Intel Preps Westmere-Flavored Xeon Refresh

rated by 0 users
This post has 10 Replies | 2 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Posts 24,877
Points 1,116,645
Joined: Sep 2007
ForumsAdministrator
News Posted: Mon, Jan 18 2010 9:54 PM
It's only been two weeks since Intel debuted its 32nm, Nehalem-based Clarkdale processor, but the CPU manufacturer is already planning to introduce Westmere-derived Xeon processors in the first quarter of 2010. Intel revealed its plans during its quarterly conference call last week and hinted that Nehalem-EX processors will soon see the light of day as well, but neglected to mention exactly when it'll launch the new series of parts.


Intel's new CPU+GPU technology; dies shown to scale.

The two refreshes, when they drop, will significantly overhaul Intel's current series of server chips. At present, Intel's offerings are a mixture of 45nm Nehalem and Penryn-based parts; the new 32nm Westmere chips will offer power savings and integrated graphics, while the Nehalem-EX series redefines what "fast" means at the upper end of the spectrum. Intel generally expects the server and corporate markets to improve in 2010 after a weak 2009, but the new Xeon parts don't necessarily need a fast ramp in order to be profitable. One tidbit the company revealed during its financial call is that the ROI (return on investment) on Westmere is in the neighborhood of 15-20:1, as opposed to 9:1 for Penryn.
  • | Post Points: 95
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,963
Points 25,700
Joined: Sep 2009
gibbersome replied on Mon, Jan 18 2010 10:20 PM

I was reading about this yesterday. Intel plans to replace every chip in its server portfolio with 32nm Westmere parts, and do so within the next 3 months.

The demand for these new server chips is high.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 4,796
Points 45,500
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Kennesaw
rapid1 replied on Mon, Jan 18 2010 11:33 PM

Dang Intel is moving at break neck speed. It makes you wonder why really. It is not like I don't appreciatte the technologies merit as I do. However; AMD may be "some" competition (I know there parts are basically competitive), but they (AMD) don't have anything that in any serious way outperforms them more than a pinch if that. Please don't get me wrong the desktop has an AMD processor. My laptop has an Intel processor but that all they offered in a gateway FX laptop.

As far as it goes Intel's main competition has been Intel for a couple of years. So it's kind of like a dog chasing his tail in many aspects.

 Machine name: rapid1
 Operating System: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit (6.1, Build 7600) 
 System Model: Gigabyte X58A-UD5
 Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU         930  @ 2.80GHz (8 CPUs), ~3.6GHz
 Memory: Kingston 6144MB RAM
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,963
Points 25,700
Joined: Sep 2009
gibbersome replied on Mon, Jan 18 2010 11:45 PM

Haha, there's no sugarcoating it. Intel's performance is ahead of AMD's. While AMD has been expanding into the budget to performance systems, Intel has remained the enthusiast's choice.

Nehalem-EX will be fastest server chip at its release.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 4,796
Points 45,500
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Kennesaw
rapid1 replied on Tue, Jan 19 2010 12:13 AM

That's true but they are also still really there own competition.

 Machine name: rapid1
 Operating System: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit (6.1, Build 7600) 
 System Model: Gigabyte X58A-UD5
 Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU         930  @ 2.80GHz (8 CPUs), ~3.6GHz
 Memory: Kingston 6144MB RAM
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 4,796
Points 45,500
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Kennesaw
rapid1 replied on Tue, Jan 19 2010 12:45 AM

I will make one observation though a server processor with a gpu on board rather than 4 or more cpu cores seem like a short sighted decision to me.

 Machine name: rapid1
 Operating System: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit (6.1, Build 7600) 
 System Model: Gigabyte X58A-UD5
 Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU         930  @ 2.80GHz (8 CPUs), ~3.6GHz
 Memory: Kingston 6144MB RAM
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 4,796
Points 45,500
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Kennesaw
rapid1 replied on Tue, Jan 19 2010 12:47 AM

I mean when looking at a server or corporate cpu do you think the rep is looking for a GPU as mpst server boards already have gpu's in the and if not it would seem cheaper to me to have more cores epsecially at 32nm and grab a cheap gpu  on the type of system a zeon would generally go into.

 Machine name: rapid1
 Operating System: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit (6.1, Build 7600) 
 System Model: Gigabyte X58A-UD5
 Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU         930  @ 2.80GHz (8 CPUs), ~3.6GHz
 Memory: Kingston 6144MB RAM
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 4,796
Points 45,500
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Kennesaw
rapid1 replied on Wed, Jan 20 2010 2:49 AM

I could see these working on workstations but it would seem an excessive expense unless it was for graphic design or something. Of course then you would have a better GPU and 4 cores would be better as well.

 Machine name: rapid1
 Operating System: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit (6.1, Build 7600) 
 System Model: Gigabyte X58A-UD5
 Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU         930  @ 2.80GHz (8 CPUs), ~3.6GHz
 Memory: Kingston 6144MB RAM
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 4,796
Points 45,500
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Kennesaw
rapid1 replied on Wed, Jan 20 2010 2:14 PM

I personally think Intel is making a mistake on this unit as well as over expanding there market to much. I appreciate there commitment to diversity, but think they are really going to end up hurting themselves more than anything with such a wide grasp processor wise. How many cpu's of differing capabilities can you get from them right now? Like I said in another subject post not only are they there largest competitor, the general user and the business segments of the market are the money area. With so many choices especially in the general usage portion people have no clue what to get when given 20 choices or more of very specific capabilities with the same general name (Intel CPU).

 Machine name: rapid1
 Operating System: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit (6.1, Build 7600) 
 System Model: Gigabyte X58A-UD5
 Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU         930  @ 2.80GHz (8 CPUs), ~3.6GHz
 Memory: Kingston 6144MB RAM
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 4,796
Points 45,500
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Kennesaw
rapid1 replied on Wed, Jan 20 2010 2:20 PM

Say I am a general or business user I am looking at a choice of a core2 duo a coreduo either of multiple varieties, an I3-I5-core2quad-i& of two differing chip compatibilities, about 4 Xeon varieties with anywhere from 1.3 ghz to 3.8 and also there mobile equivalences of most of these and a specialized sector with a GP on board as well I know nothing but general info on computers so what do I choose this is like coke having 40 colas in a regular and diet variety I am going to be so confused as to what to get I am either going to choose the cheapest or just generally grab one oh and don't forget there value line as well there layout of available cpu's is confusing to me much less a general user

 Machine name: rapid1
 Operating System: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit (6.1, Build 7600) 
 System Model: Gigabyte X58A-UD5
 Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU         930  @ 2.80GHz (8 CPUs), ~3.6GHz
 Memory: Kingston 6144MB RAM
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,747
Points 42,815
Joined: Sep 2006
Location: United States, California

Edit button not working? jk lol

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (11 items) | RSS