tbone wrote:
I'm trying to understand the significant differences are between the
normal workstation-type processors (Core 2 Duo, Extreme) and the
comparable core-count Xeon chips. Xeons appear to be oriented to
server use; why is that?

Xeon 3000 is just repackaged Core 2, although some of the lower-clock-speed
quad core ones don't have comparable Core 2 Quad models. The difference is
just marketing.

Xeon 51xx/53xx is a dual-socket capable Core 2

I'm looking into getting a new machine. This is not for gaming; it is
for my main development/daily use machine where I run 20-30 apps
concurrently all day long, including file sharing, compilers, music
playback, disk backup, photo editing, and more. Dell offers machines
with both Core 2 Duo and Dual-core Xeon.

Would Xeon be a better choice for me? I'm pretty sure quad core would
be pretty effective for my use.

There are two advantages to dual sockets with Xeon 51xx/53xx over Core 2:
* the total memory bandwidth will be higher, if you use a quad-channel
memory configuration.
* you can get a total of 8 cores in a dual-socket/quad-core Xeon 53xx
setup.

Also, in most cases the total memory configurable for dual-socket systems is
higher, but that's not an inherent advantage to the Xeons - just a typical
motherboard design decision.

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/

"What's the use of yearning for Elysian Fields when you know you can't get
'em, and would only let 'em out on building leases if you had 'em?" (WSG)