Intel welcomes memory apocalypse with Xeon workstation refresh
(2026/02/02)
- Reference: 1770067811
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2026/02/02/intel_xeon_workstation/
- Source link:
Intel's workstation lineup is getting a much-needed refresh with the launch of its Xeon 600-series processors, boasting up to 86 cores and clocks topping 4.9 GHz. Chipzilla's timing couldn't be worse.
The memory-heavy workstation processors, which are based on last year’s Xeon 6700P series, arrive amid a supply chain crunch that has seen memory prices [1]skyrocket . Even a modest kit of DDR5 RDIMMs (8x 32GB) will set you back more than $4,000. That's up from around $1,500 just six months ago.
At the same time, extreme demand for Intel's datacenter class CPUs, which are commonly deployed in GPU servers, has seen the chipmaker [2]deprioritize its desktop and mobile processors to free up foundry capacity.
[3]
In spite of the macroeconomic headwinds, Intel's Xeon 600 workstation processors signal a return not just to the workstation arena, but in some respects, the high-end desktop CPU segment as well. This is a space where AMD has been effectively unchallenged for the past several generations.
[4]
[5]
Intel's last Xeon W processor — also known as the Sapphire Rapids refresh — [6]launched in mid-2024 and was based on the company's long-delayed 4th-gen Xeon scalable platform, which was originally supposed to arrive in late 2021.
Granite Rapids comes to the workstation
[7]
Here's a quick rundown of Intel's Xeon 600 processor lineup - Click to enlarge
The Xeon 600 lineup spans the gamut between 12 and 86 performance cores (no cut-down efficiency cores here), with support for between four and eight channels of DDR5 and 80 to 128 lanes of PCIe 5.0 connectivity.
Compared to its aging W-3500-series chips, Intel is claiming a 9 percent uplift in single threaded workloads and up to 61 percent higher performance in multithreaded jobs, thanks in no small part to an additional 22 processor cores this generation.
Having said that, Intel has managed this without increasing the platform's TDP, which still maxes out at 350W on the high end.
[8]
As you can see, while Xeon 600 promises strong generation improvements in some benchmarks, in others it actually falls behind the outgoing Xeon W - Click to enlarge
However, by Intel's own admission, performance varies wildly depending on the workload. Intel's SPEC Workstation 4.0 benchmarks show that 61 percent performance uplift was specific to financial services workloads. In some cases like product design, Intel's 86 core Xeon 698X actually underperformed its predecessor.
We suspect that this is down to the newer part trading clocks for core density, something that's not uncommon in power constrained server platforms. Intel's 64-core Xeon 696X likely performs better in the SPEC Workstation product design benchmark thanks to higher base and all-core clocks, but without data we can only speculate.
Taking on Threadripper, sort of
While Intel is keen to show off just how much its Xeon workstation offering has improved, Chipzilla still has AMD's Threadripper and Threadripper Pro platforms to contend with. These chips boast both [9]higher core clocks and core counts than Intel's Xeon 600 contenders.
Against the workstation leader, Intel says its new chips ... Well actually, Intel doesn't say anything. The pre-brief slides provided to The Register ahead of Monday's launch were conspicuously devoid of any Threadripper comparisons.
[10]
Looking at how Intel's more powerful 6900P family of processors fared against AMD's Turin Epycs (the basis for Threadripper 9000), it doesn't take much guesswork to figure out why.
FOSS-friendly pub Phoronix [11]showed that core-for-core, in nearly every scenario, AMD's Zen 5 cores outperformed Intel's, with the only exceptions for memory-bandwidth-bound and AMX-compatible workloads, where MRDIMM support gave the Xeon an edge.
"We're looking to be very competitive within the market, offering better performance per dollar for more value for the workstation spend," Jonathan Patton, who works on Intel's Client Product Marketing team, said during a press briefing when we highlighted the lack of Threadripper comparisons. "This is a very highly expandable platform. We have up to 4 TB of memory capacity supporting two DIMMs per channel. Our competitors do not."
[12]
As a quick reminder, just like Intel's 6700P series Granite Rapids Xeons announced last year, Xeon 600 supports up to eight channels of DDR5 memory running at 6,400 MT/s for RDIMMs or 8,000 MT/s for MRDIMMs, along with 128 lanes of PCIe 5.0 connectivity.
This puts the bulk of the Xeon 600 lineup in direct contention with AMD's Threadripper Pro family of products while offering support for more memory — 4 TB versus 2 TB — and faster memory. Threadripper doesn't yet support MRDIMMs.
But while Intel's workstation chips do support more memory, either platform is still prohibitively expensive. Four terabytes of 6,400 MT/s DDR5 RDIMMs will currently set you back [13]more than $70,000 .
