Computex Half-a-World Away - Part 1: Intel Roadmaps Revealed

Servers & Workstations Get Confusing

Intel's strategy in the server and workstation market has become somewhat cluttered thanks to the plethora of CPUs you'll find available to suit the various segments; not only do we have the desktop Prescott processor being targeted at entry-level servers/workstations, but then there's the regular Xeon DP, the 1MB L2 Xeon DP, the Xeon MP and Itanium. Within those families there are also 800MHz, 533MHz and 667MHz FSB versions, and don't always assume that the faster, more expensive processors can take advantage of the higher frequency FSBs. Confused yet? Let's get to the roadmaps…

We've already proven that Canterwood (875P) has virtually no use on the desktop from a performance standpoint; Intel's 865PE chipset is just about as fast and the motherboard manufacturers are working on tweaking their BIOSes to make the solutions even faster and more competitive with the 875P. Remember that the motherboard guys want to sell 865PE platforms more than 875P since they target a lower price point and thus can meet their volume requirements, the margins on 875P boards aren't high enough for the motherboard guys to get too excited. But remember from our review of the 875P chipset that one of the features is ECC memory support - why include ECC support? For the server/workstation markets of course, this is where 875P is truly made for.

Intel's roadmaps show the 875P chipset being used in all uniprocessor (UP) workstations and a derivative of the chipset called Canterwood-ES used in all UP servers. The server derivative of Canterwood most likely features some increased validation for peace of mind in the server environment.

Both the Canterwood-ES and 875P chipsets are supposed to be paired up with Intel's Prescott CPU, and will feature 800MHz FSB support. Interestingly enough, this is the only mention of 800MHz FSB support that exists on Intel's server/workstation roadmap. Instead, all other segments will feature either a 533 or 667MHz FSB going forward. As far as why, we can't tell, it could be tied to increased validation at 800MHz, unwillingness for many enterprise customers to adopt DDR400, or a number of other theories - regardless, don't expect any 800MHz FSB solutions to penetrate beyond the entry-level workstation/server markets.

In Q3 of this year Intel will finally introduce their "Opteron competitor" for the dual processor (DP) markets - a 3.06GHz Xeon with a 1MB on-die L2 cache. As you can guess, this is a 533MHz FSB part, and will exist alongside a 512KB L2 part. In the following quarter, Intel will introduce the Nocona processor, which is basically a Prescott (90nm) derived core for the enterprise market.

Unlike the desktop Prescott processor however, Nocona will only support the 533MHz FSB at launch (much like mobile Prescott); the processor will be introduced at 3.20 and 3.46GHz. The beginning of 2004 will allow Nocona to enjoy a slightly faster FSB of 667MHz, to help it reach speeds of 3.50, 3.60GHz and beyond. The lack of any 800MHz FSB support is puzzling, since it would come in handy in these markets - arguably more than on the desktop.

Continuing on into the first half of 2004, Nocona will continue to be offered in both 533 and 667MHz FSB flavors.

Nocona will be aimed mainly at the UP/DP server and workstation markets and will eventually be paired with the Lindenhurst chipset - a successor to the E7501 with 667MHz FSB support. On the workstation side, the Tumwater chipset will take over as the successor to the E7505.

From a performance standpoint, things make even less sense once we start looking at Intel's plans for the Xeon MP line for 4-way configurations. Intel's Xeon MPs will continue to use a 400MHz FSB through the first half of 2004, even as the processors reach speeds as high as 2.60GHz. Intel's reasoning behind this is mostly to allow for a single upgrade path without forcing enterprise customers to upgrade their motherboards as frequently as we have to on the desktop side, but it's clear that the performance of the processors will be limited by FSB bandwidth. Remember that Intel's MP solutions rely on a shared bus protocol, meaning that in a 4-way Xeon MP server all four processors must share the same 400MHz FSB. This essentially quadruples the FSB bandwidth requirements of the server, and the Xeon MP happens to be the processor that will have the least amount of FSB bandwidth out of all of Intel's enterprise CPUs.

Potomac will be the first 90nm Xeon MP processor, but we won't see that until the second half of 2004. Considering Intel's 0.13-micron Xeon MPs may have up to 4MB of on-die L3 cache, we can only assume that Potomac will have anywhere from 6 - 8MB of cache on-die.

To round out Intel's IA-32 enterprise roadmap, we have the Pentium-M and Dothan processors being used in 1U Low Power blade servers. At the last Intel Developer Forum we showed off some demonstrations of the Pentium-M (Banias) processor being used in a server environment, well you can expect that to continue with Dothan.

No article on Intel's enterprise roadmap would be complete without a mention of Itanium. Intel's Itanium 2 continues to be a presence on the server/workstation roadmaps as expected, but what's interesting is the introduction of Deerfield which will happen sometime in Q3 of this year.

As you will remember from our IDF coverage, Deerfield is going to be the entry-level Itanium processor. Intel is positioning Deerfield as a Low-Voltage Itanium 2, and it will be made available at speeds as high as 1.0GHz with a 1.5MB on-die L3 cache. It isn't clear how Deerfield will differ architecturally from the regular Itanium 2 core, but Intel's roadmaps do mention that the part will be DP capable only. Intel could feasibly make Deerfield as capable as the regular Itanium 2, but only limit it to 2-way configurations, which would succeed in limiting competition within the Itanium family.

What's most intriguing about the Low-Voltage Itanium 2 (Deerfield) is its price tag. The 1.0GHz part will sell for under $800 in 1,000 unit quantities, compared to the $2,000+ that the current Itanium 2 1.0GHz goes for.