Intel Launches Overclockable Xeon W CPUs up to 56 Cores: a Return to HEDT-Class Chips

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

Intel announced its Xeon W-3400 and W-2400 workstation processors, codenamed Fishawk Falls, with 15 new chips spanning from the flagship 56-core $5,889 Xeon w-3495X to the eight-core $359 w3-2423. Eight of the new models are also overclockable, thus marking Intel's return to HEDT-class desktop processors (lower-cost overclockable server processors) for the first time since it launched the Core i9-10980XE back in 2019 and then abandoned the HEDT segment to AMD.

AMD's competing Threadripper Pro currently holds the top spots on our list of best CPUs for workstations and still has the core count lead with the 64-core Threadripper Pro 5995WX. However, Intel's support for the latest connectivity options, including up to 112 PCIe 5.0 lanes and eight channels of DDR5 memory while AMD still relies on PCIe 4.0 and DDR4, could give it the edge in some workloads.

Intel claims the new Xeon W chips are up to 28% faster in single-threaded and 120% faster in multi-threaded work than its own previous-gen Xeon W processors, but didn't share any performance comparisons to AMD's Threadripper Pro series processors that address the same core workstation market segments. Intel also didn't share any gaming performance benchmarks to give us a sense of where these chips will land on the list of the best CPUs for gaming. This makes sense, given the workstation focus, but the chips' overclockability will make game testing results interesting once the silicon is in the wild.

Paul Alcorn
Editor-in-Chief

Paul Alcorn is the Editor-in-Chief for Tom's Hardware US. He also writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage, and enterprise hardware.

  • zecoeco
    Why don't they compare these against 5000 Threadripper Series? Afraid of Reality? XD
    Reply
  • -Fran-
    These read good on paper, for sure. I specially like the w7-3455. Even if it is locked, I think it's a good middle ground to be had in the line up.

    That being said, I still think the floor is too high. The W motherboard are going to be expensive as well, so your minimum entry will be ~$4000 if you want to populate all 8 channels, at the minimum. This is assuming people buying these won't be populating them with regular DDR5 DIMMs (EDIT: I just realized they can't, LOL).

    Also, this is not a return to HEDT as much as Intel just trying to fight AMD at the higher level. Otherwise, we'd see an X chipset for these and the return of the "X" class CPUs as well.

    This is just Intel returning to the Workstation market to fight TR Pro.

    Regards.
    Reply
  • Thunder64
    LoL at the mention of gaming. Not everything is meant for gaming guys. And I think it's obvious why they don't allow BCLK adjustments.
    Reply
  • kjfatl
    We could a few dozen Dual-Socket versions of this populated w/2 TB of DDR5 ECC RAM. (not a joke)..
    This product is not aimed at gamers but for targeted business applications. The more ram the merrier. We need at least 128GB/user and assume most users keep under 64GB.
    Reply
  • jp7189
    Not the slam dunk I was hoping for. I'm definitely excited for the platform - tons of memory bandwidth and PCIe lanes, but I'm a little underwhelmed by the seeming price/performance of the CPUs themselves. We'll have to wait for independent benchmarks to know for sure.
    Reply
  • hotaru251
    zecoeco said:
    Why don't they compare these against 5000 Threadripper Series?
    "as the charts show the AMD alternative crushes our cpu even OC'd....but still buy ti as we have niche pcie 5.0 & ddr5"
    Reply
  • Vanderlindemedia
    Intel lists Processor Base Power (PBP), which is similar to the TDP rating, as stretching from 270W to 350W for the W-3400 series and 120W to 225W for the W-2400 series. These chips will consume more power under full load at their Maximum Turbo Power (MTP) rating, which is 1.2X the PBP. (For instance, the 350W model will peak at 420W, while the 300W model will reach 360W.)

    I dont understand why intel cant get it right. Its peak power at 420W ~ 360W is quite more compared to a Threadripper or Epyc that lists their CPU at a maximum of 280W.
    Reply
  • truerock
    Why Xeons slower than Raptors?
    Reply
  • thestryker
    Unless the motherboards tailored to the 2400 series are a fair bit cheaper than the ones for 3400 (I'm expecting these to be similarly priced to ICL Xeon W boards) it seems like the price of entry for the platform is going to be quite high. I was really hoping the 2455X would be in the $700-800 range as that would put it closer to the 7950/13900 in price. Instead what we got was Intel playing the same game as AMD started with TR 3000 and making the entry price very high. I get why they're doing it, and I expected it to happen, but it is still disappointing.

    I'm looking at the W680 platform to replace my old SNB Xeon server box a lot more seriously than before (was hoping for a lower core count 2400, but they're OEM only so availability will probably be a long ways out). I'm hoping there will be availability on the Asus PRO WS W680-ACE as it seems to have the configuration I need (it has has 2x m.2 and 2x PCIe x4 off the chipset) and the price is good.

    Was hoping for the 2455X as a possible replacement for my current X99 setup, but it's looking like the price is just going to be too high so waiting for whatever comes next desktop wise and hoping to figure out a way around my PCIe lane usage.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    I'm annoyed they don't have a retail-boxed SKU for under $1k, but I don't really care because I can't really justify the expense of the CPU or the platform.

    I might have considered the 8 or 10 core model, depending on how much motherboards cost, but that's because I'm already planning to buy a $450 LGA1700 workstation board. If the board were within 1.5x of that price, I might've considered stepping up to the W-2435 or W-2445.

    I'm also annoyed at how they limit the clocks of the models with fewer cores. That strikes me as entirely artificial. About a decade ago, it was the other way around - you'd actually get higher clocks on the models with fewer cores (even ones based on the same die). We don't need to go back to that, but it'd be nice to at least have parity.
    Reply