Intel’s Xeon Platinum 8284 CPU: When 300 MHz Cost $5,500
by Anton Shilov on July 18, 2019 12:00 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- Intel
- Xeon
- Enterprise CPUs
- Servers
- Xeon Platinum
Besides Xeon processors that are officially mentioned on its website and price list, Intel has tens of ‘off roadmap’ server CPUs only available to select customers that have special requests. Recently journalists from ComputerBase discovered that Intel has Xeon Platinum 8284, the company’s fastest 28-core chip for multi-socket servers. The CPU runs 300 MHz faster than the ‘official’ Xeon Platinum 8280, but costs considerably more.
Intel’s Xeon Platinum 8284 packs 28 cores with Hyper-Threading that run at 3.0-4.0 GHz, feature a 38.5 MB cache, a six-channel memory controller supporting up to 1 TB of DDR4-2933 with ECC, 48 PCIe 3.0 lanes, and other capabilities found in codenamed Cascade Lake CPUs. Since the chip runs at 300 MHz higher base frequency when compared to the Xeon Platinum 8280, it has a 240 W TDP, up from 205 W. Meanwhile, Tcase of the CPU (the maximum allowed temperature on the IHS of the processor) was reduced to 65°C (down from 84°C), so the CPU requires a very sophisticated cooling system that can take away 240 W at the aforementioned temperature.
Being Intel’s fastest 28-core CPU for multi-socket servers, the Xeon Platinum 8284 processor costs $15,460 (recommended customer price for 1k unit order, RCP), whereas the Xeon Platinum 8280 that runs at a 300 MHz lower frequency, costs $10,009 for 1ku.
| Intel Second Generation Xeon Scalable Family (Cascade Lake) |
||||||||
| Cores | Base Freq |
Turbo Freq |
L3 Cache |
TDP (W) |
Optane | Price (1ku) |
||
| Xeon Platinum 8200 | ||||||||
| 8284 | 28 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 38.50 | 240 | Yes | $15460 | |
| 8280 | L | 28 | 2.7 | 4.0 | 38.50 | 205 | Yes | $17906 |
| 8280 | M | 28 | 2.7 | 4.0 | 38.50 | 205 | Yes | $13012 |
| 8280 | 28 | 2.7 | 4.0 | 38.50 | 205 | Yes | $10009 | |
| 8276 | L | 28 | 2.2 | 4.0 | 38.50 | 165 | Yes | $16616 |
| 8276 | M | 28 | 2.2 | 4.0 | 28.50 | 165 | Yes | $11722 |
| 8276 | 28 | 2.2 | 4.0 | 38.50 | 165 | Yes | $8719 | |
| 8270 | 26 | 2.7 | 4.0 | 25.75 | 205 | Yes | $7405 | |
| 8268 | 24 | 2.9 | 3.9 | 35.75 | 205 | Yes | $6302 | |
| 8260 | L | 24 | 2.4 | 3.9 | 25.75 | 165 | Yes | $12599 |
| 8260 | M | 24 | 2.4 | 3.9 | 25.75 | 165 | Yes | $7705 |
| 8260 | 24 | 2.4 | 3.9 | 25.75 | 165 | Yes | $4702 | |
| 8260 | Y | 24 | 2.4 | 3.9 | 35.75 | 165 | Yes | $5320 |
| 8256 | 4 | 3.8 | 3.9 | 16.50 | 105 | Yes | $7007 | |
| 8253 | L | 16 | 2.2 | 3.0 | 35.75 | 165 | Yes | ? |
| 8253 | M | 16 | 2.2 | 3.0 | 35.75 | 165 | Yes | ? |
| 8253 | 16 | 2.2 | 3.0 | 35.75 | 165 | Yes | $3115 | |
The Xeon Platinum 8284 is not mentioned in Intel’s pricelist, and not under Cascade Lake on Intel's ARK database, but it is searchable if you know the exact number. This typically means that the CPU is only available to select customers or even a customer. That said, it is possible that apart from higher clocks, this 'semi-custom' off-roadmap processor may come with features that go beyond that and this might explain the huge price difference when compared to the model 8280.
Related Reading
- The Intel Second Generation Xeon Scalable: Cascade Lake, Now with Up To 56-Cores and Optane!