Undercutting AMD
Memory winter aside, Patton is wise to highlight Xeon 600's expandability.
While core-for-core performance is still relevant, and the lack of comparisons to Threadripper is telling, for many compute performance is secondary to I/O, memory capacity, bandwidth, and of course, price.
In fact, consumer platforms often beat out workstation hardware on single-threaded performance, but that perf often comes at the expense of expandability.
[14]
For certain frequency optimized workloads, Intel says its Core-series Desktop chips may be the better option - Click to enlarge
The downside to client CPUs is they're typically limited to just two memory channels and between 24 and 28 PCIe lanes — enough for a high-end GPU, a couple of M.2 NVMe, and the chipset.
For those that need expandability more than raw performance, Intel's Xeon 600 workstation parts are priced to undercut AMD at nearly every level.
At the high end, Intel's Xeon 696X, its highest core-count CPU that you'll be able to buy boxed on store shelves, undercuts AMD's 9985WX by between $1,900 and $2,400 depending on [15]sale pricing .
However, for folks mostly interested in expandability – say for GPU workstations – lower core-count parts are likely to be more popular.
In that case, the Xeon 658X is still between $1,000 and $1,200 less expensive than AMD's 8-channel, 24-core Threadripper Pro 9965WX, depending on whether you can find a deal.
AMD's non-pro 9960X is closer in price, coming in at $200 less than the Xeon, but it's packing half the memory channels, 40 fewer PCIe lanes, and is rated for 100 watts higher power consumption.
So if you need the I/O and memory bandwidth more than raw performance, Intel's Xeon 600 platform appears quite aggressively priced.
[16]Intel unleashes Panther Lake CPUs, first built on 18A process
[17]AMD threatens to go medieval on Nvidia with Epyc and Instinct: What we know so far
[18]AMD clocks in with higher CPU speeds, leaves architecture untouched
[19]Intel puts consumer chip production on back burner as datacenters make a run on Xeons
The return of Intel HEDT? Not quite
All that I/O will be broken out by a new W890 chipset, which adds support for Wi-Fi 7. But, perhaps more importantly, Intel tells us, the motherboards should sell for only marginally more than its W790 boards did at launch.
[20]
Alongside the new chips, Intel also has a new chipset with Wi-Fi 7 connectivity - Click to enlarge
That's good news, as Intel isn't just launching high core-count Xeon workstation chips this time around. Its bottom three SKUs offer 12 to 16 cores but retain a significant amount of I/O. In this respect, these chips would fall neatly into the high-end desktop (HEDT) category if you could actually buy them outside of OEM and partner systems.
This is unfortunate, as the pricing is otherwise quite attractive at between $499 and $899. We suspect Intel may have had reservations about accidentally cannibalizing its mainstream Core-series Desktop chips, but it's a missed opportunity nonetheless.
Intel's Xeon 600-series processors are tentatively expected to hit the market later this spring. ®
Get our [21]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2025/12/20/memory_prices_dram/
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/23/intel_earnings_q4_2025/
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/systems&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aYEsj6CBdMEen3oeUohaowAAAQk&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/systems&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aYEsj6CBdMEen3oeUohaowAAAQk&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/systems&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aYEsj6CBdMEen3oeUohaowAAAQk&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://newsroom.intel.com/client-computing/intel-xeon-w-3500-w-2500-processor-family
[7] https://regmedia.co.uk/2026/01/30/xeon_600_skus.jpg
[8] https://regmedia.co.uk/2026/01/30/intel_xeon_600_perf.jpg
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/21/amd_threadripper_radeon_workstation/
[10] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/systems&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aYEsj6CBdMEen3oeUohaowAAAQk&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[11] https://www.phoronix.com/review/xeon-6980p-epyc-9755-2025
[12] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/systems&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aYEsj6CBdMEen3oeUohaowAAAQk&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[13] https://www.techpowerup.com/344472/4-tb-rdimm-ddr5-memory-kit-arrives-at-eye-watering-usd-70-000-price-tag
[14] https://regmedia.co.uk/2026/01/30/intel_xeon_600_vs_desktop.jpg
[15] https://www.microcenter.com/product/698656/amd-ryzen-threadripper-pro-9985wx-shimada-peak-32ghz-64-core-str5-boxed-processor-heatsink-not-included
[16] https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/05/intel_unleashes_panther_lake_cpus/
[17] https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/07/mi500x_amd_ai/
[18] https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/06/amd_ryzen_refresh/
[19] https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/23/intel_earnings_q4_2025/
[20] https://regmedia.co.uk/2026/01/30/intel_xeon_600_w890.jpg
[21] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
The memory-heavy workstation processors, which are based on last year’s Xeon 6700P series, arrive amid a supply chain crunch that has seen memory prices [1]skyrocket . Even a modest kit of DDR5 RDIMMs (8x 32GB) will set you back more than $4,000. That's up from around $1,500 just six months ago.
