Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are the LGA 3647 / Skylake SP / Higher-End, Scalable Gold and Platinum Xeon processors still good and reasonably fast products in today's 2019 hardware environment?
The reason I inquire is because I recently bought a high-end, HP Z8 G4 workstation PC with Dual Xeon 6128 Gold 3.4 GHz/3.7 GHz (Turbo)/3.7 GHz (Turbo), 12-core (since they are hyperthreaded together) processors, with 128 GB RAM (expandable to a max RAM memory capacity of 1.5TB with dual processors and using RDIMMs, or 3TB max RAM with dual processors and using 3DS LR DIMMs). Eventually when processor speeds naturally increase down the road and overall Skylake processor costs go down, I may look at upgrading to say for example dual Xeon Gold 6146 processors, which would provide 24 cores when hyperthreaded, with 3.2 GHz/3.9 (Turbo)/4.2GHz (Turbo), or even possibly consider some high speeds of the Platinum Scalable family. However, taking a quick look at newer or more contemporary Kaby Lake and Cascade Lake processors did give me reason to pause or perhaps consider waiting until the next generation of the HP Z family workstations is released that would be supporting Kaby Lake and Cascade Lake processors, since I am assuming that the current highest-end workstation HP Z8 product will only support up to Skylake XP processors max?
The overarching goal behind this purchase is because I am highly interested in having a high-end, ahead-of-the-curve, workstation-class PC that can specifically support up to a 7-10 year life cycle, instead of the more typical 2-4 year max lifecycle of usual consumer-grade desktop PCs. I was formerly using the HP Z820 -- which was very powerful for its time around 2013-2014 -- before acquiring the Z8 G4 as part of the transition to my "next-generation" high-end workstation PC . And so I was ultimately wondering if you think if the Z8 configuration I mentioned above, again with the option to upgrade processors with the hypothetical examples listed above, would successfully be able to provide a workstation PC that could viably yield a 7-10 year lifecycle? Or in light of the more recent Kaby Lake and Cascade Lake Processors, do you think I should consider returning the HP Z8 G4 and hold on until the next highest-end HP Z workstation product is released? Any advice or thoughts that anyone could please provide would be greatly appreciated, many thanks in advance for anyone who is kindly willing to post any input on the thread
128GB of RAM?!?!? Wt effing eff?!? You making CGI movies with that? Or running a small nation?
Seriously overkill. You're far better off buying something to last 4-5 years then trying to get something to last 7-10.
I don't care what you build it WILL be outdated in 5 years. It may still run perfectly fine. It's not going to be ahead-of-the-curve.
A single Threadripper 3970x is going to run circles around dual 6128s for any workload. Significantly higher single core performance, 64 cores/128 threads vs 6/12 (12/24 for dual), support for 256 GB of RAM, PCIE 4.0. It'd still be nice to see 8 channel on the 3000 Threadripper chips.. I mean, if you can make any use of said 24 RAM slots that's an advantage for Intel as it's really more a server design than a workstation one. But it's hard to imagine a workstation load that 24 RAM slots is in any way useful.
But then it's not like Threadripper makes much sense either. It's a $2,000 CPU for the high end 3970x and an expensive board, just a lot more than anything Intel offers. For the other 99.95% of people a Ryzen 9 3900 or 3950x (once you can get it) will make much more sense if high core count is the goal. Intel's really totally out classed there. E.g, dual Xeons with a combined 12 cores/24 threads versus a single mainstream Ryzen processor that costs half of what a single Xeon did with 16 cores/32 threads, faster base/boost clocks, better memory controller. If you want fast single core performance, then you have Intel 9900K.
There's really not much reason to even look at LGA 2066 or LGA 3647. Dual 8180s vs Threadripper 3970x would be more on par... other than that Dual 8180s would have sold for $20,000 when they launched versus $2,000 for a single Threadripper. Both progress and just how outclassed Intel is in that segment. Also server architecture versus work station. AMD has Epyc for servers. They make little more sense than Intel as workstations don't need 4 TB of RAM.
128GB of RAM?!?!? Wt effing eff?!? You making CGI movies with that? Or running a small nation?
Seriously overkill. You're far better off buying something to last 4-5 years then trying to get something to last 7-10.
I don't care what you build it WILL be outdated in 5 years. It may still run perfectly fine. It's not going to be ahead-of-the-curve.
Well the main reason for the 128 GB spec was intended to try to keep it scalable for the further-out or expanding hardware requirements of the future. For example, I have noticed quite a few high(er)-end desktop PCs where the RAM is already at 32 GB - with today's tech. The main challenge with desktop-range or consumer-grade desktop units is, and even with some gaming-class PC, as far as I am best aware (if I am misunderstanding the current hardware landscape, my apologies and please feel free to correct me) is, the RAM is almost always not expandable beyond say 32 GB max, or possibly 64 GB max. Which leads to a box that cannot be further expanded, and will need to be replaced much sooner.
