Section by Ian Cutress

Ice Lake Xeon Processor List 

Intel is introducing around 40 new processors across the Xeon Platinum (8300 series), Xeon Gold (6300 and 5300 series) and Xeon Silver (4300 series). Xeon Bronze no longer exists with Ice Lake. Much like the previous generation, the 8/6/5/4 segmentation signifies the series, and the 3 indicates the generation. Beyond that the two digits are somewhat meaningless as before.

That being said, there is a significant change. In the past, Platinum/Gold/Silver also indicated socket support, with Platinum supporting up to 8P configurations. This time around, as Ice Lake does not support 8P, all the processors will support only up to 2P, with a few select models being uniprocessor only. This makes the Platinum/Gold/Silver segmentation arbitrary, if only to indicate what sort of performance/price bracket the processors are in.

On top of this, Intel is adding in more suffixes to the equation. If you work with Xeon Scalable processors day in and day out, there is now a need to differentiate the Q processor from a P processor, and an S processor from an M processor. There’s a handy list down below.

SKU List

The easiest way with this is to jump into the deep end with the processor list. RCP stands for recommended customer price, and SGX GB stands for how large Software Guard Extension enclaves can be – either 8 GB, 64 GB, or 512 GB. Cells highlighted in green show highlights in the stack.

Intel 3rd Gen Xeon Scalable
Ice Lake Xeon Only
AnandTech Cores
w/HT
Base
Freq
1T
Freq
nT
Freq
L3
MB
TDP
W
SGX
GB
RCP
1ku
DC
PMM
Xeon Platinum (8x DDR4-3200)
8380   40 2300 3400 3000 60 270 512 $8099 Yes
8368 Q 38 2600 3700 3300 57 270 512 $6743 Yes
8368   38 2400 3400 3200 57 270 512 $6302 Yes
8362   32 2800 3600 3500 48 265 64 $5488 Yes
8360 Y 36 2400 3500 3100 54 250 64 $4702 Yes
8358 P 32 2600 3400 3200 48 240 8 $3950 Yes
8358   32 2600 3400 3300 48 250 64 $3950 Yes
8352 Y 32 2200 3400 2800 48 205 64 $3450 Yes
8352 V 36 2100 3500 2500 54 195 8 $3450 Yes
8352 S 32 2200 3400 2800 48 205 512 $4046 Yes
8352 M 32 2300 3500 2800 48 185 64 $3864 Yes
8351 N 36 2400 3500 3100 54 225 64 $3027 Yes
Xeon Gold 6300 (8x DDR4-3200)
6354   18 3000 3600 3600 39 205 64 $2445 Yes
6348   28 2600 3500 3400 42 235 64 $3072 Yes
6346   16 3100 3600 3600 36 205 64 $2300 Yes
6342   24 2800 3500 3300 36 230 64 $2529 Yes
6338 T 24 2100 3400 2700 36 165 64 $2742 Yes
6338 N 32 2200 3500 2700 48 185 64 $2795 Yes
6338   32 2000 3200 2600 48 205 64 $2612 Yes
6336 Y 24 2400 3600 3000 36 185 64 $1977 Yes
6334   8 3600 3700 3600 18 165 64 $2214 Yes
6330 N 28 2200 3400 2600 42 165 64 $2029 Yes
6330   28 2000 3100 2600 42 205 64 $1894 Yes
6326   16 2900 3500 3300 24 185 64 $1300 Yes
6314 U 32 2300 3400 2900 48 205 64 $2600 Yes
6312 U 24 2400 3600 3100 36 185 64 $1450 Yes
Xeon Gold 5300 (8x DDR4-2933)
5320 T 20 2300 3500 2900 30 150 64 $1727 Yes
5320   26 2200 3400 2800 39 185 64 $1555 Yes
5318 Y 24 2100 3400 2600 36 165 64 $1273 Yes
5318 S 24 2100 3400 2600 36 165 512 $1667 Yes
5318 N 24 2100 3400 2700 36 150 64 $1375 Yes
5317   12 3000 3600 3400 18 150 64 $950 Yes
5315 Y 8 3200 3600 3500 12 140 64 $895 Yes
Xeon Silver (8x DDR4-2666)
4316   20 2300 3400 2800 30 150 8 $1002  
4314   16 2400 3400 2900 24 135 8 $694 Yes
4310 T 10 2300 3400 2900 15 105 8 $555  
4310   12 2100 3300 2700 18 120 8 $501  
4309 Y 8 2800 3600 3400 12 105 8 $501  
Q = Liquid Cooled SKU
Y = Supports Intel SST-PP 2.0
P = IaaS Cloud Specialised Processor
V = SaaS Cloud Specialised Processor
N = Networking/NFV Optimized
M = Media Processing Optimized
T = Long-Life and Extended Thermal Support
U = Uniprocessor (1P Only)
S = 512 GB SGX Enclave per CPU Guaranteed (...but not all 512 GB are labelled S)

