New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
OVH releases new servers with Xeon Gold processors
https://www.ovh.ie/dedicated_servers/hg/intel-xeon-purley-servers.xml
Is this some kind of new line-up by Intel? Never heard of these to be honest, and they seem to be outrageously expensive.
Comments
Mostly branding, there's a pretty long article about it on wccftech
Maybe it is just me, but this seems completely stupid:
2x4TB disks in that are they clinically insane?
I appreciate you can add more, but as a default set that is silly for €900 p/M
You do realise that the new Intel Xeon Gold 6140 cpus go for around US$3,000+ each ? So that's US$6,000+ just for the cpus in that server config
The Intel Xeon Platinum 8176 is priced at US$8,700+ each !
yup new https://www.servethehome.com/intel-xeon-scalable-processor-family-platform-level-overview/
Xeon Purley is the newest arch from intel. Up to 8 socket systems.
More, according to intel (Scalability listed as S8S+ with the new UltraPath stuff) unlike high-end E7 (eg. v4 8890 is S8S, fixed), question is if we will ever see them in reality...
DL980 - if there is one with these - should cover 8S but i've never seen an HP system (or others aside of like SPARC) with 10S or more...
They might also be able to do... interesting... things with same generation Xeon Phi in their native PCIe 3.0 slots, though that will be latency wise obviously still a lot slower than UPI mesh (not like a 61xx/81xx 4S/8S can do point to point with only 3 UPI while the dual socket have 2 UPI always).
Wat?
Quad Xeon Platinum 8180 benchmarks for 112 cpu cores and 224 cpu threads at https://www.servethehome.com/quad-intel-xeon-platinum-8180-initial-benchmarks/
will any vps provider ever use xeon gold to fit more vps in a node, or is it completety unprofitable?
sorry for off-topic
just wanna say,
this spec is just f**king ridiculous and awesome
I'm not particularly interested in the processor race and so, some others like e.g. William will know more about it.
I'm not too bad in strategy, though, and I think that's a major perspective here. Why?
With their zen processors - incl. the "epyc" for servers - amd has a very attractive offer. Those processors are astonishingly good and performant (unlike some former attempts by amd) and much cheaper. Moreover, boards for epyc are simpler and cheaper to design and manufacture, too. About their ownly (small) disadvantage is that they are somewhat more powerhungry.
Plus: The vast majority of servers will continue to be 2 socket systems - which epyc delivers and does well and cheaper, too.
So, the markets for the 4 or even 8 socket systems are niche markets. One exemplary use case might be massive web or db servers (the kind of beasts that would have bought a sun enterprise server formertimes). And it's not even one where intel will be all that successful. Being the standard (x86) certainly is a big plus but e.g. oracle (sparc) is the standard in a major big iron segment, too.
Be that as it may, intel hasn't many routes to fight back. Being more power efficient is one, and even an interesting one for many, but for most customers not the decisive one - unlike in the consumer segment where ryzen indeed keeps up quite well (8C/16T in 65W tdp is not at all bad).
So basically what intel has is its name, a much bigger war chest and hence more models, a couple tech. arguments and the capacity and means to go to the peak, i.e. 8 (or even more) socket systems (which don't make sense and aren't affordable for amd who is still quite weak and needs revenue).
Maybe (just maybe) amd will pick up that race, too, later. Right now, however, amd does and delivers what creates an inward money flow by addressing the 85+% of market that are hungry and very receptive to "same performance for a lot less $". Keep in mind that rack servers are a very competitive market and that price advantages runs down multiple layers. Saving 1.000$ per server/rack unit is a very major factor when a provider has to fill his racks.
As for ovh I think that's a somewhat similar story. Obviously those monster server won't be in any way significant for their total revenue but it's a strong statement that a) says "we are not just anybody. We are the major player" and b) opens some doors in the lucrative high-end market.
If the performance differences between 8180 and 8176 aren't that big, I assume AMD's EPYC 7601 would beat or on par with 8180 while it's much cheaper and more efficient.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-ep-vs-amd-epyc-7000-cpu-battle-of-the-decade
This year Intel is just ridiculous, not awesome.
AMD
Yeah performance to price ratio and power efficiency wise AMD EYPC does look like a better option. But really depends on your work load patterns.
Though how much is related to Intel and AMD's respective compiler optimisations for particular software(s).
I really hope AMD cranks out some awesome server CPUs.
Premium.
May be someone will go down this road in future, just to try
The issue with Intel right now is that AMD caught them with pants down. It will take few years before they can come up with a new arch to outperform AMD. Until then, Intel will be lame duck mode and be expensive for no apparent reason.
Likely, as there is at one point no choice anymore. Same as you cannot buy new 1366 servers anymore.
Yes, as pretty much SoC design (even the SATA comes from the EPYC chip directly) it is even as a fused multi Threadripper (which is just a Ryzen after all anyway) a damn good offer - IF there are no issues with the multi CPU config (an EPYC system is essentially 4 Ryzen CPUs on one board).
I like the Ryzen i have and will get a Threadripper system also, for a brand new generation and the IPC compared to the last gen (like Maranello for Opteron in G34, HP DL365 G7 eg.) the issues (like crashes on very specific workloads and microcode updates for RAM compatibility) are pretty low albeit Intel avoided most when switching to Core from still FSB based 775/771 and the Xeon 1366.
4 as you said has some use for server licensed stuff or weird core licensed stuff (Oracle... Windows...), E5-4xxx are also not THAT expensive plus based on a only slightly modified E5-2xxx design. Older E7xxx and first gen E7-4xxx are now cheap as hell (HP DL580 G7) but have also memory buffer (see next section).
8 socket (E7-8xxx, formerly E7xxx) i've seen nearly exclusively used by financial, as they do N+N (4+4) and even N+(N*3) (2+6) CPU mirroring with nearly no overhead but as the chip design is different (same as Xeon Platinum/Gold with 3x UPI is not the same DIE layout as Bronze/Silver with 2).
You however add complexity on this setups due to the use memory buffers which you can nicely see in a DL980 and DL580 (cartridges with some chips and circuitry to enable mirror functions and extended error correction, basically the memory is not directly connected to any CPU as it would be on Dual/some Quad socket).
If you try to run a DL580 or DL980 for CPU intensive tasks and not in mirror you do gain some performance to a dual socket setup but it scales FAR from linear - from 2 to 4 (E5 v1) you get around 65% still while on 4 to 8 (E7 v1) you barely get 30%. The up to 256 CPU cores look nice though :')
This makes them not feasible for virtualization, especially if you get by now 4-8 dual socket E5 in a 3-4U server (Microcloud, Moonshot and such even more).
The issue Intel has is just dumb design; Skylake and Kaby Lake still have only 16 CPU PCIe 3.0 lanes which is both useless for highend gaming (SLI requires 8 each GPU) and a lot of mainboard things (SATA Express, M.2/U.2...) - You see that nicely on the Z270 hipset adding "virtual" lanes to get up to 20-24 but this is futile as the backbone to the CPU is still just somewhere around x4... go figure what happens with 2 M.2 SSDs in RAID0...
the intel xeon silver cpu's seem to have way better prices compared to gold ,and the price goes up fast for gold brand. I wish intel would stop renaming thing tbh I am surprised intel didn't use titanium in their new branding for xeon.
The prices listed on ARK are as always far from real price of 1000 QTY.
Titanium would be too near Itanium which was the thing Intel would rather like to forget entirely....