Intel Skylake-D information leaked with Up To 36 Threads (no that's not a typo)

[AlTech]

Intel's Skylake-D Xeon information has been leaked. Skylake-D is expected to be launched in Early 2018 and is a bump to Skylake SP cores featuring AVX512 and should be the same cores used in Skylake-X.

 

These are the leaked upcoming parts and pricing.

 

Quote

News about the next update on Intel’s Xeon-D line has been thin. For over a year now, we were expecting to hear what plans were in store for one of the more esoteric Intel SoC lines: the first generation parts were based on Broadwell, had up to sixteen cores, and supported both ECC memory up to 128GB and 10GBase-T on a single bit of silicon for under 45W. When it came out, it was amazing all this was on a single chip, compared to the quad-core parts in the consumer market. Xeon D ended up having a lot of uses for networking, storage, management, and dense server installations. How and when Intel would be updating this product line has been somewhat of a mystery.

Based on a few slide presentations from Intel however, we had been expecting something new to come in 2018, with Intel expecting to use Skylake-SP cores (ones with AVX512 support). Having poked and prodded Intel, we were expecting to be involved in any media communications about the platform, but it seems like the managers behind Intel’s Price List have jumped the gun a bit.

 

Quote

The top of the stack is the Xeon D-2191, an 18-core processor with hyperthreading, running at a 1.60 GHz base frequency for a TDP of 86W. Without any extra information about the SoC itself, such as memory support or added features/controllers, it is hard to say if this is any better than what the previous generation offered: the Xeon D-1571 for example, is a 16-core part with hyperthreading and only 300 MHz less on the base frequency, for almost half the TDP. It could be construed that this value will include the AVX512 units in action, however TDP is usually quoted as the base frequency without AVX instructions in flight.

Also given in the list is the Xeon D-2161I. That’s a capital I on the end of that SKU name, which is a new addition to Intel’s product suffixes. It adds in additional problems, speaking as an individual whose name starts with the letter I, because I often get packages from China addressed to ‘Lan’. A capital i and a lower case L, in a font without serifs, is not without its problems. Unless this price list is using a lower case L. Looking at who writes the list, apparently distinguishing between Ghz and GHz isn't a priority either.

 

This new series is getting new motherboards as well.

Quote

However, Supermicro lists three other motherboards with Xeon D-2000 series processors specifically, although these aren’t specifically labeled as Xeon D platforms:

• X11SDV-16C-TP8F with Xeon D-2183IT
• X11SDV-12C-TP8F with Xeon D-2166NT
• X11SDV-8C-TP8F with Xeon D-2146NT

 

So yeah, if Skylake based Xeon Silver and Xeon Gold exist then why does Xeon-D continue to exist? Hopefully someone below can tell me.

 

Also, Damnit Intel!! Kill off X299 and Kaby Lake-X and just start fresh with a Modified version of CoffeeLake for X299 cos at this point selling consumers so many different architectures at the same time (Skylake SP, Kaby Lake-X, Kaby Lake, and CoffeeLake) is so silly.

 

Source:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/12387/skylaked-creeps-out-on-intels-price-list

[hconverse02]

I mean I'm not surprised, as threadripper has 32, so they needed to step up their game or multi-pcie devices on one platform would automatically be deemed threadripper's job.   It sucks that it's on their $2500 processor, but at least there is an option now ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

EDIT: the top xeon processor doesn't look very competitive with threadripper or anything, it's = or minimal performance (ie 2 more cores, 4 more threads) for $1500 more.

[ProjectBox153]

The naming reminds me of the Pentium D. 

[AlTech]

1 minute ago, hconverse02 said:

I mean I'm not surprised, as threadripper has 36, so they needed to step up their game or multi-pcie devices on one platform would automatically be deemed threadripper's job.   It sucks that it's on their $2500 processor, but at least there is an option now ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

But they've already got Consumer Core i9 offerings which this competes with.... .

 

There's no need for this to exist because of X299. The only major differences are clockspeed and TDP aside from branding.

[hconverse02]

12 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

But they've already got Consumer Core i9 offerings which this competes with.... .

 

There's no need for this to exist because of X299. The only major differences are clockspeed and TDP aside from branding.

B-b-b-but $2500 intel 36 cores why WOULDN'T you want to buy it???

