Intel Xeon vs i7

[Simons]

Again.. I do not want the DDR3 platform. I know the DDR3 platform is the better choice, but honestly.. Im looking more into the 2011-v3.

[Arct1c0n]

Just to get this completely out of the way, can anyone tell me.. When the Xeon is on turbo mode, does this means ALL of its CPUs run at 3.2Ghz, if not which ones and how much?

It depends on many factors which is why the are designed for SERVERS not gaming rigs

https://communities.intel.com/mobile/mobile-access.jspa#jive-content?content=%2Fapi%2Fcore%2Fv3%2Fcontents%2F21897

[Arct1c0n]

Again.. I do not want the DDR3 platform. I know the DDR3 platform is the better choice, but honestly.. Im looking more into the 2011-v3.

Then I would honestly wait for Skylake to debut late summer them as it's a whole new aecherituee with DDR4 and 100 series chipsets with PCI E express 4.0.

DDR4 has absolutely no tangible real world improvements beyond some synthetic benchmarks

[GoodN1ght]

There is really no reason why power should be a thing in your choice. 80W on a computer is maybe 2$ a year difference, 4 if you live in a place where its extra costy.

[TheRetiredSlave]

DDR3 vs DDR4 makes literally no difference at all. Ignore it.

The ability to use up to 768 GB of RAM will be largely determined by what motherboard you're using, and whether or not you're using LRDIMMS, LDIMMS, or UDIMMS. This is a spec that has huge implications in the professional server market, but literally no difference to any normal consumer use.

 

Even if you have no intentions of overclocking, the Xeon's clockspeed is so much lower than anything else that performance will be diminished.

 

 

Edit: The Xeon E3s are sometimes regarded as being roughly similar to cheap quadcore i7s. The E5s, however, are more catered to the professional market with more specific uses.

For something as common as "gaming" and "possible video editing down the line", an i7-5820K, midrange X99 board, and ~8-16 GB of RAM is more than good enough. Frankly, an i7-4790K, midrange Z97 (or H97) board, and 8 GB of RAM will perform pretty much the same at a substantially lower cost.

[SteveGrabowski]

There is really no reason why power should be a thing in your choice. 80W on a computer is maybe 2$ a year difference, 4 if you live in a place where its extra costy.

 

I agree, but funny that it's used all the time to bag on AMD GPUs though.

[SteveGrabowski]

I watch alot of Linus videos and have seen the Xeon vs I7 before, I were just trying to figure out, if I were to get the Xeon 100€ cheaper than the I7, if the performance drop was worth it.

From what I've understood from you guys, the I7 is worth those 100€ extra in this case (Usually they are priced the same).

 

Also Im not being ''cheap'' on what I want, but I dont want to pay a premium, when I can get the proper hardware for cheaper, and I want DDR4, not DDR3, due to the fact, that the price difference right now, in my region is way too low, to make do the DDR3, CPU price is 50$ more for the DDR4 ones, so that makes no sense at all.

 

Yes I know CPU is not everything, but when the difference is that small, why not get the DDR4 instead.

Just to get this completely out of the way, can anyone tell me.. When the Xeon is on turbo mode, does this means ALL of its CPUs run at 3.2Ghz, if not which ones and how much?

 

The E5-2620v3's all cores turbo is 2.6 GHz according to that graphic I got from Intel and posted earlier in this thread, while the all cores turbo on the i7-5820k is 3.6 GHz according to Intel's turbo boost table.

[GoodN1ght]

I agree, but funny that it's used all the time to bag on AMD GPUs though.

I think the worst is when people are comparing very high end stuff. Like hey I dont want a 295X2 or 2 R290 instead of a 980 cause it consumes too much power.

You spend 700$ (CND) on a GPU and youre worried about your electric bill? (And min 1.5K to not bottleneck that GPU) 

[Dabombinable]

I agree, but funny that it's used all the time to bag on AMD GPUs though.

Don't you mean CPU's? Because their FX CPU's consume a shitload more than Intel's equivalents. The curse of long pipelines and all that (think Pentium 4).

[Arct1c0n]

I agree, but funny that it's used all the time to bag on AMD GPUs though.