The peak turbo on these processors is 3.7 GHz, which is much lower than what we saw with the previous generation. Despite this, Intel seems to be keeping prices reasonable, and enabling Optane support through most of the stack except for the Silver processors (which has its own single exception).

New suffixes include Q, for a liquid cooled processor model with higher all-core frequencies at 270 W, and Intel said this part came about based on customer demand. The T processors are extended life / extended thermal support, which usually means -40ºC to 125ºC support – useful when working at the poles or in other extreme conditions. M/N/P/V specialized processors, according to our chat with Lisa Spelman, GM of the Xeon and Memory Group, are the focal points for software stack optimizations. Users that want focused hardware that can get 2-10%+ more performance on their specific workload can get these processors for which the software will be specifically tuned. Lisa stated that while all processors will receive uplifts, the segmented parts are the ones those uplifts will be targeted for. This means managing turbo vs use case and adapting code for that, which can only really be optimized for a known turbo profile.

Competition

It’s hard not to notice that the server market over the last couple of years has become more competitive. Not only is Intel competing with its own high market share, but x86 alternatives from AMD have scored big wins when it comes to per-core performance, and Arm implementations such as the Ampere Altra can enable unprecedented density at competitive performance as well. Here’s how they all stand, looking at top-of-stack offerings.

Top-of-Stack Competition
AnandTech EPYC
7003
Amazon
Graviton2
Ampere
Altra
Intel
Xeon
Platform Milan Graviton2 QuickSilver Ice Lake
Processor 7763 Graviton2 Q80-33 8380
uArch Zen 3 N1 N1 Sunny Cove
Cores 64 64 80 40
TDP 280 W ? 250 W 270 W
Base Freq 2450 2500 3300 2300
Turbo Freq 3500 2500 3300 3400
All-Core ~3200 2500 3300 3000
L3 Cache 256 MB 32 MB 32 MB 60 MB
PCIe 4.0 x128 ? 4.0 x128 4.0 x64
Chipset On CPU ? On CPU External
DDR4 8 x 3200 8 x 3200 8 x 3200 8 x 3200
DRAM Cap 4 TB ? 4 TB 4 TB
Optane No No No Yes
Price $7890 N/A $4050 $8099

At 40 cores, Intel does look a little behind, especially as Ampere is currently at 80 cores and a higher frequency, and will come out with a 128-core Altra Max version here very shortly. This means Ampere will be able to enable more cores in a single socket than Intel can in two sockets. Intel’s competitive advantage however will be the large current install base and decades of optimization, as well as new security features and its total offering to the market.

On a pure x86 level, AMD launched Milan only a few weeks ago, with its new Zen 3 core which has been highly impressive. Using a chiplet based approach, AMD has over 1000 mm2 of silicon to spread across 64 high performance cores and massive amounts of IO. Compared to Intel, which is around 660 mm2 and monolithic, AMD has the chipset onboard in its IO die, whereas Intel keeps it external which saves a good amount of idle power. Top of stack pricing between AMD and Intel is similar now, however AMD is also focusing in the mid-range with products like the 7F53 which really impressed us. We’ll see what Intel can respond with.

In our numbers today, we’ll be comparing Intel’s top-of-stack to everyone else. The battle royale of behemoths.

Gen on Gen Improvements: ISO Power

It is also important to look at what Intel is offering generationally in a like-for-like comparison. Intel’s 28-core 205 W point for the previous generation Cascade Lake is a good stake in the ground, and the Intel Xeon Gold 6258R is the dual socket equivalent of the Platinum 8280. We reviewed the two and they performed identically.

