Intel is preparing a 15-core Xeon CPU

Updated: February 12, 2014

Intel is preparing a 15-core Xeon CPU capable of being installed on a motherboard that can handle 8-processors and up to 240 threads. It looks as if Intel has not just been being idle as the PC market enters 2014 and it now seems they will be releasing a new 15-core Xeon CPU that will most likely “Hulk Smash” anything else on the planet, but what is it? Well the proposed 15-core Xeon CPU, which will feature 4.31 billion transistors, a 3.8GHz Turbo Frequency, a TDP of 155W, contain 40 PCIe lanes, and will join the Xeon E7 line of processors

This is insane news for those folks looking for the power of a mini-jet in their server or workstation, and with 8 CPUs you should be able to do just about anything, and do it quickly. The CPUs will all contain Hyper-Threading with up to 240 simultaneously running threads for maximum information throughput on Intel’s latest LGA2011 platform.   The new Ivy Bridge-EX processor will feature 15 cores/30 threads, 37.5MB of L3 cache, will support DDR3-1600MHz RAM with a street price of close to $5000 when it first arrives on the scene. Intel’s latest 15-core CPU will use the LGA2011 socket and arrive as the Xeon E7-8890 v2 CPU; we will see 8 new SKUs in the Xeon E7-8xxx v2 range with various price points.

Source: TweakTown

  • David Robles

    Because we’ll all have $5000 to spend on the CPU only? AMD will provide an alternative for $400 after 3 months of the Intel being released.

    • ipwn3r456

      Their 16 cores are selling $700 on newegg, a lot more cheaper than $5000, but I don’t think they are releasing something that is similar performance than this. I doubt they are making a 24 core CPU or such.

      • http://www.facebook.com/sangeet.khatri Sangeet Khatri

        Well.. probably you must be aware than Intel’s 15 cores means 30 threads.

        AMD 16 cores mean only 16 threads.

        • Joey van Hummel

          Let alone AMD’s worse IPC rates, power usage at the same amount of cores/threads, heat output, etc etc. AMD is not inherently a bad choice, but it’s definitely not better spec-to-spec.

          • William Laeder

            For most businesses the only stat that ‘matters’ is RIO, return on investment. How much will it cost to buy, and keep this processor in production. What is my performance per dollar, and my cost per dollar. How much will it cost to cool. Everything else is for the benchmarking boys.

          • Ανεξάρτητος


          • Joey van Hummel

            Most of my points come into play there and I agree with you. I said that neither company is inherently better. It’s all up to the needs and use cases.

          • Steven Diedesch

            At 155 watts, it should cost about as much to cool as a typical AMD Athlon.

          • Eric Zaba

            i agree, but i think in situations where your going to have multiple servers for one task having multiple cheaper 16 cores will be beneficial

          • http://www.facebook.com/sangeet.khatri Sangeet Khatri

            Most supercomputers operate on AMD’s Opteron because it offers more performance for less price.

            When buying in bulk, then AMD offers tremendous value for money than Intel.

          • http://www.facebook.com/sangeet.khatri Sangeet Khatri

            It does not aim to be. The prices of AMD processors are very competitive for the performace they offer.

            AMD is not directly targeting Intel, it just targets the best bang for the buck instead.

            Like @ipwn3r456 said, they offer 16 core for just $700, so they are ultimately aiming for the “Bang for the buck” segment and they are currently very good at that.

          • William Hamlin

            Yeah, cool story. Hertz for hertz, RISC is more efficient than x86 non-interpreted, and Lemme tell you something about LGA. It’s designed to lose 11% of the signals. DESIGNED TO LOSE THE SIGNALS. Intel screwed the pooch when they switched to LGA. If a builder bends pins, get a pocket knife out and fix it. It’s not rocket surgery.

          • Joey van Hummel

            And I’m all for RISC in servers where applications are limited and the need for overly huge instruction sets, of which the hardware adds power and heat dissipation doesn’t exist.

            What do you mean by “11% of the signals”? Do you mean quality or quantity? Most ICs regard anything <70% of Vdd as a digital low, so those 11% of (I am assuming what you meant) voltage drop is well within spec.

          • Duran Duran

            Her name is Rio and she dances on the sand.

          • tbenton62

            While it may not be a better choice performance wise, I have found over the years that cost wise, I can upgrade with AMD, then put in the processor that may not match the top Intel, but will come close at a fraction of the cost.

        • Jessie

          Hyperthreading cores generally count for close to nothing when it comes down to crunch time. Multicore usage cannot process “logical” threads the same as physical cores, so really AMD 16 core is a true 16 core where Intel’s 15 core is a 15 core bottom line. The best advantage to Intel’s 15 core is the TDP being 155w instead of 240w which needs a small power plant behind it!

          • dielan 44

            Oh god the delusion! Hyperthreading does improve performance in many cases period. Stop pretending like it’s just a feature that lies and says you have double the cores, and no it doesn’t “split cores in half”. This E7 processors will annihilate the 16 core AMD processors. It should have a higher base clock and it definitely has a higher turbo clock. Then you look at the fact that it can perform more IPC, has hyperthreading, has faster cache, has more than twice the cache compared to the AMD 16 cores, and from what I know more of them can be arranged to work together on the same motherboard. “Shit he’s right… ITS OVERPRICED THOUGH!” Yes, the performance to price ratio is better with the AMD 16 cores. However, always expect an out of whack price to performance ratio when buying anything that’s “the best available”. Same shit is done with cars, too.

          • http://www.facebook.com/sangeet.khatri Sangeet Khatri

            I am no Intel fanboy, but I am stating the fact here.

