Intel's first 5-gigahertz CPU will bear an unlikely brand - Xeon. The company's upcoming Xeon E5-2602 V4 quad-core chip based on the 14 nm "Broadwell-EP" silicon, is rumored to ship with a staggering 5.10 GHz clock speed out of the box. Getting there won't be easy for this socket LGA2011v3 chip. Despite being a quad-core chip, with just four out of ten cores on the "Broadwell-EP" silicon bring physically enabled, the chip's TDP is rated at 165W. Other features include 10 MB of L3 cache, and a quad-channel DDR4 memory interface.

70 Comments on Intel Readies a 5.1 GHz Xeon Chip Based on the "Broadwell" Architecture

1 to 25 of 70 Go to Page 123 PreviousNext

#1 MIRTAZAPINE

A 5Ghz stock CPU intel? Wow! The gigaherts race is back?



Maybe my next cpu. Posted on Jan 16th 2016, 9:06 Reply

#2 Aquinus

Resident Wat-man 2000-series E5s indicates it's a CPU that can be put in 2p boards. Dual 5Ghz quads anyone? That premium clock speed will be associated with a premium price though, this is Intel after all. Posted on Jan 16th 2016, 9:40 Reply

#3 silentbogo

Posted on Jan 16th 2016, 9:43 Reply

#4 RejZoR

The 6700K Skylake was one of the highest clocked CPU's till they release this Xeon.



Which makes me wonder. Has Intel also hit the roof of existing architectures? I mean, every time company starts to just pump out unusually high clocked CPU's, it means the architecture has hit it's limit. It was almost always like this in the past, be it AMD or Intel. Intel had the most dramatic issue with NetBurst and Pentium 4's. It was so far not even high clock helped. AMD is facing the same issue. Most of their current high end CPU's are clocked past 4GHz.



I think they both have to come up with something significantly different, something in terms of what Core architecture was to Pentium 4 and what AMD's Zen will most likely be to Bulldozer architecture. Posted on Jan 16th 2016, 9:53 Reply

#5 btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator MIRTAZAPINE A 5Ghz stock CPU intel? Wow! The gigaherts race is back?



Maybe my next cpu. Seeing as Intel hasn't come up with a new CPU design since 2008, and AMD since 2011, yes. Seeing as Intel hasn't come up with a new CPU design since 2008, and AMD since 2011, yes. Posted on Jan 16th 2016, 10:05 Reply

#6 Chloe Price

Sweet.. :) Posted on Jan 16th 2016, 10:11 Reply

#7 Steevo

Is this a move to compensate for what Zen is bringing? Possibly.



Do we still have a huge amount of single threaded workloads that haven't seen increased performance due to mediocre IPC and clock speed improvements? Yep.



If I were running unbranching serial and or dependent computations... the faster the better. I would buy this chip. Posted on Jan 16th 2016, 10:15 Reply

#8 64K





arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/02/intel-forges-ahead-to-10nm-will-move-away-from-silicon-at-7nm/ Intel is hitting a wall with silicon as far as GHz is concerned and more cores isn't the solution for a lot of applications. They plan to move away from silicon after 10nm. We will probably see some really fast CPUs in a few years. Posted on Jan 16th 2016, 10:21 Reply

#9 buildzoid

Hmm this might overclock up to 5.3-5.4Ghz. Posted on Jan 16th 2016, 10:27 Reply

#10 RejZoR

buildzoid Hmm this might overclock up to 5.3-5.4Ghz. Which sucks. Just like 6700K. Increasing clock for ~500MHz is pathetic. Anyone who remembers Core 2, first generations Core i7 and even some newer models know what I'm talking about. Just for example, the old Core i7 920 went from stock 2.66MHz up to overclocked 4.2GHz. Or my current Core i7 5820K. From 3.3GHz to 4.5GHz. That's something to talk about. If it's under 1GHz increase it's meeeeeeh. Mostly because what you buy is basically what you end up with. But if they clock well, you can get some insane gains for moderate price. Which sucks. Just like 6700K. Increasing clock for ~500MHz is pathetic. Anyone who remembers Core 2, first generations Core i7 and even some newer models know what I'm talking about. Just for example, the old Core i7 920 went from stock 2.66MHz up to overclocked 4.2GHz. Or my current Core i7 5820K. From 3.3GHz to 4.5GHz. That's something to talk about. If it's under 1GHz increase it's meeeeeeh. Mostly because what you buy is basically what you end up with. But if they clock well, you can get some insane gains for moderate price. Posted on Jan 16th 2016, 10:46 Reply

#11 Tuna Yücer

lol old gigahertz race began! who will past 5 ghz stock? (not turbo speed) Posted on Jan 16th 2016, 10:54 Reply

#12 LAN_deRf_HA

Interesting considering broadwell was the worst clocking chip Intel has put out in years and now it's taking them to 5ghz+? Combined with broadwell's great game performance per clock this would be the chip to have in any gaming rig, only it's not targeted at enthusiast. Strange situation. Posted on Jan 16th 2016, 10:59 Reply

#13 vega22

i see this as an indication of the bw-e chips coming to 2011 more than anything. Posted on Jan 16th 2016, 11:47 Reply

#14 TheGuruStud

This is hilarious. These will be super binned and overvolted heavily. The silicon is not going to like this. LEAKAGE!



