CPU: Personal or Enterprise Class??

[exitstageleft]

If I was to build a whole new system and given that I want to use that computer to perform the following functions (individually or simultaneously):
-gaming (from Oblivion to Zoombinis)
-ripping (audio, DVD)
-web browsing(ff and ie)
-vmware (usu. just one guest)
-excel(3-10 sheets opened at once)
-winrar-ing (creating gig sized winrars)
-defragging (o&o)

...will someone please take the time to explain to me why, given stated computer usage from above, I should choose to buy a "home desktop" processor (athlon or core2ext) rather than an "enterprise/business desktop" (xeon or opteron) processor? What benefits would I get?
As I could spend virtually the same amount of money for either in comparison:
$929.50 core 2 extreme x6800 2.93ghz
$899.00 opteron 856
$678.56 xeon 5150 dual-core 2.66ghz
$669.50 athlon fx-62

Sincerely,
Exitstageleft

--What is a didact anyway?

 

[sabregen]

I'm not the type to memory how many registers each cpu core type has, how deep the branch prediction goes, etc. What all that stuff comes down to eventually is the computing experience that is provided. On servers, they are usually sitting on a rack, 1 of 100 nodes (not a realistic figure, just figurative), churning away data and requests for databases, web pages, sending e-mail, etc.

Personal computers play games, run office applications, do the web surfing, music ripping, DVD watching...I'm rambling here. The point is, server CPU's are very good at what they do. And generally speaking, what they do is push a lot of really small (data size reference) requests very quickly. This is why they have larger amounts of cache in general. If the CPU can grab the information, or instruction set for a particular routine or request from its cache, instead of RAM or the HDD, so much the better. Cache is going to be in order of magnitudes, 10 times faster than RAM, which is in the order of more than 10 times faster than accessing the HDD. More cache = more of a chance of getting the information quicker.

Now, that is not to say that ONLY server benefit from larger cache, but to be quite honest, a lot of people seem to get the impression that they "have server type usage patterns." They're wrong. Get a group of 100 users to request the same operation from your desktop machine at the same time, and see how well you desktop holds up. It won't, plain and simple. Servers run enterprise class storage, connected to enterprise class storage controllers (with their own embedded CPU and RAM on the controller), have multiple processors with multiple cores, run multi-threaded OS's, and have a ton of RAM to keep the processing as fast as possible, to churn through the vast amount of requests that are generated.

For desktop users, and perhaps more specifically, your uses, it would be most likely that you would be best served by a dual core CPU. Windows XP can load balance between cores for optimum performance in applications that support multiple threads. Given your stated intentions, I would say a desktop dual core processor would suit your needs. The server type chips will show a performance increase, sure...but for the money difference, that's up to you. Of course, you could have the best of both worlds...a dual core Opteron with 1mb cache per core, or a Core 2 Duo CPU.

to be honest, it's a tough call. If you have the dough, and think it will help, then go for it. Ultimately, only you can decide what you will buy. I have rambled enough, hopefully you have something to think about now.

 

[exitstageleft]

Of course, you could have the best of both worlds...a dual core Opteron with 1mb cache per core, or a Core 2 Duo CPU.

That's what I'm talking about. Dual core Opteron or Core2Duo.. ?? I'm guessing with what I want to do I wouldn't get more bang for shelling out for the Opteron.

...now, Core2Duo or wait for next AMD...that's the new question...


Thanks for taking the time to reply. Much appreciated.

 

[NulloModo]

An Opteron vs. an A64 X2 and a C2Duo vs. a 3xxx (might have that number wrong, whatever the Socket S775 Conroe/Allendale Xeons are) or 51xx series Xeon are the exact same core, cache, and performance for all intents and purposes when running applications.

With the Xeon DPs (the 51xx series) or the Opteron MPs (2xx is dual slot capable, 8xx is 4 way or 8 way as far as I recall) you have the option of running multiple chips, each with multiple CPU cores. You won't have much of an advantage in current games, but archiving and DVD-ripping/encoding will scale incredible well. However, with a multi-chip setup you will also have to invest in more expensive ECC DIMMs or FB-DIMMs for an Intel setup, you also have to pay for a more expensive motherboard, and the added cost of the extra processors. Most of these workstation/server/enterprise boards also lack the OCing features and things like SLi and Crossfire support seen on enthusiast boards.

Bottom line is, unless you are willing to invest a lot of cash up front and go with a multi-processor (different from multi-core in that with 2 dual core chips (a multi-processor system) you have 4 cores, with a standard uniprocessor dual-core system, you have two cores), there is no reason you go with an Opteron 2xx or 8xx series chip, or an Intel Xeon Woodcrest model. There are also Opteron 1xx series chips and Conroe/Allendale Xeon chips floating around, which are physically identical in every way to their 'home user' counterparts.

The C2D 6800EE is operpriced, as is A64 FX-62. Your far best bang for the buck right now is the C2D E6600, which goes for around $300, beats the FX-62 or fastest Opteron out of the box, and can OC to speeds above that of the C2D 6800 on an inexpensive air heatsink.

 

[engiNURD]

...will someone please take the time to explain to me why, given stated computer usage from above, I should choose to buy a "home desktop" processor (athlon or core2ext) rather than an "enterprise/business desktop" (xeon or opteron) processor? What benefits would I get?

Because even if you spend $900 on a CPU instead of $300, you won't see that much performance gain... so you might as well spend your money wisely and get the best performance for the lowest price, which would be the E6600.

 

[exitstageleft]

Thanks all...your advice is duly noted!

 

[theelectic]

Now, that is not to say that ONLY server benefit from larger cache, but to be quite honest, a lot of people seem to get the impression that they "have server type usage patterns." They're wrong.

Excellent point. Pretty much nobody who uses their desktop all day has server type usage patterns. I don't care how much you multitask - I push my hardware pretty hard, and the closest thing to server usage I experience is when I have MCE recording two analog TV streams, streaming another recorded stream to another computer or two in the house, while trying to download a large file or do anything that even remotely taxes the CPU or HD, then the system slows to a crawl. Even then if I back off on one thing it can do three things at once. Only then do I wish for 15k SCSI drives and CPUs with huge caches, but then I remember the $ is better spent on more HDs to store episodes of cooking shows (don't ask).

There was a great article on this on Storage Review but I can't find it anymore. Anyone have better bookmarks?

 

[Whatsisname]

The main reason someone should use enterprise class hardware is not performance, it is reliability.