Intel's upcoming Xeon 7 "Diamond Rapids" server CPUs reportedly delayed to 2027 — Next-gen Coral Rapids lineup lands 2028 but can be accelerated, according to new leak

[-]

soggybiscuit93@reddit

How much of this delay is impacted by the fact that the 8 channel version, which would've likely launched first, got canceled, causing the DMR family to be delayed back to the launch of the 16 channel version vs poor execution on DCAI's part?

I imagine it's some combination of the two

[-]

Exist50@reddit

The 16ch version was probably supposed to be first. That's the hyperscaler one. And they probably cancelled it to consolidate effort, but it still wasn't enough.

[-]

Geddagod@reddit (OP)

The "Xeon 7" family was originally supposed to launch later this year, but new information from leaker Jaykihn suggests it's been pushed back to 2027.

Intel recently has been very squirrelly about when DMR is supposed to launch recently, so not looking good for this rumor to end up being false. Given how much of Intel's stock price and and also financial growth has come from server though, I would be surprised if Intel doesn't deny this publicly though. Even if it true that DMR is delayed, since Intel also denied the PTL delay rumors... which ended up being right.

but 512-core silicon will follow a few months later, both featuring 16-channel memory.

Using E-cores apparently. Still pretty hard to believe, IMO. Also, what's the per-core perf going to look like on a 512 core chip on \~600 watts? Per core perf may be less important on the dense skus, but hyperscalers may still want some baseline level of perf.

as the next-gen Coral Rapids lineup is said to bring back SMT

I think this also implies that we may see a next gen P-core, that is not unified core (since that's rumored for late 28' or delayed to 29'), bringing back SMT.

Speaking of which, Coral Rapids is apparently planned for a mid-2028 launch... However, the rollout can be called up and accelerated in response to market demand, as stated in Intel's recent quarterly earnings call

Makes earlier speculation of Coral Rapids using 14A highly unlikely IMO. Almost certainly some 18A variant instead.

If AMD is extremely aggressive on leading edge node adoption and TSMC executes well, there's a slim but kinda sad possibility that AMD will have a 2 node advantage for Coral Rapids vs Zen 7 Epyc (A14 vs 18A).

I have my doubts on Coral Rapids launching earlier than a year after DMR though. Especially after the same rumor claims DMR got delayed.

[-]

hakim37@reddit

I don't think you can say A14 is two nodes ahead of 18a (especially what will probaby be 18au) I know A16 exists but the jump of N2 and A14 is fairly typical for a single jump. Also AMD Florance will likely come out end of 2028 Vs potential early 2028 for Coral Rapids.

[-]

Interesting-Rock2474@reddit

I think it is about right intel 18a is a 3nm class node/ a future refinement of the 18a node will be at best 1,5 nodes behind A14

Should a EPYC come out with such a advantage it would be catastrophic for Intel

[-]

nonaveris@reddit

I’d like to see an EPYC that matches the Xeon Max 9480 for having onboard memory.

[-]

ElementII5@reddit

I’d like to see an EPYC that matches the Xeon Max 9480 for having onboard memory.

Matches? Cute... MI300C.

[-]

nonaveris@reddit

Well done. But was hoping there was a more accessible version - even if AMD doesn’t have Intel’s same oversupply that makes their high end processors accessible enough to mere mortals.

[-]

Exist50@reddit

I know A16 exists but the jump of N2 and A14 is fairly typical for a single jump.

So that would make it 2 nodes, no? N2 is a node ahead of 18A, and then A14 is a node ahead of N2.

[-]

hakim37@reddit

18a is better than N3 18au should be as good as N2

[-]

Geddagod@reddit (OP)

18A is around N3B. PTL die shots, and PTL perf/watt curves (per core) suggest as much.

I don't think 2 sub node improvements are going to get Intel on par with N2.

There are also obvious problems in just multiplying out cited perf/watt claims from Samsung, TSMC, and Intel to determine where the nodes are relative to each other. Which I'm assuming is what you are going to use to support your claim, but if it isn't, I would be very interesting in hearing your reasoning.

[-]

hakim37@reddit

I've been following you for a while and you definitely know a lot in this space so correct me if I'm wrong. I thought estimates show 18a has equivalent SRAM density to N2 and slight better logic density to N3P. Saying 18a is as good as N3B doesn't makes sense to me based on pantherlake being better than lunar lake. N3P will get 8% better performance than 18a which is a decent jump, no idea what 18au will add. But also N2 wasn't a huge jump from N3P all things considered.

