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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Core 2 vs Xeon for development use
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Core 2 vs Xeon for development use
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. NNN |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Core 2 vs Xeon for development use
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? No real functional differences between Xeons or Core 2's, they are really the same chips. The Xeons come with more support (warranty) for a server environment. They are often equipped with more cache (though that's not the case in Core 2 vs. Core 2-based Xeon). Yousuf Khan |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Core 2 vs Xeon for development use
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Core 2 vs Xeon for development use
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:40:12 -0000, David Kanter
wrote: 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 I have no idea as to what exactly you are compiling - but from my own experience I can tell that my 3 year old dual Opty248 (2.2GHz) rig at home compiles MS VS 2005 solutions (C#) faster than brand spanking new Dell with Core2Duo 2.0GHz I have at work - and the Dell has 2x the memory and faster HDD. No, I didn't run any benchmarks, but the delay is noticeable by naked eye. Both boxes run WinXP Pro SP2 32bit and the same version of VS2005 (.NET framework v2.0.50727). IMHO, Core2Duo has no chance against 4 core Barcelona if the thing they run is well multithreaded and can span all 4 cores. Core2Quad is a closer comparison. NNN |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Core 2 vs Xeon for development use
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) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Intel Xeon Quad Core Processor | Corso | General | 2 | June 27th 07 07:13 AM |
Quad Core Xeon plus Dual Core Xeon? | Gerry_uk | General | 11 | May 5th 07 12:39 AM |
Dual-Core Xeon vs 2 seperate Xeon on Motherboard | [email protected] | Intel | 6 | May 2nd 06 05:39 PM |
Server Question RE Dual Core vs Xeon | Robert R Kircher, Jr. | Dell Computers | 0 | January 20th 06 10:52 PM |
Intel releases dual-core Xeon finally | YKhan | Intel | 23 | October 16th 05 10:46 AM |