[The Benjamins]

So the D-2141I has the same core count, with a 100Mhz higher base clock then the D-1541 but uses 20 more watts. what is Intel doing?

 

Also the top D part only has 2 more cores, is this really all Intel can do over 3 years. Intel needs to wake up and get a move on.

 

Here is last gen, 3 years ago.

https://ark.intel.com/products/91199/Intel-Xeon-Processor-D-1541-12M-Cache-2_10-GHz

https://ark.intel.com/products/93356/Intel-Xeon-Processor-D-1567-18M-Cache-2_10-GHz

https://ark.intel.com/products/93365/Intel-Xeon-Processor-D-1587-24M-Cache-1_70-GHz

[Guest]

More higher core count low powered atoms!

[AlTech]

4 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

So the D-2141I has the same core count, with a 100Mhz higher base clock then the D-1541 but uses 20 more watts. what is Intel doing?

Different micro-architecture. You can think of this as an i9-7980XE with a huge underclock and TDP reduction.

[AlTech]

1 minute ago, TheBeastPC said:

More higher core count low powered atoms!

Actually no, these are effectively similar CPUs to that on X299 but they are lower clocked with lower TDPs under Xeon branding.

[The Benjamins]

5 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Different micro-architecture. You can think of this as an i9-7980XE with a huge underclock and TDP reduction.

I know its broadwell vs skylake, but in 3 years they add 2 more cores on the high end with almost a 30w power bump and a 100mhz base bump for a 20w power bump. That is barely a improvement for 3 years of work.

 

EDIT: Over the whole line Intel managed a 4-6% bump in (core x clock) which is tiny with the need of a more power.  That really does not seem good to me.

[Hiitchy]

How does the highest CPU on the list use less TDP than the second device on the list? Did Intel or the person who leaked the info get it wrong? 

[AlTech]

1 minute ago, The Benjamins said:

I know its broadwell vs skylake, but in 3 years they add 2 more cores on the high end with almost a 30w power bump and a 100mhz base bump for a 20w power bump. That is barely a improvement for 3 years of work.

Yup. Also you gotta love how hard Intel is recyling silicon here.

 

Skylake D is basically Skylake X (with lowered TDP and clockspeed) which is basically Xeon Gold or Silver. I mean I'd forgive the snails pace of development a little more if they actually bothered to not recycle silicon so much .

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

I know its broadwell vs skylake, but in 3 years they add 2 more cores on the high end with almost a 30w power bump and a 100mhz base bump for a 20w power bump. That is barely a improvement for 3 years of work.

Intel are still in a position where they can pretty much do what they want and people will buy them. Just like Windows and Apple.

Also, $1500 more for 6 more cores? On top?? Really??? I'm a really huge Apple fan and even I find this hard to justify.

[AlTech]

Just now, Hiitchy said:

How does the highest CPU on the list use less TDP than the second device on the list? Did Intel or the person who leaked the info get it wrong? 

Lower Clockspeeds can lead to lower power consumption.

 

At a certain point, it's more effiicent to add 2 more cores than to add for example 400MHz to speed up a CPU.

 

Also, the highest end CPU on that list is probably the most well binned in that lineup.

[The Benjamins]

1 minute ago, RorzNZ said:

Intel are still in a position where they can pretty much do what they want and people will buy them. Just like Windows and Apple.

I get that, and its annoying.

 

I want to see progression, I love my D-1541 but the next generation is a small shuffle forward.

[grimreeper132]

15 minutes ago, hconverse02 said:

I mean I'm not surprised, as threadripper has 36, so they needed to step up their game or multi-pcie devices on one platform would automatically be deemed threadripper's job.   It sucks that it's on their $2500 processor, but at least there is an option now ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

EDIT: the top xeon processor doesn't look very competitive with threadripper or anything, it's = or minimal performance (ie 2 more cores, 4 more threads) for $1500 more.

not to be picky but TR has 32 max (it's only a 16 core not 18, your thinking of the i9) and AMD have in theory have a 32/64 EPYC CPU  but you don't hear about them in the wild much and you can't really buy them, cause they are not uses as they are far too new to be used so far, but they will come. But AMDs Eypc CPU has a 2GHz base clock so to be honest this doesn't really impress me much as the closest thing AMD has to this is a 24 core or a 16 core both have bases of 2.0-2.4GHz. Don't get me wrong intels TDP is much lower than AMDs but these CPUs don't really need to be low power as they are work horse CPUs and they are meant to have power to do everything.