Because GPU's run shit tons hotter then cpus

[SteveGrabowski]

Don't you mean CPU's? Because their FX CPU's consume a shitload more than Intel's equivalents. The curse of long pipelines and all that (think Pentium 4).

 

It seems like people bag more on AMD CPUs because the performance is so weak (again like Pentium 4  :lol: ). The 9590 I guess is a special case since it's so ridiculously power hungry, but I don't see people complaining much about 8350 for using 40W more than an i5. They complain more about minimum framerates and bottlenecking high-end video cards. But with GPUs AMD makes some amazing stuff that lots of people seem to hate mostly because of the power consumption.

[Arct1c0n]

But with GPUs AMD makes some amazing stuff that lots of people seem to hate mostly because of the power consumption.

Well that and shit drivers...

[Dabombinable]

It seems like people bag more on AMD CPUs because the performance is so weak (again like Pentium 4  :lol: ). The 9590 I guess is a special case since it's so ridiculously power hungry, but I don't see people complaining much about 8350 for using 40W more than an i5. They complain more about minimum framerates and bottlenecking high-end video cards. But with GPUs AMD makes some amazing stuff that lots of people seem to hate mostly because of the power consumption.

To me, an FX CPU is pretty much AMD's more modern equivalent of a Pentium 4. They are slow compared to other CPU's, like a Pentium 4, they have a long pipeline like a Penium 4 (which is why the P4 and FX CPU's clock so high for little performance gain), and they are as inefficient and run as hot as a Pentium 4. 

[Arct1c0n]

To me, an FX CPU is pretty much AMD's more modern equivalent of a Pentium 4. They are slow compared to other CPU's, like a Pentium 4, they have a long pipeline like a Penium 4 (which is why the P4 and FX CPU's clock so high for little performance gain), and they are as inefficient and run as hot as a Pentium 4.

I think you mean Prescott. Northwood and willemette cores ran cool

[SteveGrabowski]

To me, an FX CPU is pretty much AMD's more modern equivalent of a Pentium 4. They are slow compared to other CPU's, like a Pentium 4, they have a long pipeline like a Penium 4 (which is why the P4 and FX CPU's clock so high for little performance gain), and they are as inefficient and run as hot as a Pentium 4. 

 

Yeah, it's pretty funny to see them going for clockspeed strictly after their Athlon XP CPUs were marketed in terms of equivalent P4 clockspeed instead of what they actually ran at. But for the FX / Pentium 4 analogy to be complete the FX-8350 would have to cost $70 more than the i5-4690k. 

[Dabombinable]

I think you mean Prescott. Northwood and willemette cores ran cool

I suppose they did in a way, after my old laptop (Northwood P4 3.2GHz @ 3.9GHz) was sustaining a high overclock with temps below 70^oc. I actually got lucky with it as the 120W power brick was actually overkill in the first place and gave me some headroom.

[NumLock21]

That's ridiculous. In the last 20 years games have gone from wanting about 8MB to wanting about 8GB.

The most a game will use it 640K

[Dabombinable]

The most a game will use it 640K

^base RAM on a couple of my motherboards (before SDRAM is installed).

[79wjd]

Yeah, it's pretty funny to see them going for clockspeed strictly after their Athlon XP CPUs were marketed in terms of equivalent P4 clockspeed instead of what they actually ran at. But for the FX / Pentium 4 analogy to be complete the FX-8350 would have to cost $70 more than the i5-4690k. 

Well think of it this way....for all the shit the FX cpus get, how many people recommend them / come here with a new build with one. 

 

For the general consumer (which lets be honest, makes up the majority of PC users) bigger numbers = better. So an 8 core cpu at 5ghz much be almost twice as good as a 4 core cpu at 3.1ghz. 

 

I would be really curious to know how AMD's cpu sales would be if they were basically offering a Haswell i5 (i.e. if the FX8 cpu was actually a 4 core cpu with similar clock speeds/IPC as Intel). I think I'd actually expect their sales to go down a bit seeing as a lot more people recognize Intel than AMD, but then they see AMD's cpu is twice as good on paper (assuming frequency/cores = performance) and opt for AMD.