Intel launches Kaby Lake Xeons

[NumLock21]

Intel has just launched their Xeon processors based on the Kaby Lake architecture. These new cpus will be their Xeon E3 12xx v6 line up and there will be 8 skus. Stock clock speed ranges from 3Ghz to 3.9GHz and Turbo boost ranges from 3.5GHz to 4.2GHz. This give about 300MHz to 500MHz in turbo boost clocks, depending on the sku you choose from. Out of the 8 cpus, 2 of them will not have Hyper Thread, and 3 of them will have integrated graphics. TDP between those with integrated graphics and no integrated graphics is just 1w, where igpus have a TDP of 73W and non-igpus have a TDP of 72W. All of them will support features like ECC, vPro, and SGX, as well come with 8MB of L3 cache, and price ranges from $193 to $612 dollars. Similar to their Xeon Skylakes, these cpus will only work on workstation/server based chipsets, that's the C232 and C236. Intel has no plans to make new chipsets for these cpus, so any boards that wants to run a Kaby Lake Xeon, must have the latest bios update, and these is also support for Intel Optane Technology. On the consumer side, Intel Optane, only works on the new 200 series based chipset with KabyLake. On the workstation/server side, with a Kaby Lake Xeon, Intel Optane is supported on the existing C232 and C236 chipset, that was first introduced with Skylake. Intel Optane will be on selected Kaby Lake system configurations, and may only be provided on a OEM basis.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11232/intel-launches-xeon-e3-1200-v6-family

 

Chipset comparison between C236, Z170, and Z270. C236 = Z170 with support for Intel Optane. Z270 = support for Optane on consumer Kaby Lake cpus.

http://ark.intel.com/compare/90594,90591,98089

 

[Guest]

So a 4c/4t xeon for a similar price as i5?

[zMeul]

13 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

Chipset comparison between C236, Z170, and Z270. C236 = Z170 with support for Intel Optane. Z270 = support for Optane on consumer Kaby Lake cpus.

I don;t get it

 

also, C236 and C232 aren't in the same family as Z170 -some of their specs look familiar others don't

furthermore, C2xx were launched later

[The Sloth]

12 minutes ago, deXxterlab97 said:

So a 4c/4t xeon for a similar price as i5?

you wish 

[Princess Luna]

No thanks Intel, I'll stick with Ryzen for now, the day you finally give mainstream 6c/12t without useless iGPUs filling up dead space we can talk.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

you wish 

i5 7600 and 7500 is going for ~200 usd

[The Sloth]

Just now, deXxterlab97 said:

i5 7600 and 7500 is going for ~200 usd

you can pick up a i7 6700k for 259usd on sale now for a bit extra. Xeon usually have low clocks, i5s only have 4 cores. if you want to build a pc  for pure gaming now its best to save up bit more and waiting for a sale. 

[Slickrr13]

Can someone explain why the 1280 is 600$?

[zMeul]

2 minutes ago, Jacobsheeler said:

Can someone explain why the 1280 is 600$?

no iGPU - less features more expensive .... Xeons logic

[WereCat]

3 minutes ago, Jacobsheeler said:

Can someone explain why the 1280 is 600$?

Probably has some embedded features for business.

[Princess Luna]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

no iGPU - less features more expensive .... Xeons logic

Bragging rights, my processor is 0,1ghz faster than yours.... meh

My processor is the double price of yours... much wow!

[2FA]

25 minutes ago, deXxterlab97 said:

So a 4c/4t xeon for a similar price as i5?

i5's don't support ECC though and not every server requires tonnes of CPU power but it's almost always a good idea to get ECC. For example at work, we ordered a 4c/4t E3 server from Dell with 8GB of ECC because we needed a bare metal machine to run our AirWave server since its OS/software doesn't play well in VMs.

[Princess Luna]

3 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

i5's don't support ECC though and not every server requires tonnes of CPU power but it's almost always a good idea to get ECC. For example at work, we ordered a 4c/4t E3 server from Dell with 8GB of ECC because we needed a bare metal machine to run our AirWave server since its OS/software doesn't play well in VMs.

Is it just me or a 4c/4t server seems very underpowered for today's standards? I actually thought hyper-threading was standard on Xeons these days... =/

[2FA]

1 minute ago, Princess Cadence said:

Is it just me or a 4c/4t server seems very underpowered for today's standards? I actually thought hyper-threading was standard on Xeons these days... =/

Depends on the use case like I said. Our use case doesn't require a lot of parallel compute power but does require a dedicated server.

[SteveGrabowski0]

28 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

No thanks Intel, I'll stick with Ryzen for now, the day you finally give mainstream 6c/12t without useless iGPUs filling up dead space we can talk.

Why would Intel do that? Lots of people buy the mainstream cpus to use with integrated graphics. Why would they create another line of cpus in between the mainstream and enthusiast lines?

[Princess Luna]

6 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Why would Intel do that? Lots of people buy the mainstream cpus to use with integrated graphics. Why would they create another line of cpus in between the mainstream and enthusiast lines?

Because 95% of i7 7700k owners have dedicated graphics cards?

[zMeul]

2 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Because 95% of i7 7700k owners have dedicated graphics cards?

iGPUs are still usefull

you can use QuickSync video decoder, instead of DXVA2 or CUVID,  to cut down on power draw quite significantly while watching movies - for example

[Princess Luna]

13 minutes ago, zMeul said:

iGPUs are still usefull

you can use QuickSync video decoder, instead of DXVA2 or CUVID,  to cut down on power draw quite significantly while watching movies - for example

While I agree with it, wouldn't you also trade the iGPU even for just an extra 1c/2t on the 7700k?