At the same time, extreme demand for Intel's datacenter class CPUs, which are commonly deployed in GPU servers, has seen the chipmaker [2]deprioritize its desktop and mobile processors to free up foundry capacity.
[3]
In spite of the macroeconomic headwinds, Intel's Xeon 600 workstation processors signal a return not just to the workstation arena, but in some respects, the high-end desktop CPU segment as well. This is a space where AMD has been effectively unchallenged for the past several generations.
[4]
[5]
Intel's last Xeon W processor — also known as the Sapphire Rapids refresh — [6]launched in mid-2024 and was based on the company's long-delayed 4th-gen Xeon scalable platform, which was originally supposed to arrive in late 2021.
Granite Rapids comes to the workstation
[7]
Here's a quick rundown of Intel's Xeon 600 processor lineup - Click to enlarge
The Xeon 600 lineup spans the gamut between 12 and 86 performance cores (no cut-down efficiency cores here), with support for between four and eight channels of DDR5 and 80 to 128 lanes of PCIe 5.0 connectivity.
Compared to its aging W-3500-series chips, Intel is claiming a 9 percent uplift in single threaded workloads and up to 61 percent higher performance in multithreaded jobs, thanks in no small part to an additional 22 processor cores this generation.
Having said that, Intel has managed this without increasing the platform's TDP, which still maxes out at 350W on the high end.
[8]
As you can see, while Xeon 600 promises strong generation improvements in some benchmarks, in others it actually falls behind the outgoing Xeon W - Click to enlarge
However, by Intel's own admission, performance varies wildly depending on the workload. Intel's SPEC Workstation 4.0 benchmarks show that 61 percent performance uplift was specific to financial services workloads. In some cases like product design, Intel's 86 core Xeon 698X actually underperformed its predecessor.
We suspect that this is down to the newer part trading clocks for core density, something that's not uncommon in power constrained server platforms. Intel's 64-core Xeon 696X likely performs better in the SPEC Workstation product design benchmark thanks to higher base and all-core clocks, but without data we can only speculate.
Taking on Threadripper, sort of
While Intel is keen to show off just how much its Xeon workstation offering has improved, Chipzilla still has AMD's Threadripper and Threadripper Pro platforms to contend with. These chips boast both [9]higher core clocks and core counts than Intel's Xeon 600 contenders.
Against the workstation leader, Intel says its new chips ... Well actually, Intel doesn't say anything. The pre-brief slides provided to The Register ahead of Monday's launch were conspicuously devoid of any Threadripper comparisons.
[10]
Looking at how Intel's more powerful 6900P family of processors fared against AMD's Turin Epycs (the basis for Threadripper 9000), it doesn't take much guesswork to figure out why.
FOSS-friendly pub Phoronix [11]showed that core-for-core, in nearly every scenario, AMD's Zen 5 cores outperformed Intel's, with the only exceptions for memory-bandwidth-bound and AMX-compatible workloads, where MRDIMM support gave the Xeon an edge.
"We're looking to be very competitive within the market, offering better performance per dollar for more value for the workstation spend," Jonathan Patton, who works on Intel's Client Product Marketing team, said during a press briefing when we highlighted the lack of Threadripper comparisons. "This is a very highly expandable platform. We have up to 4 TB of memory capacity supporting two DIMMs per channel. Our competitors do not."
[12]
As a quick reminder, just like Intel's 6700P series Granite Rapids Xeons announced last year, Xeon 600 supports up to eight channels of DDR5 memory running at 6,400 MT/s for RDIMMs or 8,000 MT/s for MRDIMMs, along with 128 lanes of PCIe 5.0 connectivity.
This puts the bulk of the Xeon 600 lineup in direct contention with AMD's Threadripper Pro family of products while offering support for more memory — 4 TB versus 2 TB — and faster memory. Threadripper doesn't yet support MRDIMMs.
But while Intel's workstation chips do support more memory, either platform is still prohibitively expensive. Four terabytes of 6,400 MT/s DDR5 RDIMMs will currently set you back [13]more than $70,000 .
Undercutting AMD
Memory winter aside, Patton is wise to highlight Xeon 600's expandability.
While core-for-core performance is still relevant, and the lack of comparisons to Threadripper is telling, for many compute performance is secondary to I/O, memory capacity, bandwidth, and of course, price.