For this review, we’ve put the 40-core Xeon Platinum 8380 down to 205 W to see the effect of performance. But perhaps more in line, we also have the Xeon Gold 6330 which is a direct 28-core and 205 W replacement.

Intel Xeon Comparison: 3rd Gen vs 2nd Gen
2P, 205 W vs 205 W
Xeon Gold
6330
Xeon Plat
8352Y
AnandTech Xeon Gold
6258R
28 / 56 32 / 64 Cores / Threads 28 / 56
2000 MHz Base
3100 MHz ST
2600 MHz MT
2200 MHz Base
3400 MHz ST
2800 MHz MT
Base Freq
ST Freq
MT Freq
2700 MHz Base
4000 MHz ST
3300 MHz MT
35 MB + 42 MB 40 MB + 48 MB L2 + L3 Cache 28 MB + 38.5 MB
205 W 205 W TDP 205 W
PCIe 4.0 x64 PCIe 4.0 x64 PCIe PCIe 3.0 x48
8 x DDR4-3200 8 x DDR4-3200 DRAM Support 6 x DDR4-2933
4 TB 4 TB DRAM Capacity 1 TB
200-series 200-series Optane 100-series
4 TB Optane
+ 2 TB DRAM
4 TB Optane
+ 2 TB DRAM
Optane Capacity
Per Socket
1 TB DDR4-2666
+ 1.5 TB 
64 GB 64 GB SGX Enclave None
1P, 2P 1P, 2P Socket Support 1P, 2P
3 x 11.2 GT/s 3x 11.2 GT/s UPI Links 3 x 10.4 GT/s
$1894 $3450 Price (1ku) $3950

So the 6330 might seem like a natural fit, however, the 8352Y feels better given that it is more equivalent in price and offers more performance. Intel is promoting a +20% raw performance boost with the new generation, which is important here, because the 8352Y still loses 500 MHz to the previous generation in all-core frequency. The 8352Y and 6330 do make it up in the extra features, such as DDR4 channels, memory support, PCIe 4.0, Optane support, SGX enclave support, and faster UPI links.

This review has a few of our 6330 numbers that we’ve been able to run in the short time we’ve had the system.

Intel's 3rd Gen Xeon Scalable: Ice Lake in Server Form Test Bed and Setup - Compiler Options
POST A COMMENT

171 Comments

View All Comments

  • TomWomack - Wednesday, April 7, 2021 - link

    Is it known whether there will be an IceLake-X this time round? The list of single-Xeon motherboard launches suggests possibly not; it would obviously be appealing to have a 24-core HEDT without paying the Xeon premium. Reply
  • EthiaW - Wednesday, April 7, 2021 - link

    Boeings and Airbuses are never actually sold at their nominal prices, they cost far less, a non-disclosed number, for big buyers after gruesome haggling, sometimes less than half the “catalogue” price.
    I think this is exactly what's intel doing now: set the catalogue price high to avoid losing face, and give huge discount to avoid losing market share.
    Reply
  • duploxxx - Wednesday, April 7, 2021 - link

    well easy conclusion.

    EPYC 75F3 is the clear winner SKU and the must have for most of the workloads.
    This is based on price - performance - cores and its related 3rd party sw licensing...

    I wonder when Intel will be able to convince VMware to move from a 32core licensing schema to a 40core :)
    They used to get all the dev favor when PAT was still in the house, I had several senior engineers in escalation calls stating that the hypervisor was optimised for Intel ...guess what even under optimised looking for a VM farm in 2020-2021-....you are way better off with an AMD build.
    Reply
  • WaltC - Wednesday, April 7, 2021 - link

    If you can't beat the competition, then what? Ian seems to be impressed that Intel was finally able to launch a Xeon that's a little faster than its previous Xeon, but not fast enough to justify the price tag in relation to what AMD has been offering for a while. So here we are congratulating Intel on burning through wads more cash to produce yet-another-non-competitive result. It really seems as if Intel *requires* AMD to set its goals and to tell it where it needs to go--and that is sad. It all began with x86-64 and SDRAM from AMD beating out Itanium and RDRAM years ago. And when you look at what Intel has done since it's just not all that impressive. Well, at least we can dispense with the notion that "Intel's 10nm is TSMC's 7nm" as that clearly is not the case. Reply
  • JayNor - Wednesday, April 7, 2021 - link