[zMeul]

2 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

While I agree with it, wouldn't you also trade the iGPU even for just an extra 1c/2t on the 7700k?

just because?! cores ... 

I would not buy Zen if that's what you're asking

 

before I bought my i5 6500 I was on the fence and searched a lot; at some point I even considered Zen ...until it turned out AMD made a SoC instead of a CPU ....... good riddance

 

I don't like the idea of the forced iGPU and Intel should offer a choice, but not at a mark-up 

[Ezio Auditore]

32 minutes ago, zMeul said:

just because?! cores ... 

I would not buy Zen if that's what you're asking

 

before I bought my i5 6500 I was on the fence and searched a lot; at some point I even considered Zen ...until it turned out AMD made a SoC instead of a CPU ....... good riddance

 

I don't like the idea of the forced iGPU and Intel should offer a choice, but not at a mark-up 

What I have heard is that the data fabtic is not much of a bottleneck. I will link the source later, I am tired now. 

[Citadelen]

36 minutes ago, zMeul said:

-snip-

That isn't actually the problem with the CPUs, games aren't initiating instructions properly and aren't balancing core load properly. We've already seen with Ashes that's it's possible to optimise, Bethesda is optimising all future (and possibly some past games) for Ryzen, Creative Assembly is going to be optimising current and future games, a DOTA 2 patch is launching soon giving a 15% boost to minimums on Ryzen (AMD actually identified and suggested those changes themselves). If Ryzen had been built on a single chip it would not only be much more expensive to make, but they'd lose some flexibility in their server line-up. As for a SoC like design, I don't see the problem here, everything is closer to the CPU, which helps lower latency. You may say that devs just won't bother with it, but fro what we've seen so far AMD is willing to give systems to devs and identify changes themselves and may even be paying devs to optimise for Ryzen.

[zMeul]

24 minutes ago, Ezio Auditore said:

What I have heard is that the data fabtic is not much of a bottleneck. I will link the source later, I am tired now. 

11 minutes ago, Citadelen said:

That isn't actually the problem with the CPUs, games aren't initiating instructions properly and aren't balancing core load properly. We've already seen with Ashes that's it's possible to optimise, Bethesda is optimising all future (and possibly some past games) for Ryzen, Creative Assembly is going to be optimising current and future games, a DOTA 2 patch is launching soon giving a 15% boost to minimums on Ryzen (AMD actually identified and suggested those changes themselves). If Ryzen had been built on a single chip it would not only be much more expensive to make, but they'd lose some flexibility in their server line-up. As for a SoC like design, I don't see the problem here, everything is closer to the CPU, which helps lower latency. You may say that devs just won't bother with it, but fro what we've seen so far AMD is willing to give systems to devs and identify changes themselves and may even be paying devs to optimise for Ryzen.

what does X have to do with Y?

 

I was talking about Zen as a SoC and what I read is bunch of unrelated nonsense

 

Ryzens have full blown chipset (Zeppelin) in them, on die - that's the problem I can't get over

and who designed that chipset? fucking AsMedia .... the utter most shittiest chipset manufacturer out there, they produce shit SATA controllers and USB controllers

what happens if any of those has an issue that can't be fixed? you're fucked

[Citadelen]

8 minutes ago, zMeul said:

-snip-

I understand your point, but you do the same as if the chipset on your motherboard gets broken, you RMA it, pretty simple. As for AsMedia, they didn't design the chipset, that's all AMD's doing, what they design are the extra bits that're added to the board, and so far I've not seen a single reviewer or user complain about their durability or quality.

[NumLock21]

2 hours ago, zMeul said:

I don;t get it

 

also, C236 and C232 aren't in the same family as Z170 -some of their specs look familiar others don't

furthermore, C2xx were launched later

C232 and C236 was launched 3 to 4 months later after Z170, not 2 years later like the Z270. And yet, Intel Optane is supported with a Kaby Lake cpu. On the consumer side with a Z170 and a Kaby Lake cpu, there is no Intel Optane, you're forced to buy a new Z270 motherboard just to have it.

 

C232 and C236 launched on Q4 2015, Kaby Lake, Intel Optane = Yes

Z170 launched on Q3 2015, Kaby Lake, Intel Optane = No

Z270 launched on Q1 2017, Kaby Lake, Intel Optane = Yes

[zMeul]

7 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

C232 and C236 was launched 3 to 4 months later after Z170, not 2 years later like the Z270. And yet, Intel Optane is supported with a Kaby Lake cpu. On the consumer side with a Z170 and a Kaby Lake cpu, there is no Intel Optane, you're forced to buy a new Z270 motherboard just to have it.

 

C232 and C236 launched on Q4 2015, Kaby Lake, Intel Optane = Yes

Z170 launched on Q3 2015, Kaby Lake, Intel Optane = No

Z270 launched on Q1 2017, Kaby Lake, Intel Optane = Yes

and?! since when Micron started manufacturing 3DXpoint ? 2015 ... coincidence?! 

in August Intel announced Optane: http://www.anandtech.com/show/9541/intel-announces-optane-storage-brand-for-3d-xpoint-products