Intel’s Xeon 7500-Series CPUs Target Enterprise Computing

7500-Series Versus 7400-Series

Reliability aside, the Xeon 7500-series should prove to be a solid performance play, clobbering its predecessor, the 7400-series, in every way imaginable.

Of course, the comparison isn't even close, given that the 7400 was based on the Core architecture and the 7500 is based on Nehalem.


Xeon 7400
Xeon 7500
Cores
4/6
4/8
Memory Controller
Front-side Bus
On-die controller
Hyper-ThreadingNo
Yes
Memory
FB-DIMMDDR3
Memory Channels
2
4
Max CPU sockets4
8
Memory slots per CPU8
16
L3 cache16MB
24MB


The eight socket support was a surprise Intel dropped during the launch of the chip. Prior to the Xeon 7500-series, you couldn't put more than four processors in a motherboard without needing a special controller chip called a node manager, and then you weren't liable to see much of a scale-up. With its Xeon 7500-series processors, Intel promises you can put eight processors on a motherboard without needing a node manager, and performance will scale up to 80 percent per processor. In other words, if you go from four processors to eight, you should be able to expect  a near-doubling of performance.

The launch of the 7500-series was one of the most impressive ever for Intel. It usually has OEM partners present for a server processor launch. IBM, Dell, HP, Cray, SGI, NEC, Fujitsu, Cisco, and Oracle/Sun were all there to show off hardware. Dell and HP both demonstrated their first four-socket blades and Dell unveiled its first four-socket racks. It had only sold two-socket models before. Cray had its first Xeon servers (it has always been an AMD shop). NEC, Fujitsu, and Oracle showed off eight-socket servers, and SGI outdid everyone, showing off a 256-socket server.

There were also a lot of software vendors there to pledge support for the 7500-series, in particular the processor’s virtualization functionality. Citrix, Microsoft, Novell, Oracle, Red Hat, and VMware all announced plans to certify and tune their software for the processor and its increased workload capabilities.

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
19 comments
    Your comment
  • surda
    even though i dont read much about server processors but this just sounds super fast, i like how it has alot of error stages checking so that it stays 24/7 without crashing, but do they really need all that speed for servers? i just gotta say hardware technology is moving very fast these days.

    nice article btw thank you.
    3
  • anamaniac
    These chips are absolute beasts! They do run at low frequencies however. (But would you want 130W chips in a 4P/8P box?)
    4 memory channels, 16 DIMMs per CPU, damn. I imagine you'd spend more on the 16GB DDR3 DIMMs than you would the processors though.
    Also nice to hear that these scale well in 4P/8P boxes.

    But I must ask, why are the 7500 chips in 45nm? Is the 32nm process still too immature to make a 2 billion transistor chip with any decent level of success?

    Assuming a 8P box, all CPU's clocked to 3.5GHz (~120GFlop per CPU, ~1TFlops total), you could run a few games purely in software mode and still get good performance. Damn.
    0
  • Anonymous
    "In the course of one week, two separate events signaled what may be the end of Intel's grand experiment with RISC architecture. Intel released the Xeon 7500-series processor family, containing many features found in the Itanium, a RISC-based design developed in partnership with Hewlett-Packard, and Microsoft ended its support of Itanium."

    When did Itanium change from being a VLIW architecture to being a RISC architecture?... It was designed to overcome some RISC architecture limitations of the day. XScale was Intel's big RISC mistake...
    2
  • RazberyBandit
    I think it's just poor wording. Both portions of that sentence refer to the Xeon-7500. Try it this way:

    "In the course of one week, two separate events signaled what may be the end of Intel's grand experiment with RISC architecture. Intel released the Xeon 7500-series processor family, a RISC-based design developed in partnership with Hewlett-Packard containing many features found in the Itanium, and Microsoft ended its support of Itanium."

    There, all better!
    -1
  • Anonymous
    How necessary is it to have the error correction circuitry? If it's that important and the normal desktop and server architecture doesn't have it then are we not all accumulating errors in our data and code? With what frequency does this happen in the real world - and is the machine check architecture actually important, or just a bullet point for a sales brochure?
    0
  • gglawits
    AMD's Magny-Cours is the better value proposition.
    Compare the AMD 6128 (8 cores, 2.0 GHz, $266 list price) against the Xeon X7550 (8 cores, 2.0 GHz, $2729 list price) and you'll see what I mean. The XEON cost more than 10 times as much! Sure it's faster, but not 10 times faster. Not even 2 times faster.
    3
  • cjl
    gglawitsAMD's Magny-Cours is the better value proposition.Compare the AMD 6128 (8 cores, 2.0 GHz, $266 list price) against the Xeon X7550 (8 cores, 2.0 GHz, $2729 list price) and you'll see what I mean. The XEON cost more than 10 times as much! Sure it's faster, but not 10 times faster. Not even 2 times faster.

    You clearly didn't understand a word of this article.
    -8
  • KlamathBFG
    Also consider the applications that can have their life extended with a new scaled up limit and compare that to the cost of re-engineering those applications and suddenly $2729 a processor sounds cheap $27,900 or in some cases $272,900 would still be cheap.
    1
  • idisarmu
    gglawitsAMD's Magny-Cours is the better value proposition.Compare the AMD 6128 (8 cores, 2.0 GHz, $266 list price) against the Xeon X7550 (8 cores, 2.0 GHz, $2729 list price) and you'll see what I mean. The XEON cost more than 10 times as much! Sure it's faster, but not 10 times faster. Not even 2 times faster.


