Intel 3rd Gen Xeon Scalable (Ice Lake SP) Review: Generationally Big, Competitively Small
by Andrei Frumusanu on April 6, 2021 11:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Servers
- CPUs
- Intel
- Xeon
- Enterprise
- Xeon Scalable
- Ice Lake-SP
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.
169 Comments
View All Comments
Oxford Guy - Wednesday, April 7, 2021 - link
You're arguing apples (latency) and oranges (capability).An Apple II has better latency than an Apple Lisa, even though the latter is vastly more powerful in most respects. The sluggishness of the UI was one of the big problems with that system from a consumer point of view. Many self-described power users equated a snappy interface with capability, so they believed their CLI machines (like the IBM PC) were a lot better.
GeoffreyA - Wednesday, April 7, 2021 - link
"today's software and OSes are absurdly slow, and in many cases desktop applications are slower in user-time than their late 1980s counterparts"Oh yes. One builds a computer nowadays and it's fast for a year. But then applications, being updated, grow sluggish over time. And it starts to feel like one's old computer again. So what exactly did we gain, I sometimes wonder. Take a simple suite like LibreOffice, which was never fast to begin with. I feel version 7 opens even slower than 6. Firefox was quite all right, but as of 85 or 86, when they introduced some new security feature, it seems to open a lot slower, at least on my computer. At any rate, I do appreciate all the free software.
ricebunny - Wednesday, April 7, 2021 - link
Well said.Frank_M - Thursday, April 8, 2021 - link
Intel Fortran is vastly faster then GCC.How did ricebunny get a free compiler?
mode_13h - Thursday, April 8, 2021 - link
> It's strange to tell people who use the Intel compiler that it's not used much in the real world, as though that carries some substantive point.To use the automotive analogy, it's as if a car is being reviewed using 100-octane fuel, even though most people can only get 93 or 91 octane (and many will just use the cheap 87 octane, anyhow).
The point of these reviews isn't to milk the most performance from the product that's theoretically possible, but rather to inform readers about how they're likely to experience it. THAT is why it's relevant that almost nobody uses ICC in practice.
And, in fact, BECAUSE so few people are using ICC, Intel puts a lot of work into GCC and LLVM.
GeoffreyA - Thursday, April 8, 2021 - link
I think that a common compiler like GCC should be used (like Andrei is doing), along with a generic x86-64 -march (in the case of Intel/AMD) and generic -mtune. The idea would be to get the CPUs on as equal a footing as possible, even with code that might not be optimal, and reveal relative rather than absolute performance.Wilco1 - Thursday, April 8, 2021 - link
Using generic (-march=x86-64) means you are building for ancient SSE2... If you want a common baseline then use something like -march=x86-64-v3. You'll then get people claiming that excluding AVX-512 is unfair eventhough there is little difference on most benchmarks except for higher power consumption ( https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&... ).GeoffreyA - Saturday, April 10, 2021 - link
I think leaving AVX512 out is a good policy.GeoffreyA - Thursday, April 8, 2021 - link
If I may offer an analogy, I would say: the benchmark is like an exam in school but here we test time to finish the paper (and with the constraint of complete accuracy). Each pupil should be given the identical paper, and that's it.Using optimised binaries for different CPUs is a bit like knowing each child's brain beforehand (one has thicker circuitry in Bodman region 10, etc.) and giving each a paper with peculiar layout and formatting but same questions (in essence). Which system is better, who can say, but I'd go with the first.
Oxford Guy - Wednesday, April 7, 2021 - link
Well, whatever tricks were used made Blender faster with the ICC builds I tested — both on AMD's Piledriver and on several Intel releases (Lynnfield and Haswell).