Choosing Quad Core Xeon for a workstation !!!

[Maxtor79]

Hi,
I am ordering a workstaion (DELL Precesion) to be my development box, I work heavily on Visual Studio.NET (2005 and 2008) and SQL Server 2005 (Development and Business Intelligence stuff).
I am a little bit confused about which CPU to go with, I wanted to know if there is a noticeable advantage for XEON quad cpus over Core 2 Quad cpus for the same clock speed??

I always run too many applications in the same time so mutli threading is crucial for me

one last thing, where can I ask for hard disk information ( another cofusing point here , Raptor 10k rpm or SAS SCSI 15k rpm, NO RAID ) - as there is no dedicated category for storage informations!!!

thanks alot

 

[Markfw]

No difference that I can tell.

 

[Maxtor79]

So what is the point of the XEON product line ???
I always thought it has something extra in terms of performance over the normal cpus!!!

 

[nerp]

They're server chips. They're made for high volume, high demand situations where uptime and reliability are of the utmost importance.

 

[Maxtor79]

Thanks Markfw900 and nerp for your replies,

you know what, I just noticed some funny things while reviewing the workstation specs from Dell, it seems the old Quad Core 2 is more expensive than the new Xeon Quad Core!!

Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5420 (2.50GHz,2X6M L2,1333) = $729

Intel? Core®2 Quad Q6700 (2.66GHz/1066MHz/2X4MB L2) = $800

how the hell that can happen, the Xeon Quad comes with more L2 cache and higher bus speeds. Dell made it clear to me (and logically to everyone) to go with the new Xeon cpu, and the whole cost of the two complete boxes is almost the same, I just can't get the cost between the two cpus??

regards

 

[Seggybop]

Trying to get a reasonable price from Dell was probably the first problem here >_>

The Xeon you listed there is one of the new superior 45nm parts, but not really worth $729 if you can get the Q6600 which normally goes for around $300. Is the Q6600 not an option there?

 

[aigomorla]

E5420A - Yorkfield [same family different package of QX9650]
Package Type: LGA771

Q6700 - Kentsfield [same family same platform as QX6850]
Package Type: LGA775



sorry pal your comparing 2 different platforms as well as 2 different lines. Like comparing last years accord with this years accord.


The board required for the first chip is expensive also. Were talking about companies like tyan and supermicro. Also the total system price for the first chip will RAPE the total cost of the second chip.

Meaning its possible to have a sub 500 dollar quadcore setup.

Good luck finding a sub 500 enterprise yorkie setup.

 

[imported_dinGLeBeRRy]

Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 3.0GHz Quad Core Processor

- Process Type: Intel Core 2 Quad Extreme
- Processor: QX6850
- Frequency: 3.0GHz
- FSB: 1333MHz
- Cache: 8MB
- Socket: Socket LGA 775
- Process: 65 nm



Processor Speed: QX9650 / 3.00GHz


Processor Interface: Socket 775


Processor Class: Core 2 Extreme


Processor Core: Yorkfield XE


Cache Size: 12MB L2


Bus Speed: 1333MHz


Additional Technologies: 64-bit
Intel® Virtualization
SSE
SSE2
SSE3
Quad-Core
Intel® Advanced Smart Cache
Intel® Wide Dynamic Execution
Intel® HD Boost
SSE4
Architecture: 45 nm
Wattage: 130W
Core Stepping: C0
Fan: Not Included

the qx9650 retails for a G!!!!!

 

[Acanthus]

For your intended purpose, you probably dont need quad core.

Running multiple apps isnt a reason to run quad core, you have to use multiple CPU intensive apps or highly threaded software.

Having 5 IE windows, aim, visual studio, azureus, and a high definition movie, with windows dreamscene and some other random stuff... will run fine on dual core.

If budget is not a problem go ahead with the quad, but from the sound of it you arent doing anything cpu intensive.

Do you use virtualization?