[-]

Geddagod@reddit (OP)

I thought estimates show 18a has equivalent SRAM density to N2 and slight better logic density to N3P.

On paper, sure. In fact, the better SRAM density may be why the P-core in PTL shrunk very marginally. However there was very little change in the E-core area at all, and as I mentioned before, very minor shrink for the P-cores.

Check out Kurnal's die shot on twitter of PTL. I hope he manually grinds down the die for his upcoming PTL video (problems with BSPD in terms of taking good die pics).

Saying 18a is as good as N3B doesn't makes sense to me based on pantherlake being better than lunar lake

A PTL P-core, which is esentially the same arch as what's in LNL/ARL (LNC), has an extremely similar freq/power curve to ARL. What's even worse is that ARL-H uses 4? 3? fewer metal layers too than 18A.

N3P will get 8% better performance than 18a which is a decent jump, no idea what 18au will add. But also N2 wasn't a huge jump from N3P all things considered.

I'm assuming you mean 18A-P will get 8% better perf than 18A. The reason why I find sub node cited perf/watt claims very hard to believe is because we have no idea what IP or where on the v/f curve they are taking their points to get to their claims.

Plus, some stuff just doesn't pass the sniff test. Intel 10SF was claimed by Intel to be comparable to TSMC 7nm, does Intel 7's 10-15% perf/watt gain make it comparable to TSMC 5nm in perf/watt?

[-]

SlamedCards@reddit

Ok but Panther Lake uses only the HP library right?

Lunar Lake and Arrow Lake are the N3B HD?

[-]

Exist50@reddit

18a is better than N3

According to what? Certainly not any available evidence.

18au should be as good as N2

I don't know what node "18au" is supposed to be, but the gap between 18AP and N2 is big enough for Intel to feel compelled to use it for NVL.

[-]

Geddagod@reddit (OP)

I don't know what node "18au" is supposed to be

18A-U (prob for ultra), a successor to 18A-P.

[-]

I_ATE_RADAR@reddit

Dave talked about 14A volume production in 28 for internal products. So wouldn’t be surprised Coral Rapids ends up on 14A. But yeah, this adds execution risk for sure.

[-]

Capital-Froyo-4359@reddit

Intel hasn't been able to deliver a node on schedule in over a decade. I dunno why we even need to pretend like 2028 is gonna happen.

[-]

Geddagod@reddit (OP)

Dave talked about 14A volume production in 28 for internal products.

The language he uses is far from convincing though. But it's also cutting it very close. When's the last time Intel has said something is "ready" for "x" year and then it actually being ready at the very start of the year (sans delayed stuff like PTL moving from late 2025 to early 2026, same story with SPR)? Because that's esentially what has to happen for a mid 2028 launch, with the possibility of it being pulled in even further.

Plus, what are the chances the lead 14A product is a mainstream DC chip?

So wouldn’t be surprised Coral Rapids ends up on 14A.

Frankly, even when I assumed Coral Rapids was late 28', I was somewhat skeptical of it being on 14A because, as you said, execution risk.

However for this timeline to work out, Intel has to execute flawlessly, and be willing to hurt profitability/volume on yields. Since Intel also claims that they don't think external customers would want 14A to be used in HVM till 29'.

[-]

SlamedCards@reddit

External would be using 14AE vs 14A

Tho I think coral rapids is going to be 18AU node

[-]

Exist50@reddit

External would be using 14AE vs 14A

Have they said the first version of 14A will not be external? Thought they made a big fuss about it being designed to be a foundry node "from day 1", or something of the sort.

[-]

SlamedCards@reddit

It's not 'foundry enabled'. With 14A risk for Intel being 27, and 28 for external. Guess model is Intel front runs the first node and external uses the performance uplift variant

[-]

iDontSeedMyTorrents@reddit

LBT said 14A risk in '28 and volume in '29.

[-]

Geddagod@reddit (OP)

Zinsner rolled the back to risk in 27' and internal use in 28' after LBT made that claim in a later conference (IIRC the morgan stanley 2026 one earlier this year).

[-]

iDontSeedMyTorrents@reddit

Interesting, hadn't heard that. Did they say why? Or that LBT misspoke or anything?

