A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » General Hardware
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Xeon 533 FSB or P4 800 FSB ? (Corrected post)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 4th 03, 11:26 PM
Manish M.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Xeon 533 FSB or P4 800 FSB ? (Corrected post)

Hi Guys,

I am planning to build a high performance workstation. So I know I want a
dual chip system with SCSI.

Form Intel's site it appears that Xeon is a better chip BUT the current
Xeon available here in Toronto is mainly 533 MHz FSB.

These days the P4 with 800 FSB AND higher clock rate is very common in fact.
So I am wondering weather I should really bother going with Xeon.

Xeon has parallel instruction (in some instructions) BUT then P4 is higher
FSB.

Also if I build the system on 800 FSB I can get a faster BUS on the
motherboard.

Another problem with Xeon is (I think not sure though) that it has different
pin config so I cannot move to P4 later if I want to .

Any comments ?

-Thanks
Manish M



  #2  
Old December 5th 03, 01:37 AM
John McGaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Manish M." wrote in message
. ..
Hi Guys,

I am planning to build a high performance workstation. So I know I want a
dual chip system with SCSI.

Form Intel's site it appears that Xeon is a better chip BUT the current
Xeon available here in Toronto is mainly 533 MHz FSB.

snip...
-Thanks
Manish M


My memory, admittedly vague at times, tells me that P4 chips cannot be used
in multi-processor systems as the P3 chips could. Have you considered a
single processor machine with one of the new "extreme" P4 processors? With
the 800mHz bus and huge cache they would seem to have the best of both
worlds for many tasks. Or, you might just consider going to one of the new
AMD 64-bit machines which seem to be really great performers. Performance is
roughly on par with (but often better than) the best Xenon systems depending
on the task. And there are a lot of great new MBs coming out to support
multi-processor configurations. Tom's Hardware http://www6.tomshardware.com/
has had a couple of test articles on various MBs using these chips. Their
most current test found one that they though very highly of.
--
John McGaw
[Knoxville, TN, USA]

Return address will not work. Please
reply in group or through my website:
http://johnmcgaw.com

  #3  
Old December 5th 03, 02:18 AM
Muttly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

If you were gonna go for an Athlon FX51, DON'T!!!! Wait a few weeks, maybe a
month or 2. This chip is being replaced. And its getting a slightly new
design that means to upgrade a FX51 will require a new motherboard. The new
FX53 has a different pin arrangement and will start at the same speed as the
51, but later a slower chip and faster ones will come online. When the 53 is
released the 51 will be finishing production as far as I know. While there
is no doubt its an excellent chip just be aware that its out of date a few
weeks after its release.
Martin.

"John McGaw" wrote in message
...
"Manish M." wrote in message
. ..
Hi Guys,

I am planning to build a high performance workstation. So I know I want

a
dual chip system with SCSI.

Form Intel's site it appears that Xeon is a better chip BUT the current
Xeon available here in Toronto is mainly 533 MHz FSB.

snip...
-Thanks
Manish M


My memory, admittedly vague at times, tells me that P4 chips cannot be

used
in multi-processor systems as the P3 chips could. Have you considered a
single processor machine with one of the new "extreme" P4 processors? With
the 800mHz bus and huge cache they would seem to have the best of both
worlds for many tasks. Or, you might just consider going to one of the new
AMD 64-bit machines which seem to be really great performers. Performance

is
roughly on par with (but often better than) the best Xenon systems

depending
on the task. And there are a lot of great new MBs coming out to support
multi-processor configurations. Tom's Hardware

http://www6.tomshardware.com/
has had a couple of test articles on various MBs using these chips. Their
most current test found one that they though very highly of.
--
John McGaw
[Knoxville, TN, USA]

Return address will not work. Please
reply in group or through my website:
http://johnmcgaw.com



  #4  
Old December 5th 03, 05:10 AM
Robert Myers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 17:26:02 -0500, "Manish M."
wrote:

Hi Guys,

I am planning to build a high performance workstation. So I know I want a
dual chip system with SCSI.

Form Intel's site it appears that Xeon is a better chip BUT the current
Xeon available here in Toronto is mainly 533 MHz FSB.

These days the P4 with 800 FSB AND higher clock rate is very common in fact.
So I am wondering weather I should really bother going with Xeon.

Xeon has parallel instruction (in some instructions) BUT then P4 is higher
FSB.

Also if I build the system on 800 FSB I can get a faster BUS on the
motherboard.