 

[Maxtor79]

I have made up my mind, check out the specs for the workstation I going to order this monday:

Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5420 (2.50GHz,2X6M L2,1333)
Genuine Windows® XP Professional, SP2 with Media
256MB PCIe x16 nVidia Quadro FX570, Dual Monitor DVI Capable
4GB, DDR2 SDRAM FBD Memory, 667MHz, ECC (4 DIMMS)
16X DVD+/-RW w/ Cyberlink PowerDVD? and Roxio Creator? Dell Ed
C3 All SATA drives, Non-RAID, 3 drive total configuration
160GB SATA, 10K RPM Hard Drive with 16MB DataBurst Cache?
160GB SATA, 10K RPM Hard Drive with 16MB DataBurst Cache?
160GB SATA, 10K RPM Hard Drive with 16MB DataBurst Cache?
Dell 20 inch UltraSharp? 2007FP Widescreen, adjustable stand, VGA/DVI

after reading the input from this forum members, I decided to stick with the Xeon for few reasons
a)the cost is not an issue since the company is paying for it.
b) I am working on Business Intellegence project that involves alot of reporting projects and web development ( Visual Studio.NET) and alot of data analysis and data mining (SQL Server 2005), and from my own experience I can easily hit 100% CPU utilization when I try to execute the data mining project, it seems that this kind of development is a CPU eater and I also found few articles that suggest having as big L2 cahce as possible for BI processing.
I also decided to drop the SAS SCSI since I am going to have three Raptors; one for OS, one for Applications and the last one for my databases.

do you guys think I missed something here??

regards

 

[JAG87]

In case you haven't figured it out, you are getting an 8 core system. The Xeon 5420 only runs in dual processor platforms, and you are getting 2 of them. One chip only costs roughly 380. Seems to me like you made a fairly good choice. But you have to sit down and think what would benefit you more:

8 cores running at 2.5 Ghz, with slow and expensive FBDIMM and an expensive dual socket motherboard

or

a 4 core QX9650 running at 3.0 Ghz (make that 3.66 or 4 Ghz depending whether your chip is stable at stock voltage, I'm sure you can change at least the multiplier in a Dell Bios), with cheap and fast DDR2 memory, and a single socket LGA775 motherboard?

think about it!

 

[Maxtor79]

Hi JAG87,

you got me on the Quad core thing!!

I checked Dell Precision T3400 series, they have only Intel? Core®2 Extreme QX6850 (3.00GHz/1333MHz/2X4MB L2), which costs 1400$ alone!!
I called then and asked for the QX9650, they told they don't have right now, may be in two months time, then I checked some review and found the performance difference between the two is around 10% at best (alsmot the same except for some games), so I'll wait for Dell's answer to my questions and then I'll decide, but I think I like your idea,

regards

 

[JAG87]

Originally posted by: Maxtor79
Hi JAG87,

you got me on the Quad core thing!!

I checked Dell Precision T3400 series, they have only Intel? Core®2 Extreme QX6850 (3.00GHz/1333MHz/2X4MB L2), which costs 1400$ alone!!
I called then and asked for the QX9650, they told they don't have right now, may be in two months time, then I checked some review and found the performance difference between the two is around 10% at best (alsmot the same except for some games), so I'll wait for Dell's answer to my questions and then I'll decide, but I think I like your idea,

regards

Go to the home and office section, not the small business section, and build yourself an XPS 420 desktop. They offer the QX9650 on that.


Also, the difference between the QX6850 and the 9650, is not just 10%, but the main difference is that at stock voltage the QX6850 will only be 100% stable at 3.33 Ghz (it wont make it to 3.66 Ghz), while the QX9650 will be able to do 3.66 Ghz 100% stable at stock voltage. Since Dell does not allow you to change voltages in the bios this becomes an important factor. You could even get 4 Ghz, but you would have to insanely lucky to get a 9650 that is stable at 4 Ghz with default voltage, its almost impossible.

 

[PCTC2]

Originally posted by: Maxtor79
So what is the point of the XEON product line ???
I always thought it has something extra in terms of performance over the normal cpus!!!