            In multithreaded apps, Intel i7 with 4 cores which are hyperthreaded easily beats the AMD 8350 with 8 real cores.

            So, hyperthreading *has* a lot of effect on Multi Threaded performance.

            Again, I am no Intel fanboy, I am currently rocking an AMD A8 CPU, but a fact is a fact. Period.

        • Tony Costanzo

          Couldn’t agree more, Left ADM as soon as they released their “8 core” cpu. Freaking quad core with hyperthreading.. Fail.

          • http://www.facebook.com/sangeet.khatri Sangeet Khatri

            No! AMD 8 core is a real 8 core. It is just that it is divided into 4 modules. Each module having 2 real cores. 2 cores share one FUP, hence it does not essentially work like a 8 core, but it gives the performance of about 6 cores which is a decent approach from AMD’s side.

            Hyperthreading on the other hand is extremely something different. Intel CPUs have 4 cores, but there are moments, even when doing work, a core sometimes idles in between. And when the core idles, then Intel creates a virtual core in that part.

            It is managing tasks within 4 core in such a way that it never rests and hence it is able to utilize its full potential by making virtual cores.

            AMD and Intel’s approach are very different.

        • Crash

          That may be true, but the cpu will only execute 15 threads simultaneously.

          • http://www.facebook.com/sangeet.khatri Sangeet Khatri

            Nope, in each core 2 threads work simultaneously.

            In a normal CPU (without HT), the part which goes waste is utilized by the virtual cores in HT.

            Hence there would be 30 threads executed simultaneously, but since they are not real cores, hence they would be only able to give the performance of about 25 cores (rough estimation).

    • http://www.Facebook.com/MISTERAMD MISTERAMD

      We all seems to forget, Xeon is server based, meaning for servers.
      Offcourse you can pay $5k add some GTX 780Ti and play all the games that ever will be published on your BallsOfSteelEdition pc.

      • dustin hamlin


    • Saythe

      AMD Is the red-headed ugly step child of Intel and the price may be better but the performance is ALWAYS lacking and not worth it. I’ll stick with my Intel processors thank you!

    • robertgk2017

      it would actually be $40,000 on the processors because the motherboard can handle 8 processors

  • Sadok Adouni

    great stuff

  • http://boldimore.comeze.com/ Juraj-Anton Matovina

    Again you guys are missing a point here. This CPU is for servers, for working on data for which speed is essential.

    • http://boldimore.comeze.com/ Juraj-Anton Matovina

      Or to build another most powerful computer in the world(yes China, you are meant with it :) )

    • James

      Your right. I do have a server but It might be fast enough for now. I just need to upgrade the hard drives. It only has about 250 gb of hard drive space.

  • Bevin Warren

    Just for laughs it would be fun to see someone benchmark this chip with some games

    • Youri Van Lancker

      lol yeab and see it getting beaten by a regular i7 or even an i5 cause they aint made to game:d

      • Joseph Hodge

        Doesn’t matter, its not like GPUs where the drivers make it suck for gaming (Quadro vs Geforce), it has the same architecture as an i5 or i7 and just has more cores to utilize workstation activities (Photoshop, Premier, Linux Servers). The 3.8GHz Turbo clock is impressive and on par with i5 and i7 processors.

        • Youri Van Lancker

          there’s so much more to it thenjust how the bacis cores work … architecture and so on

  • http://www.MainelySubarus.com/ Vertigo101

    Not an upgrade over I5 2500K, going to be a while before any thing is worth wild for us gamers.

  • tealeg

    Will hulk smash everything.. except of course for IBM Power8 – which has 12 cores each of which can handle 8 concurrent threads, as opposed to Intel’s 2. So that’s 96 concurrent threads on Power 8, vs 30 concurrent threads on Xeon. Oh, and Power 8 runs at 5Ghz. Oh, and Power9 won’t be long coming either.

    • You

      oh. oh. oh. oh

      • The..


  • Donda


  • Garry Perkins

    I can think of more than a few situations where multiple CPUs with lots of cores would make sense. Not to mention the ability to run more VMs off a single board. So long as the RAM capability is there this series could offer significant savings for VM servers and perhaps a killer workstation CPU. I love AMD FX-8350′s for gaming machines, but in the server space they need some new product, and not some ARM garbage.

  • James

    I don’t think I will need one of them. I do have a server but I am not going to upgrade anything but the harddrives.


    You can buy that for your PC and never worry about your CPU for about the next 8 years.

  • Guest

    Dang thing will probably be hotter than the sun.

  • Sheridan Mcpherson

    Yes and it also means that the cooling cost of 4 amd cpu’s on one board will rack up more cost than 2 intel’s on one as more and more people logon to that server. 16 cores x4 running 64 threads vs 15 cores x2 running 60 threads. And i’m sure Intel will drop its price to compete on the market eventually.

  • vurezo

    I’d buy this solely for the fact it has 40 PCIe lanes, and then i’d hook up 40x Radeon HD 7990′s and do some hardcore Scrypt mining.

  • Mr Douche

    It doesn’t matter there is nothing out there on the planet right now for a regular desktop machine to ever use that amount of cores/threads. Nothing taxes an 8-core CPU right now, and most likely wont in a gaming sense even in the new gen of gaming wont. This is solely only worth while in massive networking / LAN / WAN / where a server has to ultra responsive for multiple tasks on multiple networks. Hence why their only having it as a Xeon processor, their I7s will most certainly never hit that ratio for the next 8 years. AMD is already working on a new series of CPUs as well so you can pretty much guarantee they will boost upto 32 real cores.