If you want a dual chip system, you're stuck with xeon. If you
rummage through Specbench CPU2000 results for HP and Intel:

http://see.sun.com/Apps/DCS/mcp?r=70...28rR0mLAKVLAe_

you can draw your own conclusion about relative performance. Of the
published results, the P4 3.2GHz 800MHz FSB is just about neck and
neck with Xeon 3.2GHz 533MHz FSB if the xeon has the 1 Megabyte L3
Cache. Dell Precision workstation with P4EE womps both of them on
CPU2000, which is a good predictor for technical workstations. That
is to say, a bigger cache makes up for a faster bus, but a bigger
cache with a faster bus is best of all. What a surprise. For the
P4EE you get about a 20% boost in performance for a single processor.
With hyperthreading and all, price no object, that would probably be
my choice. Be sure the credit line on your platinum card is in good
shape.

Another problem with Xeon is (I think not sure though) that it has different
pin config so I cannot move to P4 later if I want to .

You're asking about dual Xeon's and thinking about upgrading already?
If you're not going to wait for Prescott, don't even think about the
future. Make your decision on what you can buy today.

RM
  #5  
Old December 5th 03, 05:45 AM
*Vanguard*
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"John McGaw" wrote
in :
"Manish M." wrote in message
. ..
Hi Guys,

I am planning to build a high performance workstation. So I know I
want a dual chip system with SCSI.

Form Intel's site it appears that Xeon is a better chip BUT the
current Xeon available here in Toronto is mainly 533 MHz FSB.

snip...
-Thanks
Manish M


My memory, admittedly vague at times, tells me that P4 chips cannot
be used in multi-processor systems as the P3 chips could. Have you
considered a single processor machine with one of the new "extreme"
P4 processors? With the 800mHz bus and huge cache they would seem to
have the best of both worlds for many tasks. Or, you might just
consider going to one of the new AMD 64-bit machines which seem to be
really great performers. Performance is roughly on par with (but
often better than) the best Xenon systems depending on the task. And
there are a lot of great new MBs coming out to support
multi-processor configurations. Tom's Hardware
http://www6.tomshardware.com/ has had a couple of test articles on
various MBs using these chips. Their most current test found one that
they though very highly of.


"The Pentium 4 Extreme Edition is a reconfigured Xeon server chip
designed to work in a desktop, ...", according to InfoWorld
(http://snurl.com/39wd).

"Intel was able to beef up the caches quickly because the new Pentium 4
is actually the same basic chip as the Xeon MP with 2MB of level-three
cache, a chip for multiprocessor servers that has been on the market for
months.", according to News.com (http://snurl.com/39wg) and ZdNet
(http://snurl.com/39wh).

The Pentium 4 Extreme is *NOT* Intel's next Intel Pentium 5 (dubbed
Prescott). It's a repackaged processor they already had! They wanted
to fold the Xeon family under the much better known Pentium 4 brand
name. You haven't gotten used to Microsoft's hype yet? Athlon finally
comes out with their 65-bit processor and steals the news, so Microsoft
takes an existing 64-bit processor that they've had for awhile and slaps
on a new name to give it some press to dampen Athlon's thunder. They
wanted something to announce for the Christmas crowd.

If you don't have applications and games that actually support dual
processors then it's a waste of money to build a system for software you
don't even have yet or won't be using. Same goes for Intel's
hyperthreading (when you hit the store, how many software boxes do you
see "P4 Hyperthreaded Enabled"?). And some applications, and
*especially* games will NOT run with dual processors and/or
hyperthreading. You have to specify that the game's process run only
under one processor or hyperthreaded model (so the other processor sits
idle).

--
__________________________________________________ __________
*** Post replies to newsgroup. E-mail is not accepted. ***
__________________________________________________ __________



  #6  
Old December 5th 03, 06:14 AM
daytripper
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 04:45:35 GMT, "*Vanguard*"
wrote:

"The Pentium 4 Extreme Edition is a reconfigured Xeon server chip
designed to work in a desktop, ...", according to InfoWorld
(http://snurl.com/39wd).


Well, now that it's public....It's a Gallatin processor with the MP 'nads
castrated...

/daytripper (It's all marketing magic ;-)
  #7  
Old December 5th 03, 08:34 AM
jamotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Manish M." wrote in message ...
Hi Guys,

I am planning to build a high performance workstation. So I know I want a
dual chip system with SCSI.

Form Intel's site it appears that Xeon is a better chip BUT the current
Xeon available here in Toronto is mainly 533 MHz FSB.

These days the P4 with 800 FSB AND higher clock rate is very common in fact.
So I am wondering weather I should really bother going with Xeon.

Xeon has parallel instruction (in some instructions) BUT then P4 is higher
FSB.