If it's even true. Posted on Jan 16th 2016, 11:55 Reply

#15 PP Mguire

RejZoR Which sucks. Just like 6700K. Increasing clock for ~500MHz is pathetic. Anyone who remembers Core 2, first generations Core i7 and even some newer models know what I'm talking about. Just for example, the old Core i7 920 went from stock 2.66MHz up to overclocked 4.2GHz. Or my current Core i7 5820K. From 3.3GHz to 4.5GHz. That's something to talk about. If it's under 1GHz increase it's meeeeeeh. Mostly because what you buy is basically what you end up with. But if they clock well, you can get some insane gains for moderate price. I wouldn't say this sucks dude. Stock clocks are already higher than anything Intel has on the market by 1GHz, and in a Xeon package meant for 24/7 stable usage. Not to mention only 165W TDP. If I clocked my chip with 2 cores disabled to 5GHz I'd be doing a hell of a lot more than 165W. Considering Xeons aren't meant for overclocking if you could get 500MHz out of one that's locked you're doing good. I wouldn't say this sucks dude. Stock clocks are already higher than anything Intel has on the market by 1GHz, and in a Xeon package meant for 24/7 stable usage. Not to mention only 165W TDP. If I clocked my chip with 2 cores disabled to 5GHz I'd be doing a hell of a lot more than 165W. Considering Xeons aren't meant for overclocking if you could get 500MHz out of one that's locked you're doing good. Posted on Jan 16th 2016, 12:02 Reply

#16 TheGuruStud

PP Mguire I wouldn't say this sucks dude. Stock clocks are already higher than anything Intel has on the market by 1GHz, and in a Xeon package meant for 24/7 stable usage. Not to mention only 165W TDP. If I clocked my chip with 2 cores disabled to 5GHz I'd be doing a hell of a lot more than 165W. Considering Xeons aren't meant for overclocking if you could get 500MHz out of one that's locked you're doing good. This thing could easily consume 200W and intel would still have a nice sounding TDP (which isn't consumption and may not even be close to accurate). This thing could easily consume 200W and intel would still have a nice sounding TDP (which isn't consumption and may not even be close to accurate). Posted on Jan 16th 2016, 12:13 Reply

#17 RejZoR

PP Mguire I wouldn't say this sucks dude. Stock clocks are already higher than anything Intel has on the market by 1GHz, and in a Xeon package meant for 24/7 stable usage. Not to mention only 165W TDP. If I clocked my chip with 2 cores disabled to 5GHz I'd be doing a hell of a lot more than 165W. Considering Xeons aren't meant for overclocking if you could get 500MHz out of one that's locked you're doing good. High stock clocks are only good for people who have no intention to overclock it. Probably corporate use or people who can't be bothered with overclocking. High stock clocks are only good for people who have no intention to overclock it. Probably corporate use or people who can't be bothered with overclocking. Posted on Jan 16th 2016, 12:17 Reply

#18 PP Mguire

TheGuruStud This thing could easily consume 200W and intel would still have a nice sounding TDP (which isn't consumption and may not even be close to accurate). Except I'm willing to bet it's closer to 150. All the Xeons I own and use under continuous load sucks around 10W less than rated TDP from the wall. And yes, I'm fully aware of what TDP is. RejZoR High stock clocks are only good for people who have no intention to overclock it. Probably corporate use or people who can't be bothered with overclocking. This is a Xeon mate, not an i7 or i5. Even IF you bought this chip for consumer work it'd be 5GHz out of the box and not even needed to be overclocked so really who cares? I have to really work to get 5GHz stable on my chips and It'd be pretty dandy to pop this bad boy in wiping the floor of all my Skylake buddies because they're capped around 4.6 due to their cooling solutions and I could theoretically run this on my H50. When I'm running single card I don't even need to OC my second gen chip for gaming so I don't really see why overclocking a Xeon of all things really matters. Except I'm willing to bet it's closer to 150. All the Xeons I own and use under continuous load sucks around 10W less than rated TDP from the wall. And yes, I'm fully aware of what TDP is.This is a Xeon mate, not an i7 or i5. Even IF you bought this chip for consumer work it'd be 5GHz out of the box and not even needed to be overclocked so really who cares? I have to really work to get 5GHz stable on my chips and It'd be pretty dandy to pop this bad boy in wiping the floor of all my Skylake buddies because they're capped around 4.6 due to their cooling solutions and I could theoretically run this on my H50. When I'm running single card I don't even need to OC my second gen chip for gaming so I don't really see why overclocking a Xeon of all things really matters. Posted on Jan 16th 2016, 12:27 Reply