- Intel’s Enterprise Extravaganza 2019: Launching Cascade Lake, Optane DCPMM, Agilex FPGAs, 100G Ethernet, and Xeon D-1600
- Intel Architecture Manual Updates: bfloat16 for Cooper Lake Xeon Scalable Only?
- Intel Xeon Update: Ice Lake and Cooper Lake Sampling, Faster Future Updates
Source: Intel’s ARK (via ComputerBase)
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
81 Comments
View All Comments
HStewart - Friday, July 19, 2019 - link
I actually don't care either, what I don't like it people bashing Intel - with AMD statements - I never bash AMD products unless they bash Intel first. Just sounds like a bunch of uneducated discussing bashing another product because one thinks one product.I not saying Intel needs does not need to make improvements, In fact AMD helps Intel moving toward the future - I just think most people really don't care - about high core counts and high frequencies.
It not blind loyalty, I mention before it because Intel created the original product - x86 processors and because of stupid IBM back in the 1980's, AMD came in to picture because of 2nd source. My first computer that I purchase had an AMD processor on it was 386 clone - not sure the place advertise that fact.
Times have change now for most people and organizations, desktop are part of past - work have notebook connected to monitors. so you can bring the computer to board room. Days of desktop computer in work force is going way.. even now we have workstation based notebook with Xeon processors
But if there is a threat to Intel, it not the desktop AMD chips but instead iPad and Android tablet, which at my last job, I would have died if I supported Android on phone or tablet. So for windows based computing I prefer Intel because of long history of personal good results with them.
Probably if you want to say what has hurt me with AMD is there video, back in older once AMD purchase ATI - I did try AMD card that supposedly had good TV recording, I had bad luck with and I never switch from NVidia. But laptops became mainstream over the years and video card became less important. I still have nVidia on my Lenovo Y50 and I like the layout of Dell XPS 15 2in1 and even though I have concerns with it video, I was willing to give it try. It has some incompatibilities with two things 1,. Older games and 2. some professional 3d graphic software like Vue 2016. And also Steam VR.
But my life style is changes and graphics is becoming less important, but I still have older tech interested of younger days.
So main concern here not against AMD but blasting of AMD on topics discussing Intel product. So what does anybody really care. This kind of attitude surely will not make want to purchase an AMD product. I believe this attitude of blasting pro-AMD into Intel product would hurt AMD. I would say the same thing on any product
PeachNCream - Friday, July 19, 2019 - link
TL;DRQasar - Friday, July 19, 2019 - link
you should of read it Peach, at the least, its good for a laughMrPoletski - Thursday, July 18, 2019 - link
You know AMD, not Intel, created x64 right? that's what we're all using now.HStewart - Friday, July 19, 2019 - link
Yes but x64 is just an extension of x86 and it would have came in time.I pretty sure we will not x128 or x256 but you never know in the future.
Basically x64 is nothing with x86 base anyway.
CityBlue - Sunday, July 21, 2019 - link
> Yes but x64 is just an extension of x86 and it would have came in time.Maybe - but not from Intel, who didn't have a 64-bit x86 roadmap as their Itanium vision was rejected by the marketplace so it came down to AMD to invent x86_64 and give customers what they wanted rather than being force fed something expensive, complicated, incompatible and badly planned. As usual it is AMD that is innovating in the x86 space, while Intel does as little as possible and sweats it's assets/monopoly.
Korguz - Sunday, July 21, 2019 - link
i dont think intel had ANY plans to extend x86 to 64 bit, like CityBlue said, intel tried to transition to 64 bit via itanium, but because it had nothing to do with x86, EVERYTHING software wise would of needed to be recompiled to Itanium 64 bit, and the industry didnt want to do that. to be honest, some the cpu innovation has not come from intel, but from amd.steepedrostee - Thursday, July 18, 2019 - link
"...the low level parts still interest me."I bet they do..
Samus - Thursday, July 18, 2019 - link
Intel created x86, but every modern program and operating system are x86-64.Take a guess who created that...
HStewart - Friday, July 19, 2019 - link
Yes but x64 is just an extension of x86 and it would have came in time.I pretty sure we will not x128 or x256 but you never know in the future.
Basically x64 is nothing with x86 base anyway.