Comments Locked

22 Comments

Back to Article

  • Threska - Wednesday, February 7, 2018 - link

    " From a pure price perspective, this jump from the top core count part down to the one just below it is sizable, although Intel does have a history with this, such as the E3-1200 Xeon line where the top processor, with a 100 MHz higher frequency than the second best, was 30%+ higher in cost."

    Must be nice having a monopoly.
  • Qwertilot - Wednesday, February 7, 2018 - link

    That's not a monopoly thing as, by definition, they provide very, very strong competition to themselves :) Some customers are presumably truly price insensitive for whatever reason.
  • Elstar - Wednesday, February 7, 2018 - link

    If all you care about is upfront costs, then yes, Intel's high-end parts are expensive. But if you run a data center where "performance/watt" is critical, then the cost of the top parts are reasonable.
  • Elstar - Wednesday, February 7, 2018 - link

    If all you care about is upfront costs, then yes, Intel's high-end parts are expensive. But if you run a data center where "performance/watt" is critical, then the cost of the top parts are reasonable.
  • tamalero - Sunday, February 11, 2018 - link

    I'm confused how 4 cores less but 600Mhz less per core on base frequency and all turbo is "better performance per watt" while being almost 1400 USD more per processor.
  • HStewart - Wednesday, February 7, 2018 - link

    "Must be nice having a monopoly."

    Well anybody that states Intel has a monopoly should rethink that, even Apple could be consider a Monopoly because they don't allow others to manufacture products on iOS - but the one that comes to mind the most is Qualcomm with recent announcements of Windows 10 for ARM - which only works on Qualcomm.. Can we say Windows 10 for Qualcomm - sorry no thanks

    But the real thing that make Qualcomm a real monopoly is it telecommunications.
  • prisonerX - Friday, February 9, 2018 - link

    I guess you can argue what a monopoly is, but Intel is irrefutably abuses their dominant position in the marketplace. The former is not a sin, the later is illegal. Intel is repugnant.
  • Yorgos - Wednesday, February 7, 2018 - link

    "Living on the Edge"
    Right on.
    Will it work? will it get infested due to the various sec. holes? will it get bricked like their C2000 cousins?
    You can never tell what's going to come tomorrow when you use intel.
    Living on the Edge.
  • HStewart - Wednesday, February 7, 2018 - link

    I think you are trying to referred to Atom bases servers - they have been replace with C3xxx versions like 16 Core

    https://ark.intel.com/products/97927/Intel-Atom-Pr...

    But if these new D series Xeons have lower power - I could see them replace C2000 cousins. or this Atom based server
  • DanNeely - Wednesday, February 7, 2018 - link

    Looks like only 14 D2xxx CPUs (in all the tables/charts) not 15 as stated in the section header.
  • Elstar - Wednesday, February 7, 2018 - link

    I'm not sure what/who the target market is for the D-2191. The core count says "high end", but the TDP, base frequency, DDR frequency, and unique lack of integrated Ethernet is weird. It feels more like an "embedded Xeon-W" than a "Xeon-D".
  • IntelUser2000 - Wednesday, February 7, 2018 - link

    Here's what one article had to say:

    "Looking back to the previous generation, Facebook utilized Mellanox multi-host adapters along with a custom version of the original Xeon D to lower networking costs and improve performance. We suspect that Intel is keenly aware of this and that is a part of the reason for that de-feature move."
  • Elstar - Wednesday, February 7, 2018 - link

    That explains it. And after a few quick searches, I found Open Compute Project PDFs that explain the setup where integrated networking would be pointless. Thanks!
  • Lakados - Wednesday, February 7, 2018 - link

    Always read the fine print:
    Benchmark results were obtained prior to implementation of recent software patches and firmware updates intended to address exploits referred to as "Spectre" and "Meltdown". Implementation of these updates may make these results inapplicable to your device or system.

    While I can see uses for these, until I see how they run with the patches in place this announcement is garbage.
  • pavag - Wednesday, February 7, 2018 - link

    So, you pay $2400 for Meltdown and Spectre?
  • Hurr Durr - Thursday, February 8, 2018 - link

    You`ve been paying for it for 20 years now without a single peep. You'll buy your Mossad processor and you will like it, goy.
  • prisonerX - Friday, February 9, 2018 - link

    It's strange, I had to change to my AMD system to type "Palestinian genocide/Apartheid" it wouldn't work on my i5 box.
  • Hurr Durr - Saturday, February 10, 2018 - link

    My i5 box always tries to inject something about toxic masculinity and opressive whiteness into every text I type in Word!
  • none12345 - Thursday, February 8, 2018 - link

    Showcasing benchmark results without applying critical patches seems wrong on every level.
  • prisonerX - Friday, February 9, 2018 - link

    Just subtract 30% and you've got it.
  • wow&wow - Friday, February 9, 2018 - link

    Does Intel Xeon D-2100 need the OS kernel relocation? Are OS patches, if needed, ready for it?
  • acersupport - Thursday, February 15, 2018 - link

    Hello, this very knowledgeable post, I am very happy after reading this article. truly honest I love this post. Because I get more information one Xeon D-2100 motherboard. A part of every person call with Intel. I glad for sharing this post. We are also providing an Acer tech support. We are twenty-four into seven services provide Acer tech support.
    http://customer-support-service.weebly.com/acer-su...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now