 

As for PCIe lanes and RAM lanes this need alot to compete with AMD has 128 pcie and 8 channel give 16 total per CPU. As I said there is issues with AMDs  like they are so new that they aren't in anything yet, but from the looks of it they are finally sowly appearing on the market, but I must admit that it is nice to see intels competion as don't get me wrong these look like great CPUs and boost clocks will probably be great, but servers don't really need single core preformance they need multicore. But if anything the clock speed is very low, as the i9 7980XE has a 2.6GHz base, but I assume this has been done to lower the TDP down to under 100W

[Drak3]

9 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

I know its broadwell vs skylake, but in 3 years they add 2 more cores on the high end with almost a 30w power bump and a 100mhz base bump for a 20w power bump. That is barely a improvement for 3 years of work.

 

EDIT: Over the whole line Intel managed a 4-6% bump in (core x clock) which is tiny with the need of a more power.  That really does not seem good to me.

Outside of high clocks, Sky+ is not a meaningful improvement over Broadwell when it comes to the cores themselves. There hasn't been any meaningful improvement after Haswell.

22 minutes ago, hconverse02 said:

threadripper has 36

TR tops out at 16c/32t.

[AlTech]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Outside of high clocks, Sky+ is not a meaningful improvement over Broadwell when it comes to the cores themselves. There hasn't been any meaningful improvement after Haswell.

Nope. Skylake SP is a meaningful improvement for Compute tasks.

 

3 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

TR tops out at 16c/32t.

Well yes but you're forgetting EPYC which is up to 32c/64t PER CPU.

 

The only problem with Epyc is it's epic lack of availability which is slowly being remedied.

[The Benjamins]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Outside of high clocks, Sky+ is not a meaningful improvement over Broadwell when it comes to the cores themselves. There hasn't been any meaningful improvement after Haswell.

TR tops out at 16c/32t.

Ya, and is my point it is such a small improvement. I don't want people praising the D-21xx because they forgot that the D-15xx excited.

[grimreeper132]

24 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

But they've already got Consumer Core i9 offerings which this competes with.... .

 

There's no need for this to exist because of X299. The only major differences are clockspeed and TDP aside from branding.

The diffrence is these are classed as "more stable" which means that they can be trusted to work, and have ECC RAM support, which is crucial for  datacentres but yes, this is slightly bullshit in several ways but that's life. intel still has no competion in the server area as AMD hasn't had enough time to convince people to sell their servers, and the ones they have haven't made them yet and/or valadated everything with them to be able to ensure everyone that will buy them that they are safe for datacentre usage. 

[grimreeper132]

1 minute ago, AluminiumTech said:

Well yes but you're forgetting EPYC which is up to 32c/64t PER CPU.

 

The only problem with Epyc is it's epic lack of availability which is slowly being remedied.

the EPYCs at this core count (if you can get a hold of one) have higher base clocks or 2.0-2.4GHz (depending on which model, be it the 16 or 24 core) and in fact the 32C one has a higher base clock of 2.0GHz I mean they have a much higher TDP as well but meh. The main problem is you can't them which I tried to explain in another post here

[Taf the Ghost]

Are the Skylake-D an actually different batch of dies or are they just binned from another branch? The Skylake-W and Skylake-X seem to share the same dies, so I was curious if anyone knew. It would explain why it seems little has really improved.

[The Benjamins]

2 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Are the Skylake-D an actually different batch of dies or are they just binned from another branch? The Skylake-W and Skylake-X seem to share the same dies, so I was curious if anyone knew. It would explain why it seems little has really improved.

The only thing I know that the D line has different is that they have 2x 10Gb NIC's on die. but they are very similar.

[Drak3]

18 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Nope. Skylake SP is a meaningful improvement for Compute tasks.

Outside of AVX512, it isn't.

 

[Taf the Ghost]

2 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

The only thing I know that the D line has different is that they have 2x 10Gb NIC's on die. but they are very similar.

Intel's many product lines are kind of humorous, as they basically do an Interior "semi-custom" approach to so many.  Looks to be from the design batch as the Skylake-X and Skylake/Xeon-W, just with some expanded aspects.