Why Intel Created The C232 And C236 Workstation Chipsets

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Michael Justin Allen Sexton is a Contributing Writer for Tom's Hardware US. He covers hardware component news, specializing in CPUs and motherboards.
  • bit_user
    The C232's main feature isn't listed in the table: support for ECC memory. I think that's the key selling point of the C232 - for small NUC-style workstations and stripped-down servers that require ECC.

    Since Nahalem, you had to pair a Xeon (or i3) CPU with a server/workstation chipset to use ECC. The only exceptions to this are a handful of special SKUs oriented towards embedded applications, and they must still be paired with an ECC-supporting chipset.

    It strikes me as truly bizarre that neither support HD graphics, though. And no HD Audio is also weird. That suggests the C232 is intended for small servers - not NUC-style workstations. The C236 might be low/mid-range workstation-oriented, as many workstations contain a separate graphics card.
    Reply
  • logainofhades
    Sounds like the announced C232 boards are a waste of time. Getting tired of waiting on Intel to get their act together. Skylake's launch has been a disaster.
    Reply
  • Mac266
    the i7-6500K has been similarly hard to find

    Yes, I imagine it has.
    Reply
  • Quixit
    The C232's main feature isn't listed in the table: support for ECC memory. I think that's the key selling point of the C232 - for small NUC-style workstations and stripped-down servers that require ECC.

    Honestly, almost nothing really needs ECC anymore. Most people using ECC RAM are doing it to hedge their bets. When a system reboot might cost you $10,000 it's worth it. In the sort of systems these are going in to it doesn't really matter.
    Reply
  • iamacow
    So basically they made a "locked" chipset to stop people from overclocking the XEONs. Smart move intel because otherwise everyone would buy the cheaper chip and overclock it. Heck I picked up a E5 2670 for $100 the other day and it sightly outperforms the 4960x when overclocked to 3ghz.
    Reply
  • kenjitamura
    "Why Intel Created The C232 And C236 Workstation Chipsets"
    TL;DR "greed".
    Reply
  • IInuyasha74
    17370167 said:
    The C232's main feature isn't listed in the table: support for ECC memory. I think that's the key selling point of the C232 - for small NUC-style workstations and stripped-down servers that require ECC.

    Since Nahalem, you had to pair a Xeon (or i3) CPU with a server/workstation chipset to use ECC. The only exceptions to this are a handful of special SKUs oriented towards embedded applications, and they must still be paired with an ECC-supporting chipset.

    It strikes me as truly bizarre that neither support HD graphics, though. And no HD Audio is also weird. That suggests the C232 is intended for small servers - not NUC-style workstations. The C236 might be low/mid-range workstation-oriented, as many workstations contain a separate graphics card.

    1. ECC memory support is not supported on all C236 and C232 chipsets. It is an optional feature that OEMs can opt to include.
    2. Xeon and Core i3 have nothing to do with each other whatsoever.
    3. There have been numerous Xeon CPUs released on several sockets that work with consumer chipsets, it is not limited to workstation/server chipsets and embedded systems.
    4. Neither support Intel HD graphics because Intel doesn't use Intel HD Graphics in its Skylake LGA 1151 Xeon CPUs.
    5. The HD audio technology is a subsystem of the HD video technology, and so it is also not enabled.
    Reply
  • tleavit
    I may also have something do do with the fact that enterprise Xeon chips have so far out paced home use (or workstation) thats its ridiculous to buy them. Besides the fact that they are packed full of all kinds of instructions for virtualization that 99.99% of people out there don't use. I can run 6 win 7 machines on my Skylake 4.0GHZ now without the CPU even blinking. We run 100 Virtual machines on our Cisco UCS blades with 2 x 8 core zeon procs and the CPU rarely breaks 15%. People today have absolutely no concept of the power these CPU's have today. It's like reading people here bragging about having 32 gigs of ram to play games that only use 4 gigs. There's a reason I can take a 10 year old core duo Dell laptop (D610/810)and put windows 10 on it and its perfectly fast to do normal work on.
    Reply
  • iamacow
    17370622 said:
    I may also have something do do with the fact that enterprise Xeon chips have so far out paced home use (or workstation) thats its ridiculous to buy them. Besides the fact that they are packed full of all kinds of instructions for virtualization that 99.99% of people out there don't use. I can run 6 win 7 machines on my Skylake 4.0GHZ now without the CPU even blinking. We run 100 Virtual machines on our Cisco UCS blades with 2 x 8 core zeon procs and the CPU rarely breaks 15%. People today have absolutely no concept of the power these CPU's have today. It's like reading people here bragging about having 32 gigs of ram to play games that only use 4 gigs. There's a reason I can take a 10 year old core duo Dell laptop (D610/810)and put windows 10 on it and its perfectly fast to do normal work on.

    I got 64GB on my X79. Planning on going 128GB or 256 for a X99 if i can :)
    Reply
  • bit_user
    17370442 said:
    Honestly, almost nothing really needs ECC anymore.
    Really? What changed, and when?


    17370442 said:
    Most people using ECC RAM are doing it to hedge their bets. When a system reboot might cost you $10,000 it's worth it. In the sort of systems these are going in to it doesn't really matter.
    No, when a reboot costs that much, then you use a server with full RAS features that are only offered with Intel's E7 CPUs and chipsets. There are plenty of cases where errors are more expensive than the small price difference of ECC RAM. Basically, anything involving finance, and a whole host of embedded applications. And any kind of fileserver or database server, where a bad bit could cause corruption in potentially valuable data. These often don't need to be big, expensive systems (and frequently can't be). So, the added measure of protection from ECC is usually enough easily worth a few extra $.

    And ECC has little to do with reboots. A bad bit might cause a BSoD, but it often doesn't. And if I see ECC errors in my logs, I'm going to take the machine down and replace the RAM, whereas it might've stayed up longer if the errors went unnoticed.
    Reply