Earlier this year we detailed the launch of new 15-core Ivy Bridge-based server processors from Intel, as part of the Xeon E7 refresh cycle. Today, Intel is pushing the Xeon E5 family forward -- except in this case, the new Xeon E5 v3 chips are leaping to higher core counts, the more advanced Haswell-EP architecture, and DDR4. The result? The highest-performing Intel server we've seen to date. Collectively, this is a huge leap forward for the entire Xeon E5 series. The Xeon E5 V2 chips, which were based on Ivy Bridge, topped out at 12 cores per socket. The new Xeon E5 v3 cores, in contrast, are going to push as high as 18 cores per socket -- a 50% improvement...
Intel 18-Core Haswell-EP Xeon E5 v3 Preview
Wanna join the discussion?! Login to your HotHardware Forums forum accountor Register a new forum account.
Crazy high prices I'm sure. Out of reach of normal consumers most likely. Would be nice for an ultimate game server.
"INTEL"...has only one thing in mind,when they "finally" release "any thing"---just how much "money" they can charge(FOR...the name.),knowing that there are suckers out there--with money to burn;who, would just love to throw it into " INTELS' " lap.
Regardless of what so-called improvements that may or may not be there(even with that very expense DDR4 ram).
Ohhhh...;and, by the way---watch out for those "expense" motherboards with that "new" X99 chip-set---they just might(And, have been proven to...)catch on fire..and BURN-UP.
Think I'll wait for AMD to bring out something(STABLE),for support of that X99 chip-set;if, it even proves that it can be...stabilized . Time...will tell...huh?!?
You're going to be waiting quite a while, you'll never see an AMD CPU/APU on an Intel chipset, let alone their flagship enthusiast X99 platform. Perhaps you should do a bit of research into the subject prior to commenting.
Intel is clearly dominating AMD from the mid to extremely high end, and will continue to for the foreseeable future.
Don't get me wrong, AMD has some great chips with superb value. However from a performance stand point. They're extremely far behind Intel.
Bottom line, if you want best bang for your buck in the low to mid range, AMD is a great choice. However if you value performance at an additional premium. Intel is clearly the choice for you.
Not trying to start an AMD vs Intel debate, JosephWilliamson already did that, and he clearly lacks knowledge on the subject. I just call it like I see it.
Personally, I have both a FX-8350, and a i7-4790K machine. Both overclocked with closed loop AIO liquid coolers. They're both are great platforms. However, take a guess at which I'm typing this on... ;)
Anyway, as to stay on topic. Those Cinebench results are INSANE. 2.3GHz may not be the highest of clocks, but the immense mult-threaded performance is off the charts here. I would kill to have that machine in a datacenter with a couple 10GigE lines. Work out a nice OpenVZ setup, and sell Linux VPS's all day long. =D
AMD and Intel haven't shared socket support for a common platform since 1997. You're about 20 years too late.
Benchmarks of the 18-core systems show improvements of 20-50% depending on workload. In low-thread workloads that depend mostly on clock speed you're looking at better performance from the chips with lower core counts and higher clock speeds. That's why they offer a multitude of S[censored].
18 cores is incredible. Intel has done a great job evolving the Xeon line to this point. I can't wait to put one of these into production.
Good review Joel.