6 ms·

They are from 2012. They are not "are getting kind of old", but are actually discontinued. https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/64583/intel-xeo

by Naac 5y ago

They are from 2012. They are not "are getting kind of old", but are actually discontinued. https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/64583/intel-xeon-processor-e52680-20m-cache-2-70-ghz-8-00-gts-intel-qpi.html https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/64583/i...

pier25 5y ago
Not the Intel Xeon W-3245 which is from 2019. https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/193753/intel-xeon-w3245-processor-22m-cache-3-20-ghz.html https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/193753/...
- tim-- 5y ago
  Still, the going price for a W-3245 is more than $2,000. That's just the CPU, no memory, motherboard or anything else. A 16" MacBook with 16GB of RAM is $2,499. The MacBook comes with a free display, input devices and a UPS :)
  - stemc43 5y ago
    Apple managed to book entire TSMC 5nm production or close to all last year - that's the main reason for this performance. and by managed - its passed on consumer ofc. ill just wait for amd 5nm offering that will also be in ram/cpu upgreadeable form factors and Linux compatible out of the box for half the price.
    - tim-- 5y ago
      Sure, it's a reason for the performance. But it's still not a reason for the performance to price comparison that I was making. Surely a CPU that is on an older, more tested node (albeit an Intel node, take that as you will) should have amortized the costs of producing silicon products on that node. The cost of an Apple CPU is cheaper than a worse-performing older CPU. The economics here are surely poor? You can't tell me that Apple of all companies are taking a hit on their new CPUs? I mean, they could be for all I know, but that would be very un-Apple like.
- KennyBlanken 5y ago
  Yes, but the author is pretty intellectually dishonest when he says that his new MBP beat out a "somewhat old" xeon. That's a ten year old CPU.
  - m0zg 5y ago
    That's the thing most people don't get about Intel: nothing has really changed perf-wise since Haswell, which is older than that. If your old Haswell / Skylake machines still work (and if you don't need Windows 11 which doesn't support them), there's zero technical reason to upgrade to something newer, at least on the desktop. There's been some progress in terms of power efficiency on laptops, but even there 5+ year old chips are pretty much as good as it gets if you want to stick to Intel. Maybe 10-15% percent slower than the very latest stuff, you won't even notice it. That's why Apple is currently obliterating Intel and AMD - the latter milked their cash cow until it fell over. And Apple knew that they didn't even need to work particularly hard on core perf - memory bandwidth improvements alone would have delivered the goods. That's another thing people don't get - the CPUs spend quite a bit of their time waiting for bytes to come in or go out. The latencies involved in that are upwards of 200 cycles, and any significant improvement in both the latency and the bandwidth has insane, immediately noticeable benefits for perf, particularly in "modern" languages with poor cache locality. Why Intel / AMD duopoly did so little to address this deficiency is inexplicable, but here we are.
    - KennyBlanken 5y ago
      > That's the thing most people don't get about Intel: nothing has really changed perf-wise since Haswell, which is older than that. Single core performance on current i9 processors benchmarks at twice the performance of the Haswell chips. Multicore performance is ~4x. They definitely slept for a while and AMD started taking their lunch money with Ryzen and EPYC but "nothing has really changed since Haswell" is blatantly wrong. > If your old Haswell / Skylake machines still work (and if you don't need Windows 11 which doesn't support them), there's zero technical reason to upgrade to something newer, at least on the desktop. Wrong again, mostly because quicksync in that old a processor won't handle current popular streaming video codecs so you end up with non-accelerated video decoding unless you've got a discrete GPU. > memory bandwidth improvements alone would have delivered the goods. No advantage from people upgrading from a Haswell's DDR3-1600 (13GB/sec) to Comet Lake's DDR4-2933 (94GB/sec), eh? Either it's not worth upgrading from Haswell or it is.

by Naac 5y ago

pier25 5y ago

Not the Intel Xeon W-3245 which is from 2019. https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/193753/intel-xeon-w3245-processor-22m-cache-3-20-ghz.html https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/193753/...

tim-- 5y ago
Still, the going price for a W-3245 is more than $2,000. That's just the CPU, no memory, motherboard or anything else. A 16" MacBook with 16GB of RAM is $2,499. The MacBook comes with a free display, input devices and a UPS :)
- stemc43 5y ago
  Apple managed to book entire TSMC 5nm production or close to all last year - that's the main reason for this performance. and by managed - its passed on consumer ofc. ill just wait for amd 5nm offering that will also be in ram/cpu upgreadeable form factors and Linux compatible out of the box for half the price.
  - tim-- 5y ago
    Sure, it's a reason for the performance. But it's still not a reason for the performance to price comparison that I was making. Surely a CPU that is on an older, more tested node (albeit an Intel node, take that as you will) should have amortized the costs of producing silicon products on that node. The cost of an Apple CPU is cheaper than a worse-performing older CPU. The economics here are surely poor? You can't tell me that Apple of all companies are taking a hit on their new CPUs? I mean, they could be for all I know, but that would be very un-Apple like.
KennyBlanken 5y ago
Yes, but the author is pretty intellectually dishonest when he says that his new MBP beat out a "somewhat old" xeon. That's a ten year old CPU.
- m0zg 5y ago
  That's the thing most people don't get about Intel: nothing has really changed perf-wise since Haswell, which is older than that. If your old Haswell / Skylake machines still work (and if you don't need Windows 11 which doesn't support them), there's zero technical reason to upgrade to something newer, at least on the desktop. There's been some progress in terms of power efficiency on laptops, but even there 5+ year old chips are pretty much as good as it gets if you want to stick to Intel. Maybe 10-15% percent slower than the very latest stuff, you won't even notice it. That's why Apple is currently obliterating Intel and AMD - the latter milked their cash cow until it fell over. And Apple knew that they didn't even need to work particularly hard on core perf - memory bandwidth improvements alone would have delivered the goods. That's another thing people don't get - the CPUs spend quite a bit of their time waiting for bytes to come in or go out. The latencies involved in that are upwards of 200 cycles, and any significant improvement in both the latency and the bandwidth has insane, immediately noticeable benefits for perf, particularly in "modern" languages with poor cache locality. Why Intel / AMD duopoly did so little to address this deficiency is inexplicable, but here we are.
  - KennyBlanken 5y ago
    > That's the thing most people don't get about Intel: nothing has really changed perf-wise since Haswell, which is older than that. Single core performance on current i9 processors benchmarks at twice the performance of the Haswell chips. Multicore performance is ~4x. They definitely slept for a while and AMD started taking their lunch money with Ryzen and EPYC but "nothing has really changed since Haswell" is blatantly wrong. > If your old Haswell / Skylake machines still work (and if you don't need Windows 11 which doesn't support them), there's zero technical reason to upgrade to something newer, at least on the desktop. Wrong again, mostly because quicksync in that old a processor won't handle current popular streaming video codecs so you end up with non-accelerated video decoding unless you've got a discrete GPU. > memory bandwidth improvements alone would have delivered the goods. No advantage from people upgrading from a Haswell's DDR3-1600 (13GB/sec) to Comet Lake's DDR4-2933 (94GB/sec), eh? Either it's not worth upgrading from Haswell or it is.