Intel Xeon 6+ ‘Clearwater Forest’ puts 18A in the data center with up to 288 cores, 576 MB of L3 cache — new Xeon 6990E+ is 30% faster per thread than 192-core AMD Epyc 9965, says Intel

Xeon 6+ CPU specs
(Image credit: Intel)

Intel is returning to the data center with Xeon 6+, now harnessing the power of Intel 18A. After revealing Xeon 600 chips for workstations earlier in the year, Intel is turning back to the data center with Xeon 6+, an E-core-only design previously known as Clearwater Forest. The flagship Xeon 6990E+ is designed for compute density, packing in 288 Darkmont cores with 576 MB of L3 cache, with support for dual-socket systems, taking the core count up to 576. Intel claims the 6990E+ delivers an average 30% performance per thread improvement compared to AMD’s 192-core Epyc 9965, as well as up to 30% better power efficiency.

We’ve heard a lot about Clearwater Forest leading up to this launch, including a full architectural deep dive from Intel last year. As a refresher, Xeon 6+ is the culmination of Intel’s disaggregated approach to processor design over the past several generations, using a mixture of nodes and packaging techniques to achieve such high core density. On top of the silicon stack are 12 CPU chiplets built on Intel 18A, each packing 24 Darkmont E-cores without Hyper-Threading. They sit on three base tiles that hold the L3 cache and memory, which are built using Intel 3. Sandwiching this stack are two I/O chiplets built on Intel 7. Bringing the chiplets together are 12 EMIB 2.5D tiles, which are silicon bridges built directly into the substrate.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Jake Roach
Senior Analyst, CPUs

Jake Roach is the Senior CPU Analyst at Tom’s Hardware, writing reviews, news, and features about the latest consumer and workstation processors.

  • thestryker
    This seems like a rather compelling part since the high core count versions have actually launched rather than whatever one wants to call the 288-core SRF that exists but didn't. I'm hoping to see some benchmarks on the cache latency since this is the first time Intel has done something like this. The clock speeds haven't improved from SRF, but that could be a side effect of chip density rather than the pitfalls of cache stacking.

    One article correction:
    Outside of the chips, Xeon 6+ chips work with existing Xeon 6 platforms on the LGA 4710 socket (the same as Sierra Forest).
    These are definitely LGA 7529 not 4710 as the latter only supports 8 channel memory. Intel's Ark page is up for the new CPUs and they're only listing carrier package, but the package dimensions match the 7529 CPUs.
    Reply
  • icebox768
    Intel uses per-thread performance here, while AMD has two threads per core. In other words, Clearwater Forest only delivers 65% of the performance per core of Zen 5.
    Reply
  • Pierce2623
    Making per thread performance claims is very disenguous when every Zen5c core has two threads and in turn kills Darkmont in per core performance. Hyperscalers rent out cores not threads.
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    Pierce2623 said:
    Hyperscalers rent out cores not threads.
    https://docs.cloud.google.com/compute/docs/instances/set-threads-per-core"each virtual CPU (vCPU) is implemented as a single hardware multithread, and two vCPUs share each physical CPU core by default."
    "You are billed for the number of vCPUs defined by a VM's machine type, not the number of threads that run on each core. For example, the n2-standard-8 machine type can run up to 8 vCPUs, which is 2 vCPUs for each of the 4 physical CPU cores. "
    Reply
  • User of Computers
    Meh. This is going to get destroyed by Venice-D.
    Reply
  • cp0x
    User of Computers said:
    Meh. This is going to get destroyed by Venice-D.
    Probably, but it's still good to see Intel getting somewhat competitive again.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    It'd be pretty interesting if you could get a CPU with one of these 24-core tiles or maybe in a workstation socket with the cache die and 4 CPU tiles.

    Not that I would, especially with Nova Lake just around the corner, but it'd still be neat to even have the option.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    Pierce2623 said:
    Hyperscalers rent out cores not threads.
    From what I've seen, they rent by "vCPUs" which actually equate to threads.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    User of Computers said:
    Meh. This is going to get destroyed by Venice-D.
    Exactly. It's a repeat of what happened with Sierra Forest. That launched just before Turin. Sierra Forest competed well against Genoa, but Turin came along a couple months later and stomped it.

    cp0x said:
    Probably, but it's still good to see Intel getting somewhat competitive again.
    We'll see how long that lasts.

    What really needs to be launching now is Diamond Rapids. I wonder if the announcement from Intel's CEO about people getting fired if rev B0 chips aren't production-ready has anything to do with that schedule slip.
    https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/intel-ceo-lip-bu-tan-stamps-out-chip-bugs-with-aggressive-new-quality-standards-says-major-validation-errors-can-result-in-termination-b0-you-keep-your-job-anything-above-that-you-are-fired
    Reply
  • cp0x
    bit_user said:
    From what I've seen, they rent by "vCPUs" which actually equate to threads.
    Some cloud vendors equate vCPUs to **hardware** threads, but most use a performance-normalized form that means some fraction of a hardware thread (which fractions vary based on CPU generation and clock speed). This allows them to have a mix of servers that are anywhere from brand-shiny-new to 5+ years old, and rent them all out as "vCPUs". In theory, no matter what hardware they put you on, the vCPU will provide at least a certain number of operations per second, but a lot of companies will run a script on a spot instance when they get it to verify that the performance is up to snuff, and they'll drop the instance if it sucks.
    Reply