Scalable Xeon vs Xeon WIntel launched its Xeon line in 1998 and for almost all of the final 25 years, it dominated the skilled workstation panorama. However a number of 12 months in the past, AMD’s Threadripper got here to city, and started to noticeably take away Xeon’s market share with a lot increased core counts and frequency. Now, Intel has fired again with a brand new skilled structure referred to as Sapphire Rapids and 4th Gen Scalable Xeon and Xeon W-3400 sequence. Are both of those new Xeons a superb match for you and the way are they completely different? Let’s examine Scalable Xeon vs Xeon W Sequence.

About Sapphire Rapids

Sapphire Rapids is the code identify for Intel’s newest Xeon processors, launched in Q1 2023. They use the 10nm Golden Cove structure, make the most of the LGA 4677 socket and assist trendy options equivalent to DDR5 ECC RAM and PCIe Gen 5.

Scalable Xeon – Who’s it for?

Intel Xeon ProcessorScalable Xeon, and particularly 4th Gen with Sapphire Rapids structure is Intel’s choice for multi-core server platforms and extremely threaded workstations. The primary benefit of the platform is that it’s, effectively, scalable, which means it helps twin CPU sockets and with some skus, 4 sockets. This lets you scale up the efficiency to theoretically 4 x 60 cores. The draw back with Scalable Xeon although is with that prime core depend and scalability comes decrease base frequencies, making them a poor alternative for any frequency sure software like CAD.

  • Finest for – Servers, extremely threaded purposes, twin socket workstations
  • AMD Comp – Epyc

Xeon W Sequence – Who’s it for?

Intel Xeon W Processors are designed for professional workstations. They provide comparable core counts as Scalable Xeon however with increased clock and Turbo speeds to actually get after these demanding workflows that want each. They arrive in two most important varieties – W-3400 and W-2400 – each of which have the same set of options, although the W-3400 are solely on the upper finish. Not one of the Xeon W are scalable although, so a single socket is all you get.

  • Finest for – Professional degree workstations, VFX, 3D CAD rendering, AI
  • AMD – Threadripper

Characteristic Comparability

Xeon Scalable W-Sequence
Structure Sapphire Rapids Sapphire Rapids
Max cores 60 (8490H) 56 (W9-3495X)
Turbo Frequency 4.2GHz (6416H) 4.8GHz (W7-3455)
Socket LGA 4677 LGA 4677
Chipset C741 W790
Scalability Sure No
ECC Help Sure Sure
RAM Channels 8 8
Max PCIe Lanes (per CPU) 80 112
Max L3 cache 112MB (8490H) 105MB (W9-3495X)
In-built Intel Accelerators Sure Sure

Xeon vs. i9

We’ve gone over the Xeon vs i7/i9 comparability in earlier posts, however with the discharge of the 24-core i9-13900k and its 5.8GHz Turbo velocity, ought to that be a consideration to your subsequent workstation?  Nicely, in case your software is only single threaded (assume AutoCAD and Revit), will solely ever want a single GPU, and doesn’t require ECC RAM, then positive. However for multi-core rendering and long run sturdiness, Xeon continues to be perfect. For extra particulars on why, take a look at that submit linked above.

Scalable Xeon vs W Sequence – Which is finest?

Which Xeon is finest for you actually depends upon your workflow. If you happen to’re searching for most whole cores or designing a rendering server, Scalable Xeon is the selection. But when increased velocity paired with a 24+ core depend is critical to maximise your ROI, we’d suggest Xeon W. Configure every choice under to get began.

Configure Scalable Xeon HD360Max

Configure Xeon W Sequence HD150

Questions? Give our skilled gross sales group a name at 804-419-0900 for a zero obligation session

The next two tabs change content material under.

Josh has been with Velocity Micro since 2007 in numerous Advertising, PR, and Gross sales associated roles. Because the Director of Gross sales & Advertising, he’s chargeable for all Direct and Retail gross sales in addition to Advertising actions. He enjoys Seinfeld reruns, the Atlanta Braves, and Beatles songs written by John, Paul, or George. Sorry, Ringo.