[-]

Geddagod@reddit (OP)

Joe Moore, Analyst, Morgan Stanley: The timing has always sort of been risk production 2028, volume 2029. I know there was-
Dave Zinsner, CFO, Intel: Yeah
Joe Moore, Analyst, Morgan Stanley: -confusion maybe around the call, but that’s still the-
Dave Zinsner, CFO, Intel: That’s still the case. Now, that’s more a function of what customers want.
Joe Moore, Analyst, Morgan Stanley: Okay.
Dave Zinsner, CFO, Intel: We can pull it in. For our internal, demand there, we have the ability to go risk production in 27, which is likely what we’re going to do.
Joe Moore, Analyst, Morgan Stanley: Okay.
Dave Zinsner, CFO, Intel: I guess if a customer wanted to do that.
Joe Moore, Analyst, Morgan Stanley: Yeah

I'm assuming the "confusion maybe around the call" part is referencing to when LBT claimed different dates at the AI Cisco summit. Seems like they were claiming that LBT was talking about when external customers would likely use 14A vs when they would use it (since internal is more likely to accept worse yields just so foundry can move the node forward).

Here is the transcript.

[-]

iDontSeedMyTorrents@reddit

14A risk is now '28 with volume in '29, as per LBT.

[-]

soggybiscuit93@reddit

Assuming an ~80W uncore) to simplify the math, do we have any PTL E core performance at 1W scaling benchmarks to get an idea?

[-]

Geddagod@reddit (OP)

The PTL E-core doesn't even scale down to 1W per core T-T (based on it's power reporting).

The PTL LP E-core hits \~2GHz at that power in specint2017.

Data from Raichu on twitter.

[-]

Aw3som3Guy@reddit

512 E cores sounds entirely believable and possible to me, what part makes it sound unlikely to you? That’s only twice the core count of the P core variant, when the current max E core versions have more than 2x their equivalent P core parts, with Sierra Forrest in particular even managing that with less area.

I guess it’s a question of if they’d continue with making parts for that market, but no technical reasons why they couldn’t.

If it’s along the same lines as Clearwater Forest, I’d bet 16 chips of 32 E cores each? Where Clearwater Forest was what, 12 chips of 24 E cores each?

[-]

ShiftPrimeNet@reddit

the 512-core e-core part is the weirdest bit here. if diamond rapids really slips to 2027, coral rapids being "acceleratable" sounds more like roadmap damage control than a clean cadence.

[-]

JohnMLTX@reddit

Intel has been in roadmap damage control mode more or less continuously since kaby lake tho

[-]

kyralfie@reddit

since Haswell Devil's Canyon I'd say. Permanently. It's when 4790K was released due to 14nm delays.

[-]

JohnMLTX@reddit

oh yeah lol forgot about that fiasco too

and then we got 14nm+++++++++

[-]

themixtergames@reddit

🤖 great comment fellow human commenter

[-]

SirActionhaHAA@reddit

Dmr slipping to mid 2027 means no competition for venice for at least 3quarters. That's baaad.

[-]

Geddagod@reddit (OP)

Ai devouring all dc cpus means intel can probably still do good selling older gen stuff

I can not even imagine the type of market share losses Intel would have faced if the AI CPU shortage did not happen. They lucked out IMO.

[-]

Capital-Froyo-4359@reddit

Yeah, Intel is still as much a mess as ever. The only reason their stock is looking good is because AI boom means demand is sky high and AMD is supply constrained by TSMC.

[-]

JudgeCheezels@reddit

Just when INTC is picking up some massive steam…

[-]

ConsistencyWelder@reddit

When are they going to rename this sub to r/intel?

[-]

996forever@reddit

?

Never, Intel news is far from overrepresented on this sub compared to other venders.

[-]

dotfifty@reddit

Xeon 6 with DPU ist realky great.

[-]

996forever@reddit

So Venice will be much faster to the market

[-]

LordMohid@reddit

Welp, someone wants to exercise their puts next week it seems

[-]

imaginary_num6er@reddit

Following Sapphire Rapid's tradition, I see

[-]

laggedreaction@reddit

Wait, who thought it wasn’t coming out then??

[-]

ShiftPrimeNet@reddit

16-channel memory is the part that makes the 512 e-core rumor feel at least plausible, but pulling coral rapids forward still sounds like a stretch if dmr really slipped into 2027.

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

Hello Geddagod! Please double check that this submission is original reporting and is not an unverified rumor or repost that does not rise to the standards of /r/hardware. If this link is reporting on the work of another site/source or is an unverified rumor, please delete this submission. If this warning is in error, please report this comment and we will remove it.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.