    What about the networking applications of this new chip? Dan Rodriguez's presentation showed gains of 1.4x to 1.8x for various networking benchmarks. Intel's entry into 5G infrastructure, NFV, vRAN, ORAN, hybrid cloud is growing faster than they originally predicted. They are able to bundle Optane, SmartNICs, FPGAs, eASIC chips, XeonD, P5900 family Atom chips... I don't believe they have a competitor that can provide that level of solution. Reply
  • Bagheera - Thursday, April 8, 2021 - link

    Patr!ck Patr!ck Partr!ck? Reply
  • evilpaul666 - Saturday, April 10, 2021 - link

    It only works in front of a mirror. Donning a hoodie helps, too. Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Wednesday, April 7, 2021 - link

    There is some faulty logic at work in many of the comments, with claims like it's cheating to use a more optimized compiler.

    It's not cheating unless:

    • the compiler produces code that's so much more unstable/buggy that it's quite a bit more untrustworthy than the less-optimized compiler

    • you don't make it clear to readers that the compiler may make the architecture look more performant simply because the other architectures may not have had compiler optimizations on the same level

    • you use the same compiler for different architectures when using a different compiler for one or more other architectures will produce more optimized code for those architectures as well

    • the compiler sabotages the competition, via things like 'genuine Intel'

    Fact is that if a CPU can accomplish a certain amount of work in a certain amount of time, using a certain amount of watts under a certain level of cooling — that is the part's actual performance capability.

    If that means writing machine code directly (not even assembly) to get to that performance level, so what? That's an entirely different matter, which is how practical/economical/profitable/effortful it is to get enough code to measure all of the different aspects of the part's maximum performance capability. The only time one can really cite that as a deal-breaker is if one has hard data to demonstrate that by the time the hand-tuned/optimized code is written changes to the architecture (and/or support chips/hardware) will obsolete the advantage — making the effort utterly fruitless, beyond intellectual curiosity concerning the part's ability. For instance, if one knows that Intel, for instance, is going to integrate new instructions (very soon) that will make various types of hand-tuned assembly obsolete in short order, it can be argued that it's not worth the effort to write the code. People made this argument with some of AMD's Bulldozer/Piledriver instructions, on the basis that enough industry adoption wasn't going to happen. But, frankly... if you're going to make claims about the part's performance, you really should do what you can to find out what it is.
    Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Wednesday, April 7, 2021 - link

    One can, though, of course... include a disclaimer that 'it seems clear enough that, regardless of how much hand-tuned code is done, the CPU isn't going to deliver enough to beat the competition, if the competition's code is similarly hand-tuned' — if that's the case. Even if a certain task is tuned to run twice as fast, is it going to be twice as fast as tuned code for the competition's stuff? Is its performance per watt deficit going to be erased? Will its pricing no longer be a drag on its perceived competitiveness?

    For example, one could have wrung every last drop of performance out of Bulldozer but it wasn't going to beat Sandy Bridge E — a chip with the same number of transistors. Piledriver could beat at least the desktop version of Sandy in certain workloads when clocked well outside of the optimal (for the node's performance per watt) range but that's where it's very helpful to have tests at the same clock. It was discovered, for instance, that the Fury X and Vega had basically identical performance at the same clock. Since desktop Sandy could easily clock at the same 4.0 GHz Piledriver initially shipped with it could be tested at that rate, too.

    Ideally, CPU makers would release benchmarks that demonstrate every facet of their chip's maximum performance. The concern about those being best-case and synthetic is less of a problem in that scenario because all aspects of the chip's performance would be tested and published. That makes cherry-picking impossible.
    Reply
  • mode_13h - Thursday, April 8, 2021 - link

    The faulty logic I see is that you seem to believe it's the review's job to showcase the product in the best possible light. No, that's Intel's job, and you can find plenty of that material at intel.com, if that's what you want.

    Articles like this should focus on representing the performance of the CPUs as the bulk of readers are likely to experience it. So, even if using some vendor-supplied compiler with trick settings might not fit your definition of "cheating", that doesn't mean it's a service to the readers.

    I think it could be appropriate to do that sort of thing, in articles that specifically analyze some narrow aspect of a CPU, for instance to determine the hardware's true capabilities or if it was just over-hyped. But, not in these sort of overall reviews.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now