![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
conroe: core2 or xeon?
- Thread starter spy2520
- Start date
ribs1 said:
I'm pretty sure he's referring to the 30x0 series Xeons which are Conroe core and LGA775.
They should work without an issue, but it is interesting to see if they have similar or superior overclocking capability. I hope someone here actually has one and an answer.
i am referring to the conroe-based xeons, not the older ones...
if i had to take a guess at my own question, i'd say that xeons would probably be better in a high stress full time environment, and the core2 would be better for overclocking and normal desktop stuff...the price isnt much different so i dont know why this question doesnt come up more often though.
if i had to take a guess at my own question, i'd say that xeons would probably be better in a high stress full time environment, and the core2 would be better for overclocking and normal desktop stuff...the price isnt much different so i dont know why this question doesnt come up more often though.
RogerTheEngineer
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2004
- Messages
- 668
I have to wonder if the 775 Xeons will turn out like the 939 Opterons...
SuperSubZero
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2000
- Messages
- 3,780
Overclocking isn't high stress? Normal desktops aren't on full time?spy2520 said:
(see why this is so confusing?)
baronzemo78
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2006
- Messages
- 68
I've asked this question as well and am curious. Over at extremesystems they seem to think that the Xeons are better but I haven't seen much more then minor anectodal evidence. I'd like for some [H] people to give their opinions on the matter.
newls1
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,628
From what I can gather on the Xeon chips is that you have a MUCH better chance of getting a "B" series chip. Lower voltage OCing potential. There binned higher more then likely.
I'm running a xeon 3060 on an evga 680i board. Mine hit 3.6 without alot of effort but I backed it down to 3.55 because it required alot less vcore than 3.6.
So yes, the 30x0 series works just fine on desktop 775 boards.
Yeah, those guys getting 4.2 to 4.4 on air but they've also got E6600's doing that too.
Either way, I figured the $20 difference was worth the head start for a chip already running at 2.4 with lower voltage.
So yes, the 30x0 series works just fine on desktop 775 boards.
baronzemo78 said:
Yeah, those guys getting 4.2 to 4.4 on air but they've also got E6600's doing that too.
Either way, I figured the $20 difference was worth the head start for a chip already running at 2.4 with lower voltage.
SuperSubZero
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2000
- Messages
- 3,780
A standard non-OC'd Core 2 Duo can't run 100% load full time?spy2520 said:
SuperSubZero said:
thats not what i'm saying, i mean something more along the lines of a diesel engine vs. a gas engine, where diesels can run long and hard at moderate rpms, and gas engines are slightly high maintenance but spin up very high. dont forget this is just a guess, i think i said something like "if i had to take a guess i'd say..."
but feel free to fill me in on the actual differences and purposes of the chips if you know...
hey, im new to the forum, but not to computers. i have worked extensively at the architectural level with CPU's, especially 939 and LGA775. The architecture matters just as much as the speed, cache, etc.
The Conroe Xeon is for servers. Its instruction set and architecture is designed for the highest efficiency in operations. Thus it is better than C2D conroe for mathematical processes and EXTREME number crunching without error. However, the Conroe's instruction set is of an entirely different nature, making it better for regular applications, multimedia, as well as games. The difference is not stark; however basically you want the C2D conroe (im guessing most of you aren't using this for a server to calculate stuff for your business
). ALSO, since i love overclocking and i bet u do too, , the conroe xeon's do not overclock as well. Their L3 (THATS RIGHT, L3) cache makes this so. Let me explain this. I dont care what newegg says, or CPU-Z, neither are Intel. L3 cache is closer to the memory (L1-L2-L3-System Drives-System RAM) so this also makes xeon better with calculations. Yet, there is more latency from L3 to the two cores, than L2, so it is a bit worse at gaming and regular app. multitasking. This L3's latency also makes for a bit more instability when overclocking. HOWEVER, they run cooler. so they are less stable OVERCLOCKED (more stable stock) but run cooler and are more power efficient.
my intention is to bust all teh myths and rumors of xeon and c2d with facts.
The Conroe Xeon is for servers. Its instruction set and architecture is designed for the highest efficiency in operations. Thus it is better than C2D conroe for mathematical processes and EXTREME number crunching without error. However, the Conroe's instruction set is of an entirely different nature, making it better for regular applications, multimedia, as well as games. The difference is not stark; however basically you want the C2D conroe (im guessing most of you aren't using this for a server to calculate stuff for your business
). ALSO, since i love overclocking and i bet u do too, , the conroe xeon's do not overclock as well. Their L3 (THATS RIGHT, L3) cache makes this so. Let me explain this. I dont care what newegg says, or CPU-Z, neither are Intel. L3 cache is closer to the memory (L1-L2-L3-System Drives-System RAM) so this also makes xeon better with calculations. Yet, there is more latency from L3 to the two cores, than L2, so it is a bit worse at gaming and regular app. multitasking. This L3's latency also makes for a bit more instability when overclocking. HOWEVER, they run cooler. so they are less stable OVERCLOCKED (more stable stock) but run cooler and are more power efficient. my intention is to bust all teh myths and rumors of xeon and c2d with facts.
theelectic
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2006
- Messages
- 362
amd0freak said:hey, im new to the forum, but not to computers. i have worked extensively at the architectural level with CPU's, especially 939 and LGA775. The architecture matters just as much as the speed, cache, etc.
The Conroe Xeon is for servers. Its instruction set and architecture is designed for the highest efficiency in operations. Thus it is better than C2D conroe for mathematical processes and EXTREME number crunching without error. However, the Conroe's instruction set is of an entirely different nature, making it better for regular applications, multimedia, as well as games. The difference is not stark; however basically you want the C2D conroe (im guessing most of you aren't using this for a server to calculate stuff for your business
my intention is to bust all teh myths and rumors of xeon and c2d with facts.