    You sir, are an idiot. RAM is MUCH more expensive than these CPUs. Even 16gb of desktop DDR3 memory costs about $800. Now these mobos generally have more than 4 dimms per cpu- more like 8, so $1600 for RAM makes a $266 CPU seem really really cheap. Now server memory is always more expensive, so I think it would make perfect sense to spend $2000 more in order to have a system with fewer bottlenecks.
    -5
  • ta152h
    Why comment on the Itanium when you don't know what it is? This doesn't signal the writing on the wall, only 6% of Itanium buyers were using Windows.

    It still has reliability features far exceeding the Nehalem-EX, and they are still greatly supported by the largest computer maker in the world, which, by the way, also was the original designer.

    It's not going anywhere.
    3
  • gglawits
    For the two rude Intel fanboys "cjl" and "isisarmu", here's the math:

    Two-socket 16 core Opteron system with 32 GByte RAM:
    Tyan S8230 ... $460 (source: Froogle)
    two Opteron 6128 ... $266 x 2 = $532 (source: AMD)
    sixteen 2GByte DDR3 ECC DIMMs ... $60 x 16 = $1000 (source: Froogle)
    case, P/S, HD ... $400 (estim.)
    Grand total ... $2400 for a 16 core, 32 GByte server ($150 per core)

    Two-socket 16 core Intel "Beckton" system with 32 GByte RAM:
    motherboard ... $478 (assumed price, not available yet)
    two Xeon E6550 ... $2461 x 2 = $4922 (source: Intel)
    sixteen 2GByte DDR3 ECC DIMMs ... $60 x 16 = $1000 (source: Froogle)
    case, P/S, HD ... $400 (estim.)
    Grand total ... $6800 for a 16 core server, more than $400 per core

    Again, nobody doubts that the "Beckton" system will be faster.
    But, hey, $2400 vs. $6800 is a heck of a price difference.
    2
  • notty22
    I think its the AMD fanboy who is not paying attention. Its stated clearly in the article AMD themselves don't see M-C as a competitor to this product.
    Quote:
    AMD has never positioned M-C as a competitor to the Xeon 7500-series; it sees the Intel Xeon 5600 processor family as its primary competitor.

    This does not take a genius to figure out !
    There are countless mission critical scenarios where second best in speed/reliability will cost companies money + get people fired(IT guy who chose the 'better deal' . Financial transactions with the NYSE, Amazon.coms inventory, Credit Card companies customer's accounts......
    -1
  • Reynod
    I think the point is that N-EX will target much of the market space previously held at the top ... not the middle ... where Beckton sits, and AMD hopes to win back both the low end (2P) and eat into the middle (4P) with their price / power / efficiency strategy ... 6100.

    That's good news for small businesses ... as costs for the low and mid range systems will drop due to competition.

    N-EX based systems will nevertheless cost you an arm, leg, and possibly a kidney ... no competition there to dissuade Intel to drop the price.

    And why should they? Must have cost a squillion on the R&D to make this puppy pass inspection... many engineers toiling into the wee hours.

    Good article ... a tremendous chip too.
    0
  • JohnnyLucky
    "Itanium servers were usually multi-million dollar beasts that ran multi-petabyte Oracle databases or line-of-business applications that had to always run."

    petabyte - how many zeroes after the 1?
    0
  • goodguy713
    lol i would love to see gaming bench marks on a system like this
    0
  • Anonymous
    We are using 6 Dl580 G5 with two socket 6-core 7400x cpu and 63GB RAM on each server in a single ESX4 cluster. Total 384GB of RAM, ll hooked up to 80 Terabytes of FiberChannel 15k DISKs on a EMC Clariion SAN. There are about 200 virtual machines including Exchange 2007, SQL servers, oracle server, and a large number of application servers running on OS ranging from server 2000, 2003 and server 2008. The CPU load are barely over 30% utilization.

    Imagine if we have these X7500 CPU they would be just sleeping. LOL

    Imagine if I had the X7500 CPU in these
    -2
  • ossie
    Finally intel comes to the 8P party... where AMD was for almost a decade... alone, with no intel in sight - Opteron 8xx(x) anyone?
    While 8P systems amount to a tiny fraction of the server/workstation market - mostly 2P and some 4P - evolution is always welcomed.
    notty22I think its the AMD fanboy who is not paying attention. Its stated clearly in the article AMD themselves don't see M-C as a competitor to this product. This does not take a genius to figure out !
    ... more wintel fanboy b$. If some THGossip article "states" something, it must be true... right? Wrong.

    Even accustomed with the usual THGossip wintel bias and hype, micro$uxx' relevance in the mission-critical market is more than overblown... they're plain irrelevant.
    No more Itanic support? Good riddance - only gamer loader diehards would've used the crap from redmond anyway.

    jacp1000How necessary is it to have the error correction circuitry? If it's that important and the normal desktop and server architecture doesn't have it then are we not all accumulating errors in our data and code? With what frequency does this happen in the real world - and is the machine check architecture actually important, or just a bullet point for a sales brochure?

    All critical servers/workstations implement ECC. If not, it would be just a russian roulette game, until data corruption or crashes occur.
    It's not about "if" - errors are guaranteed to occur - but about "when" - and how to reliably detect, and correct them, and if uncorrectable ones appear, to take appropriate measures.
    Even if the drm infested games loader doesn't support RAS features, it doesn't mean that serious work shouldn't be done, where they are mandatory.
    0
  • K2N hater
    These processors will never show their true potential while running on cheap 1-2U heatsinks and tiny fans that last 1 year at most.
    0
  • bentonsl_2010
    128213 said:
    "Itanium servers were usually multi-million dollar beasts that ran multi-petabyte Oracle databases or line-of-business applications that had to always run." petabyte - how many zeroes after the 1?



    1 PB = 1,000,000,000,000,000 or 1000 TB's
    0