Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Report: Details On Intel's Haswell Server CPUs Emerge

By - Source: ComputerBase | B 13 comments

More information regarding Intel's server Haswell CPUs has leaked out.

While the rumor mill has been working hard regarding Intel's upcoming Haswell chips for the consumer market, it has been awfully quiet about the server market. All of a sudden, though, a great deal of information has appeared.

The Xeon 1200 V3 is the most logical successor to the Xeon 1200 V2. The 1200 V2 was based on the Ivy Bridge platform. Rumors indicate that the Xeon 1200 V3 chips will be part of the Denlow server platform, meaning they'll be based on the same LGA 1150 socket as the consumer desktop Haswell chips.

The Xeon 1200 V3 chips will carry either no onboard graphics, the GT1 chip or the GT2 chip. The GT2 chip that some of the Xeon 1200 V3 chips will carry is reportedly just as powerful as the Intel HD Graphics 4600 that we'll see on the consumer Haswell chips. The units with an integrated graphics chip will have the model name ending in a 5, rather than a 0, for those that don't carry integrated graphics.

Chips whose model names end with an L are low TDP chips, the lowest of which has a TDP of just 16 W.

ModelCores / ThreadsFreqMax. Turbo (All / Single)L3 CacheGPUTDP
E3-1285 V34 / 83.6 GHz3.8 GHz / 4.0 GHz8 MBGT284 W
E3-1285L V34 / 83.1 GHz3.5 GHz / 3.9 GHz8 MBGT265 W
E3-1280 V34 / 83.6 GHz3.8 GHz / 4.0 GHz8 MB-82 W
E3-1275 V34 / 83.5 GHz3.7 GHz / 3.9 GHz8 MBGT284 W
E3-1270 V34 / 83.5 GHz3.7* GHz / 3.9* GHz8 MB-80 W
E3-1265L V34 / 82.5 GHz3.1 GHz / 3.7 GHz8 MBGT145 W
E3-1245 V34 / 83.4 GHz3.6 GHz / 3.8 GHz8 MBGT284 W
E3-1240 V34 / 83.4 GHz3.6 GHz / 3.8 GHz8 MB-80 W
E3-1230 V34 / 83.3 GHz3.5 GHz / 3.7 GHz8 MB-80 W
E3-1230L V32 / 41.8 GHz2.3 GHz / 2.8 GHz8 MB-25 W
E3-1225 V34 / 43.2 GHz3.4 GHz / 3.6 GHz8 MBGT284 W
E3-1220 V34 / 43.1 GHz3.3 GHz / 3.5 GHz8 MB-80 W
E3-1220L V32 / 41.6 GHz1.9 GHz / 2.3 GHz4 MB-16 W

* Due to a lack of clarity in the document, this is an assumed number.

Sadly, the document has been taken offline from Intel's website.

We can expect the Xeon 1200 V3 CPUs to appear between May 27 and June 7, 2013, possibly at Computex.

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

Display 13 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 12 Hide
    blazorthon , March 26, 2013 10:54 PM
    thecolorbluestill at 4 cores = pathetic Intel, really pathetic


    What is with you people? You're all being just stupid. Intel already has CPUs with more than four cores. They'd need much larger CPUs and sockets if they were going to put in six or more cores and that'd be stupid because, again, this stuff is just the lower end Xeons. Mid-ranged Xeons will be up to six or eight cores, maybe ten for Haswell. High-end Xeons will probably be at fifteen to twenty cores. Stop trolling.
Other Comments
  • 0 Hide
    meowmix44 , March 26, 2013 7:28 PM
    Excellent prouct line:) 
  • 3 Hide
    MrKKBB , March 26, 2013 8:01 PM
    Need to move up to 6 cores!
  • 5 Hide
    blazorthon , March 26, 2013 9:23 PM
    ankit0x1atleast 16 core is needed

    MrKKBBNeed to move up to 6 cores!


    This is just the lower mid-ranged for single socket servers and workstations not based on consumer i7s. They don't need six cores. That's what the X58/X79 sort of stuff is for. Wait for their Haswell successor, assuming that it's coming next instead of an Ivy successor.
  • -4 Hide
    thecolorblue , March 26, 2013 9:32 PM
    still at 4 cores = pathetic Intel, really pathetic
  • 2 Hide
    griptwister , March 26, 2013 10:04 PM
    There is already a 8core/16threads i7 in the works guys...
  • 12 Hide
    blazorthon , March 26, 2013 10:54 PM
    thecolorbluestill at 4 cores = pathetic Intel, really pathetic


    What is with you people? You're all being just stupid. Intel already has CPUs with more than four cores. They'd need much larger CPUs and sockets if they were going to put in six or more cores and that'd be stupid because, again, this stuff is just the lower end Xeons. Mid-ranged Xeons will be up to six or eight cores, maybe ten for Haswell. High-end Xeons will probably be at fifteen to twenty cores. Stop trolling.
  • 2 Hide
    edwd2 , March 27, 2013 2:51 AM
    ankit0x1atleast 16 core is needed

    thecolorbluestill at 4 cores = pathetic Intel, really pathetic


    Come on guys, this is the Xeon E3 family meant for small servers and workstations. They have good value too. E3-1230V2, for example, has the performance close to i7-3770 and the price of an i5.