Dual Processor Server Motherboard. Period. I'm actually picking one up. It's so you can have CPU-intensive server workloads on 8-cores in a single setup. Dual quadcores are awesome.
And the new Xeons are 45nm over the lack of a Core2 non-extreme 45nm line for now.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Maxtor79
Hi JAG87,

you got me on the Quad core thing!!

I checked Dell Precision T3400 series, they have only Intel? Core®2 Extreme QX6850 (3.00GHz/1333MHz/2X4MB L2), which costs 1400$ alone!!
I called then and asked for the QX9650, they told they don't have right now, may be in two months time, then I checked some review and found the performance difference between the two is around 10% at best (alsmot the same except for some games), so I'll wait for Dell's answer to my questions and then I'll decide, but I think I like your idea,

regards

no no no no no no no..

THIS IS NOT A GAME MACHINE ITS A WORK STATION.

YOU DO NOT OVERCLOCK A WORKSTATION OR ENTERPRISE ANYTHING.


You want to build an overclocking machine, its a gaming machine or a budget machine.

Workstation are mission critical, or something that doesnt need to be relatively fast, just powerful and RELIABLE.

OCing digs into reliablility, and makes you make compromises to voltage and FSB. to migrate a portion of the reliability onto the overclock settings. By doing that you also kill the life of the processor by some %


Also for workstations, the dual socket 8 core yorkie will kill a kentsfield. The reliability on workstations is much strict for protcol so they take stress more then the desktop counterpart.

I told you this b4, your comparing two lines completely wrong. Also you CANT OVERCLOCK a dell besides bsel mods. Only line with overclocking would be there XPS line.

 

[JAG87]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: Maxtor79
Hi JAG87,

you got me on the Quad core thing!!

I checked Dell Precision T3400 series, they have only Intel? Core®2 Extreme QX6850 (3.00GHz/1333MHz/2X4MB L2), which costs 1400$ alone!!
I called then and asked for the QX9650, they told they don't have right now, may be in two months time, then I checked some review and found the performance difference between the two is around 10% at best (alsmot the same except for some games), so I'll wait for Dell's answer to my questions and then I'll decide, but I think I like your idea,

regards

no no no no no no no..

THIS IS NOT A GAME MACHINE ITS A WORK STATION.

YOU DO NOT OVERCLOCK A WORKSTATION OR ENTERPRISE ANYTHING.


You want to build an overclocking machine, its a gaming machine or a budget machine.

Workstation are mission critical, or something that doesnt need to be relatively fast, just powerful and RELIABLE.

OCing digs into reliablility, and makes you make compromises to voltage and FSB. to migrate a portion of the reliability onto the overclock settings. By doing that you also kill the life of the processor by some %


Also for workstations, the dual socket 8 core yorkie will kill a kentsfield. The reliability on workstations is much strict for protcol so they take stress more then the desktop counterpart.

I told you this b4, your comparing two lines completely wrong. Also you CANT OVERCLOCK a dell besides bsel mods. Only line with overclocking would be there XPS line.

which is exactly why he should get an XPS 420, go into the bios, set multiplier to 11x and forget everything else. 3.66 ghz rock solid 24/7 100% stable, no need to touch anything else. If you ask me, there isn't much difference between four 3.66 Ghz cores and eight 2.5 Ghz cores. Obviously the latter will destroy the quad with multithreaded applications, but how many applications are there that actually use 8 cores? If the OP is using a program that could use 8 cores then its a no brainer, the Xeon DP workstation will be killer.

 

[Maxtor79]

JAG87,
I really appreciate your suggestion about the QX9650, but after checking the XPS series, I think I'll get the QX6850 in the T3400 series or switch back to the Xeon Quad core, becuase the design of the XPS is not something you can have in an enterprise business environment, and I think all what I need is fast enough CPU with large L2 cache, good Storage system and lots of memory, I am not into the idea of OCing the CPU in a work environment, I would do it for my machine at home and ( I will do it soon for my next PC),

any way thanks alot (again)

 

[sgrinavi]

I do CAD work and we run the workstation line, I have a dual xeon 4xx (480, I think) , four C2Ds and, my personal favorite, a 390 workstation with the q6600. The dual xeon is nice, but is overkill, was spendy and is a pain in the butt to upgrade and it crashes just as often as the rest of them.