You haven't really provided any facts. At least in terms of benchmarks or datasheets or anything that can be backed up with hard data.
I know Intel specs the 3000 series Xeons as having no L2 and 2MB or 4MB of L3, and specs the Core 2 Duos as having 2MB or 4MB of L2 and no L3. See here:
http://indigo.intel.com/compare_cpu/showchart.aspx?mmID=884355&familyID=1&culture=en-US
http://indigo.intel.com/compare_cpu/showchart.aspx?mmID=885515&familyID=5&culture=en-US
I would like to see some evidence of how the C2D's instruction set is markedly different from the corresponding Xeon - like E6300 to 3040.
theelectic
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2006
- Messages
- 362
theelectic said:
Never mind, I found it:
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1030109080&postcount=10
Since i founfdthis thread, I new to the Conroes, and im going build my dad a Conroe system. He won't be playing games. but mostly Word processing and Image Editing. And what i got out of this thread. between these 2 chips Intel Xeon 3040 Conroe 1.86GHz 2M shared L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor and the Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 Conroe 1.86GHz 2M shared L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor. The E6300 would be the best one for the work he is going to do right?
theelectic
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2006
- Messages
- 362
Fee said:
If you want dual core, yes. OTOH, if he's only going to be using Word and something like Photoshop Elements, you might do well to go real cheap and build an AM2 Athlon 64 single core system.
theelectic
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2006
- Messages
- 362
Fee said:
Oh it's definitely a good performer for the price, but think who you're buying it for. Is Dad even going to stress a dual core at all? Heavy multitasking? Massive use of multi-threaded Photoshop filters? We're getting way OT (best to start a new thread if you like) but an AM2 A64 and mobo would run less than the price of the E6300 alone. Then put that $100 you save towards more RAM or a bigger HD.
If he has any intention at all of editing video in the future, then I would definitely go with the dual core... otherwise I would bet a single core, even if it doesn't have the latest greatest technology fuzzy feeling attached to it, would be more than adequate.
The only difference is that
Xeons:
L3 Cache
Different instruction set
Support for multiple processors
C2D:
L2 Cache
Different instruction set
Single processor only
Almost no price difference, but the instruction set on the Xeons give you a huge advantage in floating point number computations, while the C2D's instruction set is aimed at normal desktop activities, it's not designed to crunch huge number sets
Xeons:
L3 Cache
Different instruction set
Support for multiple processors
C2D:
L2 Cache
Different instruction set
Single processor only
Almost no price difference, but the instruction set on the Xeons give you a huge advantage in floating point number computations, while the C2D's instruction set is aimed at normal desktop activities, it's not designed to crunch huge number sets
theelectic
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2006
- Messages
- 362
Xeon 3000 series is single processor only, if you want dual processor you need to step up to the 5000 series.
yeah you can look it up in the intel 64-bit cpu instruction booklet, it explains all sorts of instruction sets for hardware, i dont have a copy but im sure u can find it online...um....i cant remember the name exactly but something like 64-bit cpu instruction set book..theelectic said:
spy2520 said:
C2D has a performance gain in the desktop environment because of the particular instruction set they gave it.
The Xeon is a better multi-tasker, but the memory latency and "enhanced floating point instruction set" is designed for server use (ie. Not gaming)
The Xeon would probably not be as good of an overclocker, but it would be more stable at stock speeds then the C2D.
And I will correct myself, The 3000 Series does not support Multi-Processor, my fault.
To wrap it all up, if you're building a desktop, buy a C2D
but if you're building a small-medium server, buy a Xeon
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,205
Slightly off topic I know but just out of curiosity, Do the Athlons have a different instruction set than the Opterons?
theelectic
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2006
- Messages
- 362
LOL y'all make it sound like the Core 2 Duo can't do complex math calculations, and the Xeon 3000 sucks at games.
What I really want to see is some Core 2 Duo vs Xeon 3000 benchmarks, in the same mobo/chipset with the same RAM, stock clocks, running server oriented benchmarks and games. If the difference between them is more than 5% on average I would be stunned.
What I really want to see is some Core 2 Duo vs Xeon 3000 benchmarks, in the same mobo/chipset with the same RAM, stock clocks, running server oriented benchmarks and games. If the difference between them is more than 5% on average I would be stunned.
we are saying that the xeon is BETTER at calculations and that C2D is BETTER in games. the instruction sets are the reason for this. xeons have a special instruction set for floating point calculations which helps for server multitasking (i.e. workstation)
it COULD be used for gaming and it would PWN at it, however, teh C2d is better at the same frequency.
xeon runs COOLER, more power efficient, and more STABLE at stock whereas the C2D can be overclocked more. the increased latency of the xeon due to L3 is partially responsible for this.
the benchmarks that i have seen from Xtreme Systems (XS) seem to show small differences, but noticable. the gaming difference is not that noticable in FPS during games so much as during benchmarking tests so maybe thats not a big deal. however the differnce in efficiency with calculating numbers is a slightly bigger, albeit still small difference, in favor of the xeon having 99% efficiency whereas the c2d had 88%.
it COULD be used for gaming and it would PWN at it, however, teh C2d is better at the same frequency.
xeon runs COOLER, more power efficient, and more STABLE at stock whereas the C2D can be overclocked more. the increased latency of the xeon due to L3 is partially responsible for this.
the benchmarks that i have seen from Xtreme Systems (XS) seem to show small differences, but noticable. the gaming difference is not that noticable in FPS during games so much as during benchmarking tests so maybe thats not a big deal. however the differnce in efficiency with calculating numbers is a slightly bigger, albeit still small difference, in favor of the xeon having 99% efficiency whereas the c2d had 88%.