#19 iO

Makes sense as most software is licensed by the core count. Or if you're code doesn't scale well more cores... Posted on Jan 16th 2016, 13:45 Reply

#20 efikkan

These will clearly be highly binned products, which would be fine since there are use cases where very high clock frequencies are appreciated. The E5 Xeons have a very wide range of configurations in terms of clock and core count. Posted on Jan 16th 2016, 14:06 Reply

#21 Steven B

LAN_deRf_HA Interesting considering broadwell was the worst clocking chip Intel has put out in years and now it's taking them to 5ghz+? Combined with broadwell's great game performance per clock this would be the chip to have in any gaming rig, only it's not targeted at enthusiast. Strange situation. Intel blamed Broadwell's crazy clocks on the eDRAM for the Iris Pro graphics, they said it messed up the overclocking. Broadwell is a Haswell shrink, and the shrinks usually OC higher. Devil's Canyon had a Turbo of 4.4GHz, so Broadwell could do higher. I am just impressed they can find cores to do this, but I am thinking that maybe they fix which cores can turbo to 5.1ghz and it doesn't randomly rotate. Maybe Intel has made huge steps with their yields. Intel blamed Broadwell's crazy clocks on the eDRAM for the Iris Pro graphics, they said it messed up the overclocking. Broadwell is a Haswell shrink, and the shrinks usually OC higher. Devil's Canyon had a Turbo of 4.4GHz, so Broadwell could do higher. I am just impressed they can find cores to do this, but I am thinking that maybe they fix which cores can turbo to 5.1ghz and it doesn't randomly rotate. Maybe Intel has made huge steps with their yields. Posted on Jan 16th 2016, 14:39 Reply

#22 HumanSmoke

Steevo Is this a move to compensate for what Zen is bringing? Possibly.

Do we still have a huge amount of single threaded workloads that haven't seen increased performance due to mediocre IPC and clock speed improvements? Yep.

If I were running unbranching serial and or dependent computations... the faster the better. I would buy this chip. That's pretty much the area the SKU will be aimed at. It is just the latest in the line of specialized chips that Intel tends to put out (including one-off SKUs for customers like the E5-2692v2)



Intel's fastest stock clocked CPU is already a That's pretty much the area the SKU will be aimed at. It is just the latest in the line of specialized chips that Intel tends to put out (including one-off SKUs for customers like the E5-2692v2)Intel's fastest stock clocked CPU is already a Xeon, the X5698 (4.4GHz) - the same frequency that the Devil's Canyon 4790K hits at max turbo. From memory, they weren't sold retail, and were aimed at fast response systems (i.e. brokering firms where fast stock analysis and trading were required). Posted on Jan 16th 2016, 14:49 Reply

#23 efikkan

Steven B Intel blamed Broadwell's crazy clocks on the eDRAM for the Iris Pro graphics, they said it messed up the overclocking. Broadwell is a Haswell shrink, and the shrinks usually OC higher. Devil's Canyon had a Turbo of 4.4GHz, so Broadwell could do higher. I am just impressed they can find cores to do this, but I am thinking that maybe they fix which cores can turbo to 5.1ghz and it doesn't randomly rotate. Maybe Intel has made huge steps with their yields. Remember that Xeon E5 is a different core; Broadwell-E/-EP. So Intel have probably sorted out some of the Broadwell mess. Remember that Xeon E5 is a different core; Broadwell-E/-EP. So Intel have probably sorted out some of the Broadwell mess. Posted on Jan 16th 2016, 14:50 Reply

#24 bogami

4 core CPU i72600k and i73770k which i have, have i without problems used at 5.2Gh(liquide colleng). Such frequency to Xenon 2011 v4 will gain response and is the only real reason for default settings, Fact that all Xeon processors do not have opened multipliers is the ground for Xeon brand . Liquide cooling we need is rarely used on servers. I definitely recommend to be use in this case. 165 TPD .

And when the optical technology in the CPU will be available to us .. the results of the first chip are excellent, I read :)





. Posted on Jan 16th 2016, 15:37 Reply

#25 theoneandonlymrk

165 Tdp on a quad.



Now that's funny from intel, I'd say for them that's the GHz race done and dusted my fx pushes 8 cores to that speed at a 95Tdp,, a design that's well mocked from 4 years ago.



Yes its Ipc would be better ,obviously Posted on Jan 16th 2016, 15:55 Reply