    On the other hand, the Ivy-Bridge EP based Xeon E5s are rumored to have 10 cores / 20 threads, the EX based Xeon E7s, 15 cores / 30 threads.
  • -4 Hide
    thecolorblue , March 27, 2013 5:09 AM
    blazorthonWhat is with you people? You're all being just stupid. Intel already has CPUs with more than four cores. They'd need much larger CPUs and sockets if they were going to put in six or more cores and that'd be stupid because, again, this stuff is just the lower end Xeons. Mid-ranged Xeons will be up to six or eight cores, maybe ten for Haswell. High-end Xeons will probably be at fifteen to twenty cores. Stop trolling.

    it is not a troll, low end xeons in 2013-15 (these will be around for years) should not be limited to 4 cores. integrated graphics have no place on a workstation cpu, and servers need more not fewer cores.
  • -1 Hide
    tadej petric , March 27, 2013 6:34 AM
    Good for low end servers.
    But why they arent making 5 core chips and fill that space with (i dont know, maybe) more cache? No really. Im not some rocket scientist so explain why not.
  • -1 Hide
    dealcorn , March 27, 2013 7:37 AM
    Chill out. Xeon Avoton is due prior to year end with 8 cores (16 if you count hyperthreading). They will not be Intel's penultimate power cores, but from an efficiency perspective they should blow away anything Intel has done before. For low end server chips, game time begin with Avoton at 22 nm.

    Currently, Intel Xeons substantively dominate every price point at which they compete in the server space. Avoton brings competition to a lower price point and provides Xeon with a platform to dominate the micro server space if they do it right. It is based on a sorta new core design that is not all vclogged up with accumulated pixie dust and crusted up hype.

  • 1 Hide
    blazorthon , March 27, 2013 8:19 AM
    Quote:
    blazorthonWhat is with you people? You're all being just stupid. Intel already has CPUs with more than four cores. They'd need much larger CPUs and sockets if they were going to put in six or more cores and that'd be stupid because, again, this stuff is just the lower end Xeons. Mid-ranged Xeons will be up to six or eight cores, maybe ten for Haswell. High-end Xeons will probably be at fifteen to twenty cores. Stop trolling.

    it is not a troll, low end xeons in 2013-15 (these will be around for years) should not be limited to 4 cores. integrated graphics have no place on a workstation cpu, and servers need more not fewer cores.


    It is being a troll. Any server that needs more cores won't be using these CPUs because they have nothing to do with them. You're mocking a product for not catering to a market that other products are intended for and that's totally nonsensical.

    Low-end Xeons must be limited to four cores if they're to use the LGA 1150 interface. They'd need a larger socket or at least a larger die or smaller process node to deal with a higher core count which would increase transistor count both from the cores and the necessary extra cache for the extra cores. That's what the LGA 2011's replacement will probably be for along with the quad/octa-socket replacement.

    Furthermore, even if most do need a discrete graphics card for one reason or another, any workstation or such that doesn't need a discrete graphics card is better off with integrated graphics. That's why only a few of these Xeons have it. There is perfectly good reason for that.
  • 1 Hide
    MrKKBB , March 27, 2013 11:24 AM
    Why do I have a Xeon rather than i7? Because I need ECC with 64 GB RAM and running codes for a day or so. The E3 are cost effective and good motherboard support with multiple PCIe x16 slots for consumer end GPUs (e.g. cheap CUDA support for MATLAB). A jump to E5 is costly and limits number of PCIe x16 slots.

    If they can cram 6 cores into and i7 why not into E3s? Or is it that the on chip ECC memory controler takes up 2-core space in this socket form?
  • 1 Hide
    blazorthon , March 27, 2013 11:39 AM
    Quote:
    Why do I have a Xeon rather than i7? Because I need ECC with 64 GB RAM and running codes for a day or so. The E3 are cost effective and good motherboard support with multiple PCIe x16 slots for consumer end GPUs (e.g. cheap CUDA support for MATLAB). A jump to E5 is costly and limits number of PCIe x16 slots.

    If they can cram 6 cores into and i7 why not into E3s? Or is it that the on chip ECC memory controler takes up 2-core space in this socket form?


    The i7s with 6 cores are basically the E5s. They don't cram six cores into the LGA 1156/1155/1150 i7s, they did that for the LGA 1366/2011/whatever comes next (well, LGA 2011 had up to eight cores and apparently its successor is up to ten, but you get the point).

    Don't forget that LGA 1150 is already cramming in more than LGA 1155 had in the CPU die such as VRM. There's probably not a whole lot of extra room.

    The ECC memory controller shouldn't take up much more room, if any, than the regular 64 bit controllers. They might even be the same, just with some switch built in to stop the consumer parts from accessing that feature.