Intel launched its Xeon line in 1998 and for almost all of the final 25 years, it dominated the skilled workstation panorama. However just a few 12 months in the past, AMD’s Threadripper got here to city, and started to noticeably take away Xeon’s market share with a lot greater core counts and frequency. Now, Intel has fired again with a brand new skilled structure referred to as Sapphire Rapids and 4th Gen Scalable Xeon and Xeon W-3400 collection. Are both of those new Xeons a superb match for you and the way are they totally different? Let’s evaluate Scalable Xeon vs Xeon W Sequence.
About Sapphire Rapids
Sapphire Rapids is the code title for Intel’s newest Xeon processors, launched in Q1 2023. They use the 10nm Golden Cove structure, make the most of the LGA 4677 socket and help trendy options corresponding to DDR5 ECC RAM and PCIe Gen 5.
Scalable Xeon – Who’s it for?
Scalable Xeon, and particularly 4th Gen with Sapphire Rapids structure is Intel’s choice for multi-core server platforms and extremely threaded workstations. The principle benefit of the platform is that it’s, nicely, scalable, that means it helps twin CPU sockets and with some skus, 4 sockets. This lets you scale up the efficiency to theoretically 4 x 60 cores. The draw back with Scalable Xeon although is with that prime core depend and scalability comes decrease base frequencies, making them a poor selection for any frequency sure software like CAD.
Greatest for – Servers, extremely threaded purposes, twin socket workstations
AMD Comp – Epyc
Xeon W Sequence – Who’s it for?
Intel Xeon W Processors are designed for skilled workstations. They provide comparable core counts as Scalable Xeon however with greater clock and Turbo speeds to actually get after these demanding workflows that want each. They arrive in two predominant varieties – W-3400 and W-2400 – each of which have an analogous set of options, although the W-3400 are completely on the upper finish. Not one of the Xeon W are scalable although, so a single socket is all you get.
Greatest for – Professional stage workstations, VFX, 3D CAD rendering, AI
AMD – Threadripper
Characteristic Comparability
Xeon Scalable
W-Sequence
Structure
Sapphire Rapids
Sapphire Rapids
Max cores
60 (8490H)
56 (W9-3495X)
Turbo Frequency
4.2GHz (6416H)
4.8GHz (W7-3455)
Socket
LGA 4677
LGA 4677
Chipset
C741
W790
Scalability
Sure
No
RAM Kind
DDR5
DDR5
ECC Help
Sure
Sure
RAM Channels
8
8
Max PCIe Lanes (per CPU)
80
112
Max L3 cache
112MB (8490H)
105MB (W9-3495X)
In-built Intel Accelerators
Sure
Sure
Xeon vs. i9
We’ve gone over the Xeon vs i7/i9 comparability in earlier posts, however with the discharge of the 24-core i9-13900k and its 5.8GHz Turbo pace, ought to that be a consideration to your subsequent workstation? Effectively, in case your software is only single threaded (assume AutoCAD and Revit), will solely ever want a single GPU, and doesn’t require ECC RAM, then certain. However for multi-core rendering and long run sturdiness, Xeon continues to be supreme. For extra particulars on why, take a look at that put up linked above.
Scalable Xeon vs W Sequence – Which is greatest?
Which Xeon is greatest for you actually is dependent upon your workflow. If you happen to’re on the lookout for most whole cores or designing a rendering server, Scalable Xeon is the selection. But when greater pace paired with a 24+ core depend is critical to maximise your ROI, we’d suggest Xeon W. Configure every choice beneath to get began.
Configure Scalable Xeon HD360Max
Configure Xeon W Sequence HD150
Questions? Give our knowledgeable gross sales workforce a name at 804-419-0900 for a zero obligation session
The next two tabs change content material beneath.
Josh has been with Velocity Micro since 2007 in numerous Advertising and marketing, PR, and Gross sales associated roles. Because the Director of Gross sales & Advertising and marketing, he’s liable for all Direct and Retail gross sales in addition to Advertising and marketing actions. He enjoys Seinfeld reruns, the Atlanta Braves, and Beatles songs written by John, Paul, or George. Sorry, Ringo.