Why do you pay $5000 for an Intel Xeon?

[Charlie Clarke]

I was looking at PC Part Picker and an AMD A6-6420K costs $75 and is 4Ghz. Then the Intel Xeon E5-2699 V3 costs $5149 and it is 2.3Ghz. I know there are major quality differences etc, but holy crap thats a large price and Gigahertz difference.

[Ivyk]

More Ghz does NOT mean better performance... 

[-TesseracT-]

The Xeon has far more and better cores.

[HmmR]

its for server grade hardware

a gamer wont say i wish my player was 0.002 decimals left so it would be perfect

 

servers need precision like minecraft servers if a small error happens the entire srver might be down for some time 

[dizmo]

They're not really meant for consumers.

[minibois]

You can't exactly compare CPU's in GHz...

XEONs are also meant for different stuff.

 

By the way, the AMD one has 2 cores and the XEON has 18 cores. And 36 total because hyperthreading...

@Charlie Clarke

[J_DeMan]

features that you and I don't care about.

[Si3Rra_7]

This is funny.

it depends on architecture for example

8350 8 core 4.5ghz <<<<<<< i7 5960x 8 core 4.5ghz

[BurgerBum]

because that little apu/cpu is worth 75 dollars and that xeon is worth the 5k. 

plain and simple they have different uses, and the one that the xeon is used in is for people who have a shitton of moeny to spend.

[Statik]

Man, if CPUs were compared by GHz my 8320 would be at 5.0GHz months ago, and I would be laughing at all you intel fools.

[BurgerBum]

Man, if CPUs were compared by GHz my 8320 would be at 5.0GHz months ago, and I would be laughing at all you intel fools.

if GHz was the only thing that mattered i'd have my sempy 145 at 8.97 like me and a friend got it a few months back. (combination of stolent ln2 drugs and ice. dont ask) (mind you we melted the motherboard and set fire to the whole setup but the twelve seconds that we saw those three digits were fucking amazing) 

 

because, really architexture and eficiency dont matter if you can get it going fast enough. 

 

 

 

 

the thing is, if speed was all that mattered we wouldnt have big ocean liners and large trucks moving things. we'de just have insanely hyped up steriod horses and wagons.

[Uphorics]

Not all GHz are the same.

For example, 10 years ago, CPU's were starting to hit above 3GHz. But if you compare it to a CPU today with the same clockspeed, the older CPU doesn't even come close. (This is also why 8 core AMD chips aren't nearly as powerful as a 5960x)

[xiaolongstan]

You can't exactly compare CPU's in GHz...

XEONs are also meant for different stuff.

 

By the way, the AMD one has 2 cores and the XEON has 18 cores. And 36 total because hyperthreading...

@Charlie Clarke

Hyperthreading is not extra cores.

 

[KemoKa]

CPUs used to be comparable by their clock speed, (we're talking like, fifteen years ago) but that hasn't been the case since the pentium III and the Athlon64.

Nowadays what matters is how well a CPU can do its job, and IPC is mattering more and more nowadays. Cache size and speed has no meaning anymore.

As for the $5000 Xeon, it has 15 cores/30 threads, so it's getting 2.3GHz across all those delicious hyperthreaded cores, and it's capable of far greater RCP than any consumer-grade processor. There's no overclocking those things though. it's enough trouble keeping them cooled in the first place.

You needn't worry, though. No consumer has any need for 15 cores and 30 threads. These processors are bought and used for huge, wealthy companies who have the computational needs of that much power, and the financial wherewithal to justify their exorbitant cost. That money goes to Intel, who puts it into R&D for their next processor lineup, which benefits the consumer enormously. If they didn't charge thousands of dollars for their top-tier products, we would still be on Core 2 Duos at the moment.

[BurgerBum]

Hyperthreading is not extra cores.

 

''away from the food analogiez and into the real world''

 

........ you dont just invite friends over for candy eating binge parties.????

jsut me...........???????

 

*hides under desk* kay.

[BurgerBum]

CPUs used to be comparable by their clock speed, (we're talking like, fifteen years ago) but that hasn't been the case since the pentium III and the Athlon64.

Nowadays what matters is how well a CPU can do its job, and IPC is mattering more and more nowadays. Cache size and speed has no meaning anymore.

As for the $5000 Xeon, it has 15 cores/30 threads, so it's getting 2.3GHz across all those delicious hyperthreaded cores, and it's capable of far greater RCP than any consumer-grade processor. There's no overclocking those things though. it's enough trouble keeping them cooled in the first place.

You needn't worry, though. No consumer has any need for 15 cores and 30 threads. These processors are bought and used for huge, wealthy companies who have the computational needs of that much power, and the financial wherewithal to justify their exorbitant cost. That money goes to Intel, who puts it into R&D for their next processor lineup, which benefits the consumer enormously. If they didn't charge thousands of dollars for their top-tier products, we would still be on Core 2 Duos at the moment.

well... i feel like core 2 duo and core 2 quad technology/preformance, no doubt they'd have changed the naming scheme. x'D

[minibois]

Hyperthreading is not extra cores.

 

watch?v=wnS50lJicXc

I know, not physical cores but they are seen as extra cores by software.

No need to link me video to prove that.

[-CLASSIFIED-]

yes , all them cores and all that cache .... i wish i had a dual xeon workstation lol

[xiaolongstan]

I know, not physical cores but they are seen as extra cores by software.

No need to link me video to prove that.

Yes, but calling it "more cores" is sort of dumb.

[BurgerBum]

yes , all them cores and all that cache .... i wish i had a dual xeon workstation lol

baaaaarrrrnnnnnaaaaacccyyyoooollleeeeeeeezzzzzz

[Paralectic]

This thread makes me sad, likely a troll.

[minibois]

Yes, but calling it "more cores" is sort of dumb.

But if you look in CPU Z you will see more cores.

36 is more than 18. That's a fact and there was nothing wrong with what I said.

[xiaolongstan]

But if you look in CPU Z you will see more cores.

36 is more than 18. That's a fact and there was nothing wrong with what I said.

CPU-Z sees it as more cores, but aside from the intelligent scheduling it does no processing of it own, so it adds nowhere near the kind of improved multi-thread performance that an actual core would.