In fact, consumer platforms often beat out workstation hardware on single-threaded performance, but that perf often comes at the expense of expandability.
[14]
For certain frequency optimized workloads, Intel says its Core-series Desktop chips may be the better option - Click to enlarge
The downside to client CPUs is they're typically limited to just two memory channels and between 24 and 28 PCIe lanes — enough for a high-end GPU, a couple of M.2 NVMe, and the chipset.
For those that need expandability more than raw performance, Intel's Xeon 600 workstation parts are priced to undercut AMD at nearly every level.
At the high end, Intel's Xeon 696X, its highest core-count CPU that you'll be able to buy boxed on store shelves, undercuts AMD's 9985WX by between $1,900 and $2,400 depending on [15]sale pricing .
However, for folks mostly interested in expandability – say for GPU workstations – lower core-count parts are likely to be more popular.
In that case, the Xeon 658X is still between $1,000 and $1,200 less expensive than AMD's 8-channel, 24-core Threadripper Pro 9965WX, depending on whether you can find a deal.
AMD's non-pro 9960X is closer in price, coming in at $200 less than the Xeon, but it's packing half the memory channels, 40 fewer PCIe lanes, and is rated for 100 watts higher power consumption.
So if you need the I/O and memory bandwidth more than raw performance, Intel's Xeon 600 platform appears quite aggressively priced.
[16]Intel unleashes Panther Lake CPUs, first built on 18A process
[17]AMD threatens to go medieval on Nvidia with Epyc and Instinct: What we know so far
[18]AMD clocks in with higher CPU speeds, leaves architecture untouched
[19]Intel puts consumer chip production on back burner as datacenters make a run on Xeons
The return of Intel HEDT? Not quite
All that I/O will be broken out by a new W890 chipset, which adds support for Wi-Fi 7. But, perhaps more importantly, Intel tells us, the motherboards should sell for only marginally more than its W790 boards did at launch.
[20]
Alongside the new chips, Intel also has a new chipset with Wi-Fi 7 connectivity - Click to enlarge
That's good news, as Intel isn't just launching high core-count Xeon workstation chips this time around. Its bottom three SKUs offer 12 to 16 cores but retain a significant amount of I/O. In this respect, these chips would fall neatly into the high-end desktop (HEDT) category if you could actually buy them outside of OEM and partner systems.
This is unfortunate, as the pricing is otherwise quite attractive at between $499 and $899. We suspect Intel may have had reservations about accidentally cannibalizing its mainstream Core-series Desktop chips, but it's a missed opportunity nonetheless.
Intel's Xeon 600-series processors are tentatively expected to hit the market later this spring. ®
Get our [21]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2025/12/20/memory_prices_dram/
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/23/intel_earnings_q4_2025/
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/systems&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aYEsj6CBdMEen3oeUohaowAAAQk&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/systems&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aYEsj6CBdMEen3oeUohaowAAAQk&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/systems&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aYEsj6CBdMEen3oeUohaowAAAQk&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://newsroom.intel.com/client-computing/intel-xeon-w-3500-w-2500-processor-family
[7] https://regmedia.co.uk/2026/01/30/xeon_600_skus.jpg
[8] https://regmedia.co.uk/2026/01/30/intel_xeon_600_perf.jpg
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/21/amd_threadripper_radeon_workstation/
[10] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/systems&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aYEsj6CBdMEen3oeUohaowAAAQk&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[11] https://www.phoronix.com/review/xeon-6980p-epyc-9755-2025
[12] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/systems&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aYEsj6CBdMEen3oeUohaowAAAQk&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[13] https://www.techpowerup.com/344472/4-tb-rdimm-ddr5-memory-kit-arrives-at-eye-watering-usd-70-000-price-tag
[14] https://regmedia.co.uk/2026/01/30/intel_xeon_600_vs_desktop.jpg
[15] https://www.microcenter.com/product/698656/amd-ryzen-threadripper-pro-9985wx-shimada-peak-32ghz-64-core-str5-boxed-processor-heatsink-not-included
[16] https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/05/intel_unleashes_panther_lake_cpus/
[17] https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/07/mi500x_amd_ai/
[18] https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/06/amd_ryzen_refresh/
[19] https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/23/intel_earnings_q4_2025/
[20] https://regmedia.co.uk/2026/01/30/intel_xeon_600_w890.jpg
[21] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Oh the old days
"Four terabytes of 6,400 MT/s DDR5 RDIMMs will currently set you back more than $70,000."
Back in 1990 I had 192MB (yes MB) of memory for the Compaq servers I was upgrading and that had just cost us £72,000.