As far as ahead-of-the-curve, I was hoping for something ahead-of-the-curve in the present, or in today's tech environment. Naturally, more-advanced hardware will replace it, undoubtedly. My goal would be by the end of the 7-10 year lifecycle I had in mind, the PC would then be comparable to say for example some of the lower-end machines in 7-10 years from now. In other words, I didn't mean that the box had to remain ahead-of-the-curve beyond say 5 years as you had helpfully suggested, but that it would still be viably usable at for instance a consumer-grade level (although no longer a high-end box of course), from say years 6-10, etc.
A single Threadripper 3970x is going to run circles around dual 6128s for any workload. Significantly higher single core performance, 64 cores/128 threads vs 6/12 (12/24 for dual), support for 256 GB of RAM, PCIE 4.0. It'd still be nice to see 8 channel on the 3000 Threadripper chips.. I mean, if you can make any use of said 24 RAM slots that's an advantage for Intel as it's really more a server design than a workstation one. But it's hard to imagine a workstation load that 24 RAM slots is in any way useful.
But then it's not like Threadripper makes much sense either. It's a $2,000 CPU for the high end 3970x and an expensive board, just a lot more than anything Intel offers. For the other 99.95% of people a Ryzen 9 3900 or 3950x (once you can get it) will make much more sense if high core count is the goal. Intel's really totally out classed there. E.g, dual Xeons with a combined 12 cores/24 threads versus a single mainstream Ryzen processor that costs half of what a single Xeon did with 16 cores/32 threads, faster base/boost clocks, better memory controller. If you want fast single core performance, then you have Intel 9900K.
There's really not much reason to even look at LGA 2066 or LGA 3647. Dual 8180s vs Threadripper 3970x would be more on par... other than that Dual 8180s would have sold for $20,000 when they launched versus $2,000 for a single Threadripper. Both progress and just how outclassed Intel is in that segment. Also server architecture versus work station. AMD has Epyc for servers. They make little more sense than Intel as workstations don't need 4 TB of RAM.
Thanks for your very valuable and outstanding advice! Also I just wanted to preface this post by apologizing in advance for my lack of knowledge (my current technical understanding of hardware is at best rather rudimentary or basic). If you hopefully don't mind me inquiring and if you could kindly please elaborate just a little more, I was just a bit confused as to how dual Xeon 8180 chips would be viable in terms of trying to future-proof a PC, since I looked up the specs on the 8180 and they appeared to have a base processor frequency of 2.5 GHz, and 3.2/3.8 GHZ when in Turbo mode? Since there are already processors on the market at 5 GHz+ iirc, not quite sure how a max turbo speed of 3.8 GHz would be able be sufficient some years later into the future? Again very sorry and please excuse my ignorance on hardware fundamentals.
I guess my original goal was to stick with the 6128s for now...and then upgrade the dual CPU PCs at a later future point, possibly to dual 8180s when the price goes down in the future, or some other compatible processor? Also was just curious if you thought that maybe dual Xeon Gold 6146 chips might be of any use, since their max turbo speed is 4.2 GHz? Ideally I had been hoping to find a compatible Skylake chip that would have robust or sufficient core capacity, but also be able to cross over the 4.0 Ghz speed barrier, etc.?
Regarding Threadripper, that does indeed sound quite intriguing, although for now in the present, I am sadly limited to Intel hardware at the moment, since as far as I am best aware, the HP Z workstation series does not support AMD processors? I have been using HP workstations since 2008-2009 and have generally had very good experiences with them, beginning with an HP xw8600 around 2008, then going on to an HP Z800 in 2013 and an HP Z820 around 2013-2014. And so the HP Z8 had represented the next logical evolution of the HP workstation product, which was the main reason I went with it?
Last edited by Phoenix2017; 12-10-2019 at 01:45 PM..
One other item I just wanted to mention, in case it was of any utility for the purposes of my thread: for the HP workstation PCs I have been using in the past, as well as intended for the current HP Z8, I have been installing Windows Server, starting since at least 2009-2010. For example, the Z820 is running Windows Server 2019, and if I end up deciding to continue with the Z8 rather than returning it, I would like to install Windows Server 2019 on it as well? The reason I chose the HP workstations rather than a rackmount server box for example was just because I had mainly preferred to run Windows Server with a Tower/ATX form factor, rather than rackmount or similar?
I am also using Windows Server as the equivalent of a desktop workstation computer in lieu of Windows 10, etc., since the free Windows Server Backup feature built into Windows Server since at least Server 2008 has been indispensable and a lifesaver to me, in terms of running backups and occasionally having to do emergency restores from backup. That's currently the chief reason I am running Windows Server, rather than Windows 10 or (previously from earlier years) 8.1.
