably hundreds of times faster than the shitty pentium 4 you mentioned to boot......
You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
Their E7-8890 has 18 cores and support 8 sockets. That's 144 cores on a server at 2.5 GHz. That sounds like a low or even mid end mainframe from years ago.
Oh, I don't know, servers? Virtualisation hosts?
Why would anyone use a Xeon with that many cores in a desktop? o_O
You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
These procs sound awesome! Energy misers too. I would love to get some stuff running on them to see what they are like realtime:).
Discoveries are made very irregularly, and are hard to plan. Therefore, its better for a company in the long run to "sandbag".
So they're not even based on Broadwell yet; when are they expecting to get Xeons based on Skylake out - next year?
Why would anyone use a Xeon with that many cores in a desktop? o_O
For my compiler, you insensitive clod. Now that we have SSDs that can feed the beast fast enough to keep it busy, I would be delighted to have one of these on my desk.
But does it run Linux?
It's *beautiful* for simulating a cluster on a single machine.
Why would anyone use a Xeon with that many cores in a desktop?
I can think of quite a few specialised but realistic applications: CAD/CAM/CAE, rendering/pre-viz, high-end audio or video mixing work, simulation, and running modern web apps as fast as their traditional desktop equivalents used to run on a Pentium II.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Too bad netburst was a highly inefficient architecture. I mean a Intel Atom E3815 @ 1.46GHz is 5% faster. and a Intel Atom D2701 @ 2.13GHz is twice as fast.
Of course I figure you're being sarcastic about the awesome power efficiency of the Pentium 4 architecture.
toronto stock exchange is enabled for all stock keeping units.
What does this mean?
Exactly. Not that it would likely be worth it for my employer, even with salary accounted for, but my work project has 25 subprojects that need to be built but a max depth of 5 I think in the dependency graph. So could reduce my full builds from ~1min 5-10 times a day to say 10s 5-10 times a day. But usually I can multitask: do another once over the pending changes, etc. So the time isn't usually wasted anyways.
Because he's a cool hipster who thinks that people with desktops are old farts..
It appears that they didn't do much to the QPI besides boost the speed a bit. That's not going to fare well in HPC stuff. The reason I didn't use the V2 E7-8*** line was because due to how gimped the memory architecture was, you could run 2 socket 4 GPU, 4 socket 2 GPU, but not 4/4.
It was cheaper, and just as effective, to go with the E5 instead, and make multiple node systems into a single box, instead. 8 socket, 12 GPU. Fuck yea.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Sun back in the day, not sure if they still do it, used to offer servers with say half of the cores disabled. You could buy licenses and they'd turn on the extra cores without even needing a reboot. They offer different price points even if it means they waste some good cores disabling them to make an artificial performance different its still better for them than to have to make a different design/fab for each step in the process. The lifetime of a chip architecture/manufacturing process is so short that building n lines to make n products would be crazy expensive.
Oh it must be so traumatic... back in my day we use parallelism to get our build time down to 30 minutes. Except on the Cray T3D where, ironically, it took 24 hours.
When will compilers and large programming libs start to make efficient use of multiprocessing, and apps stop needing 150MB to display a web page?
What about a wider faster GPU bus so we can offload smaller transforms to real, massively parallel processors? ATM, ~4k N is the breakeven for many computations.
Pre-Haswell Core i7 dual core laptop chips run roughly 4 times as fast as a 3.8GHz P4 single core -- per thread. And that is without overclocking. Haswell cores are even faster, and the desktop chips run at much higher clock rates than the laptop chips, so I've no doubt you could see 5-6 times the performance on a current generation CPU.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
> 25 subprojects [...] max depth of 5 [...] dependency graph
Java?
You mean turn off 3 cores, overclock one to orbit?
No it isn't tramatic just a waste of time. Especially when a couple people come over to your desk and want you to check something on another branch. Checkout, deploy database. Then build. Then when switching back need to build again. So 3 people sitting around waiting for a progress bar.
I've lived the HPC game too. In those days for me at least it was 5% dev and 95% reading/writing journal articles, books, either triggering or automating compute job configurations etc. Very little code but running for 200k+ cpu hours.
But, that is what shared build machines are for. Not everyone is going to be building at once, and with a 5-20 member team its a lot less expensive to buy a machine with 40 cores and a bunch of midrange desktops/laptops, than buy all the developers high end workstations.
We have "build" machines too. They get hijacked to run CI workloads. Typically 8-16 jobs running concurrently 24-7. They build -> then trigger smoke, other, security, migration etc testing.
Often we compile several times locally in the process of getting things working. Sadly highly coupled code between C# and tsql/db code. You need to migrate and build/run tests locally to have any hope of pushing something to a CI/build server that has a hope in hell of not breaking everything.
Anyways, I like having a high end local desktop, but then again I'm running webserver, db, and client workloads simulatanously on my local machine. 32GB ram, typically > 16GB in use at any given time. Without it we'd need to have dedicated dbs on servers we could migrate ourselves without any conflicts with any other users as we muck with stored procs and such.
These huge number of core server CPUs other than for big stuff like non-scale out db workloads and such are kind of silly. For the last 15 years at least they've been trying to sell us on the idea that everyone wants to go back to having thin clients with VMs hosted on fat dense servers. The only one that wants that are the accountants. Then if you take into account productivity it might be a wash. Especially since clock for clock server hardware is probably ~4X more expensive.
How fast are they with 1/4 to 1/8th of the memory bandwidth?