Intel Xeon E5-4600 v3-processors Specs Surface 18 Core Galore
Click here to post a comment for Intel Xeon E5-4600 v3-processors Specs Surface 18 Core Galore on our message forum
lmimmfn
The windows task manager would look sooo cool
0655
intel official list update.
see page 9 , 11
Intel Xeon Processor E5 v3 Product Family
Processor Specification Update
January 2015
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/xeon/xeon-e5-v3-spec-update.html
vbetts
Moderator
Need more cores!
schmidtbag
Pretty sure nobody would be running a Windows server on hardware like this. Not with direct access to all cores anyway.
Makes me wonder what kind of tasks benefit from this? Once you get to a certain number of cores, you're better off using GPGPUs. Even the Xeon Phi seems to be more practical.
vbetts
Moderator
We currently have a 12 core Xeon server right now with 64gb of memory, host server that has at least 4 servers virtualized as follow.
Host OS-Windows Server 2012
Virtual server 1-App server for techs
Virtual server 2-Storage server for network drives
Virtual server 3-Diagnostic server that runs background tasks for maintenance
Virtual Server 4-Virtual desktop split into 2 virtual desktops for access at home. Runs Windows Server 2008.
We have other hardware servers as well that do other tasks, so this cpu right here would be beneficial for multiple reasons. Less power than what we're running now, more efficient, and better carbon footprint compared to what we're doing now.
BLEH!
Now if EVGA (or someone else, perhaps) would release a dual socket mobo with support for 7 GFX cards, 16 DIMM slots and OCing of these... :P
maize1951
They had an PC with an 18 core processor on NCIS once an few years back, but that was an fictional processor, now not so much an fictional processor.
Brasky
+1, that would be an adventure.
-Tj-
dat L3 cache 😀
Undying
Meh, its not a gaming CPU. :P
Fender178
This would be the perfect chip to be a virtualization server that could do everything under the sun from web hosting to SQL to file storage.
The only xeon based servers that I have ever worked with had only 2-4 cores and any where from 4-16gb of RAM.
tsunami231
I am impressed yet i am not the ghz speed seem to be droping to accomidate those cores. and the fact that alot things are still stp demanded cause we dont have proper multi core/thread support is alot the software out there. makes this less impressive in my eyes.
Then again with PROPER usage of multi cores/threads this would be amazing.
Megabiv
and the games would still prefer a dual core 5ghz cpu :P
Undying
Indeed. Core clock is still the king. 🙂
TenderBabyMeat
You have to remember the intended use of this type of proc, though. With this many cores, it is implied that its purpose is for massive virtualization, not brute force. Especially if used in a quad-socket arrangement, this would be very well suited for environments wanting to consolidate their various server/web host/app host/etc platforms into a single physical machine.
I would love an opportunity to configure a virtual network with this as the foundation.
tsunami231
i know what the intend purpose of those processor, they will become retail customer verison at some point too, there speed will most likey be dropped similarly and stp will still be king in world were we dont have proper multi thread/core support . mutil core/thread support is terrible bussiness/customer end either way cause most dont want to be other to program the support correct which is why stp is still king. so my comment still stand
I am impressed yet I am not.
TenderBabyMeat
Oh sure, there is no disputing that multicore and multithread support is severely lacking for a wide range of software applications, or at the very least it can be said that that the implementation is not where we would hope it would be for 2015. I was merely pointing out that in this particular instance for this proc, that is less of a concern. Even the lowered clocks would not necessarily be a detriment if its intended purpose is having a much larger array of virtual machines running parallel that do not respectively require massive computational power.
And like you, I would certainly hope that by the time this reaches the consumer level they will have worked out a solid compromise of cores and clock speed. 18 cores are not a reasonable incentive for reduced clocks if a vast majority of applications are still unable to make effective use of 4 or even 2 cores.
tsunami231
Moot those parallel setup ups still need the software to support the core/multi/thread correct which is the problem most do not even on the server side of things what good are those 18 cores if only 10 of are actual used?
And like you said vast majority barely use 2 let alone 4 this problem is specfic to just consumer grade software/game software, server grade software suffer the sameas same issues. unless that said software was made specifically for one thing and one thing only which is rare
d_mouse
For enterprise level stuff it generally is though, I mean take the company where I for instance, we have approx 8000 employee's who all use either Siebel or SAP depending on what function they work in.
Our Siebel environment consists of 3 separate SQL DB servers each with 5 load balanced VM application servers. Each application server runs 4 cores & 8GB of ram and doesn't need a lot in the way of clock speed.
Then we have our SAP setup, which is on a similar scale to our Siebel setup. Even our ITSM system (Cherwell) has 3 servers just for our Prod environment (app server, web server & SQL DB server).
None of these systems require fast clock speeds, but ALL require atleast 4 cores per VM. More cores hovering around anywhere from 2- 3Ghz each makes perfect sense for this type of workload.