Also if I build the system on 800 FSB I can get a faster BUS on the
motherboard.

Another problem with Xeon is (I think not sure though) that it has different
pin config so I cannot move to P4 later if I want to .

Any comments ?

-Thanks
Manish M


You should look into the P4's with the HT (hyperthreading tech.) HT
seem's to be very similar to Parallel Instruction execution. I think
you would also get the 800MHz FSB. The 800MHz FSB will only help you
if you use memory intensive apps. If you are running ONLY business
apps then AMD's Athlon XP's might be better/cheaper. Go here
http://www.rojakpot.com/ to see some benchmarks.
If money is no object then look into the Athlon 64 chips.

Also unless you need to daisy chain 7-14 drives or the queueing
abilities. IDE ATA133 should be cheaper and most Motherboards have
RAID controllers that support levels 0 and 1. Or look into SATA150
RAID.

good luck building your computer
  #8  
Old December 5th 03, 08:56 AM
David Schwartz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"*Vanguard*" wrote in message
news:P3Uzb.231556$Dw6.818793@attbi_s02...

[snip stuff about the P4 extreme that I agree with]

If you don't have applications and games that actually support dual
processors then it's a waste of money to build a system for software you
don't even have yet or won't be using.


No specific application support is needed for dual processors. The OS
has sufficient support to get much of the benefit of dual processors whether
or not the application was designed with dual processors in mind.

Same goes for Intel's
hyperthreading (when you hit the store, how many software boxes do you
see "P4 Hyperthreaded Enabled"?).


No need for the software to know about HT. The OS makes it mostly
invisible. There are some very obscure exceptions (for example, if the
application implements its own spinlocks), but they just sap performance a
bit, they're not fatal.

And some applications, and
*especially* games will NOT run with dual processors and/or
hyperthreading.


I have heard only a single example of a program that didn't work
correctly on an SMP machine and that wasn't a game. I also know of one
driver, but an alternate driver was available. Do you have any examples to
back this up?

You have to specify that the game's process run only
under one processor or hyperthreaded model (so the other processor sits
idle).


The other processor will not sit idle. It will do all the other things
that need to be done. The graphics driver will use it. The disk driver will
use it. The network driver will use it. In fact, you may see a very
significant benefit as the game application isn't constantly interrupted to
service peripherals.

DS


  #9  
Old December 5th 03, 10:20 AM
kony
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 23:56:22 -0800, "David Schwartz"
wrote:

snip, snip


"*Vanguard*" wrote in message
news:P3Uzb.231556$Dw6.818793@attbi_s02...

[snip stuff about the P4 extreme that I agree with]

If you don't have applications and games that actually support dual
processors then it's a waste of money to build a system for software you
don't even have yet or won't be using.


No specific application support is needed for dual processors. The OS
has sufficient support to get much of the benefit of dual processors whether
or not the application was designed with dual processors in mind.


Nope, most people aren't running more than one processor-intensive
application at a time, so the 2nd CPU would be barely used if the
(whole purpose of the workstation) application support isn't there.
For those who are running multiple intensive applications the better
solution is a 2nd system.


The other processor will not sit idle. It will do all the other things
that need to be done. The graphics driver will use it. The disk driver will
use it. The network driver will use it. In fact, you may see a very
significant benefit as the game application isn't constantly interrupted to
service peripherals.


In fact, the benefit is slim-to-none, even a performance decrease in
Quake 3: http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/200...l_xeon-12.html

Dual CPUs are ideal for a high-end workstation running the right apps,
but not worthwhile for any box appropriately called a "PC".


Dave
  #10  
Old December 5th 03, 10:28 AM
David Schwartz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"kony" wrote in message
...

Dual CPUs are ideal for a high-end workstation running the right apps,
but not worthwhile for any box appropriately called a "PC".


I have strong anecdotal evidence to the contrary. In a previous thread
on a similar subject, numerous people posted that they've switched to
multiprocessor PCs for normal desktop use and have no intention of ever
switching back. The difference is huge.

DS


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
VRM on ebay Richard Compaq Computers 0 February 16th 04 10:31 PM
726131322574 money 726131322574 RASCH Asus Motherboards 0 February 15th 04 04:57 AM
<> XEON PROCESSORS AND MEMORY Alexander Gorban Packard Bell Computers 0 October 24th 03 07:05 AM
<> XEON PROCESSORS AND MEMORY Alexander Gorban Gateway Computers 0 October 24th 03 07:04 AM
<> XEON PROCESSORS AND MEMORY Alexander Gorban Compaq Servers 0 October 23rd 03 08:48 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.