On Sep 13, 2:02 pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:15:08 -0400, 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?

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.

To be sure I'd get the most out of these processors, I'd want 64-bit
support so I'm planning on Windows XP x64 (I will NOT do DRM with
Vista). Linux would be an option if a Windows virtual machine will
work on it easily (I don't have time to fool around with i)t. Are
programs generally compatible with x64, or are there issues?

Advice and/or references appreciated!
thanks
tbone

Ever looked at Opteron?http://anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3091
Latest 4 core (Barcelona) appears to be faster than comparably priced
Xeon (or cheaper than equally performing one). Put 2 of them on a 4x4
board - that'll make 8 cores - more than enough headroom for the next
couple of years. Comparable Intel setup will cost much more due to
more expensive board, and you'll have to deal with FB RAM that is
expensive and produces lots of heat, especially in config over 4GB.

Erm - the Core2Duo is vastly faster than Barcelona for compiling
stuff.

DK