Last edited by Phoenix2017; 12-10-2019 at 02:50 PM..
8180 has 28 cores vs 6 cores on the 6128. Point is lots of cores. You can find 8180s for around $5,000 each and a pair of them would get you more cores than a single $2,000 Threadripper 3970x, albeit slower cores. But they're apples and oranges. AMD has Epyc to compete for server chips and not Threadripper. Why you'd even want 8180s is beyond me. Netflix uses things like that in their data centers. It's very difficult to imagine a workstation workload that wouldn't be slower with dual 8180s than a single Threadripper 3970x, but they have their purpose.
The point is really that nobody knows why you want it. The consumer chips like the 9900K have 8 cores at 3.6 ghz base/5ghz boost or Ryzen 9 3950x 16 cores at 3.4 base/4.7 boost. Unless you need more than 128 GB of RAM there's no reason to buy anything above that. If you're doing CGI for Hollywood productions, there is a point $50,000 Mac Pro type computers. If you're not it's just a waste of $45,000+.
Again many thanks and much appreciation to everyone for your comments and feedback!
Based on everyone's input, I am starting to really consider returning the HP Z8. I guess my remaining question would be, if the HP Z8 is not the ideal solution, would anyone have any suggestions please, about the best way to future-proof a PC, guard against future hardware inflation, and to be able to have it continue to run at (a lower-grade capacity) beyond the 5-year mark? Replacing a PC every 4 or so years is something I would prefer to avoid doing, both in terms of saving both time and $.
Just for example, I was able to run my original HP xw8600 workstation from 2009-2017 (i.e., 8 years of useful lifespan). The hard disk and the motherboard were both starting to die at the 8-year mark, which is why I had to discontinue using it. If the hardware had been able to keep going though beyond the 8 years I got out of it, I might have considered giving it to a family member who was not very computer-literate and had very basic computer needs such as surfing the web, writing Word documents, or similar.
Also, to try to quantify my question: would it be theoretically possible to build a custom box (but not using the HP Z8 model), that meets the following tech specs, in today's tech environment -- and if so, would anyone have any suggestions as to a reputable PC vendor to buy from:
(1) Has a max RAM capacity of 128 GB or more (for future expansion purposes, as RAM requirements start to increase beyond just today's 32-64 GB).
(2) Has a minimum processor speed of between 4-5 GHz, with somewhere between 12-18 or more cores, either with or without using hyperthreading?
(3) Would have a graphics card with enough capacity to meet the tech needs of 5+ years from now?
The reason why the dual-Xeon 6128 processors are needed in the case of the HP Z8, for example, is because -- as far as I am best aware and to the best of my knowledge? -- the memory capacity cannot reach or exceed 128 GB in the absense of a second processor, which makes 2 processors a prerequisite? Also the reason I'm so fixated on 128 GB RAM is because of gradual hardware inflation such as the kind we've seen and observed over the last decade, where we started out with 2-4 GB PCs, then went to 4-6 GB PCs, then from there to 6-8 GB, 8-12 GB, 12-16 GB, 16-24 GB, 24-32 GB, and now in the upper range of (today's) 32-64 GB, high-end desktop PCs?
Last edited by Phoenix2017; 12-10-2019 at 03:58 PM..
Reason: Adds / Edits
Based on everyone's input, I am starting to really consider returning the HP Z8. I guess my remaining question would be, if the HP Z8 is not the ideal solution, would anyone have any suggestions please, about the best way to future-proof a PC, guard against future hardware inflation, and to be able to have it continue to run at (a lower-grade capacity) beyond the 5-year mark? Replacing a PC every 4 or so years is something I would prefer to avoid doing, both in terms of saving both time and $.
From around 30 to 10 years ago this would have been required, because hardware was advancing so quickly. Moore’s Law was in full effect.
Now there is incrementalism, I’d argue since Sandy Bridge came out in 2011. Each CPU generation is a handful of % faster than the previous one.
But why do you think you'll need more than 128 gigs of RAM? 8 gigs has been the standard for probably a decade and is still fine for most people. If you want to future proof for the next 5 years, get 16 or 32 gigs of RAM. Or don't. You can just buy it later if you need it.
Look, it's your money. If you want to spend $10,000 on a pair of used 8180s so you can spend another $20,000 for 1.5TB of RAM, it's your business. I'd get far better performance for my needs with a 32 core Ryzen 3970x and 32-64 GB of RAM. And hey, if I need more it supports 256 GB. I'll never need more than 32 GBs myself but the 3970x is almost as fast for gaming as a $500 Intel 9900K while having more cores than I'd ever know what to do with anyway all for the relative bargain price of $2,000.
Last edited by Malloric; 12-11-2019 at 12:44 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
