Intel-Xeon-E5-2603-V4-1-7-GHz-LGA-2011-85W-6-Core $168

Az Syndicate

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 15, 2002
Messages
393
  • s-l64.jpg
  • s-l64.jpg
Intel Xeon E5-2603 V4 1.7 GHz LGA 2011 85W 6 Core


http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-5...29466&kwid=902099&mtid=824&kw=lg&toolid=11111
 
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
First we went to a E5-2643 v4 (6 Core). But then we decided more cores would be better with more cores and we are now happy with a E5-2643 v4 (10 core)
 
First we went to a E5-2643 v4 (6 Core). But then we decided more cores would be better with more cores and we are now happy with a E5-2643 v4 (10 core)
E5-2643 V4 10 core???

A typo I know.. That is the thing for my shops usage as well. Higher raw clock speed per core with less cores is far more useful than having a massive number of slower cores. I think many find out or realize after the fact that many multi-threaded applications will only really generate a certain amount of threads that can fully use a core at which point having more speed versus more cores becomes far more useful. I just wish the price premium on the higher clock speed parts was not so high. 2643 V4 processors are still incredibly expensive although 2643 V3 parts are much more reasonable. I've found that most systems that can run the V4 parts can also use the V3 parts just as well with very little performance difference. The main difference being slightly faster memory support (2400 vs 2133) and V4 parts have some new native codec capabilities for certain video uses.
 
bah, sorry. We had a 2643 6c, and instead went with 2640 10c to leverage more compute for our server. We are doing a lot of VM and core counts help a lot more than speed.

Now in some of our workstations we discovered it was much better to have the speed than the cores.
 
Back
Top