I am very pleased with my q6600 workstation. If I HAD to buy one right now it would probably go with another q6600 390 workstation (from the large business dell section) , get the 64 bit OS and buy my own memory for it...

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Maxtor79
JAG87,
I really appreciate your suggestion about the QX9650, but after checking the XPS series, I think I'll get the QX6850 in the T3400 series or switch back to the Xeon Quad core, becuase the design of the XPS is not something you can have in an enterprise business environment, and I think all what I need is fast enough CPU with large L2 cache, good Storage system and lots of memory, I am not into the idea of OCing the CPU in a work environment, I would do it for my machine at home and ( I will do it soon for my next PC),

any way thanks alot (again)

EXACTLY!

lol...

 

[JAG87]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: Maxtor79
JAG87,
I really appreciate your suggestion about the QX9650, but after checking the XPS series, I think I'll get the QX6850 in the T3400 series or switch back to the Xeon Quad core, becuase the design of the XPS is not something you can have in an enterprise business environment, and I think all what I need is fast enough CPU with large L2 cache, good Storage system and lots of memory, I am not into the idea of OCing the CPU in a work environment, I would do it for my machine at home and ( I will do it soon for my next PC),

any way thanks alot (again)

EXACTLY!

lol...

hey dont shoot the messenger aigo, I agree with you. just thought I would lay out the idea.


and Maxtor79, you are welcome.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: JAG87

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: Maxtor79
JAG87,
I really appreciate your suggestion about the QX9650, but after checking the XPS series, I think I'll get the QX6850 in the T3400 series or switch back to the Xeon Quad core, becuase the design of the XPS is not something you can have in an enterprise business environment, and I think all what I need is fast enough CPU with large L2 cache, good Storage system and lots of memory, I am not into the idea of OCing the CPU in a work environment, I would do it for my machine at home and ( I will do it soon for my next PC),

any way thanks alot (again)

EXACTLY!

lol...

hey dont shoot the messenger aigo, I agree with you. just thought I would lay out the idea.


and Maxtor79, you are welcome.

LOL... JAG if i ever shot at you, i would need a 6 foot steel shield to save me from the backfire.



I know exactly what this op is going though. My dad had the option of keeping my 4.0ghz Q6600 ES. It was prime 24 hours stable, load temps in the 60C. Wonderful system. Would give a octocore stock system a run for its money even.

However, i wasnt 100% sure it wouldnt fail. I love the DQ6, but its not a supermicro or Tyan i5400 seaburg board.

So i ended up getting him that with a pair of E5430 Harpers. OMG its quick, powerful, and i would trust its reliability more then any of the rigs i own.

So im just recomending the OP a direction which i think was best for me, and applies to him.

 

[Maxtor79]

hi aigomorla/JAG87 ,
thanks alot for your replies earlier, it seems that I have another issue, Dell guys convinced me to pay extra for the faster FBD dimms (800MHz instead of 667), but they called me yesterday saying that the 800MHz is not supported for the T7400 Precision workstations, and they offered me discount on the smaller workstation T3400, so now I have those two offers from DELL

option 1: Dell Precision T7400

Intel® Xeon® E5440 (2.83GHz, 1333FSB, 2x6MB Cache, Quad Core)
4GB DDR2 667 Quad Channel FBD Memory (4x1GB)
256MB PCIe x16 nVidia Quadro FX 570, Dual Monitor DVI or VGA Graphics Card (ELGA11)
NO RAID ALL SATA Drives ( 3 drives)
160GB (10,000 rpm) SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive with NCQ and 16MB DataBurst Cache?
160GB (10,000 rpm) SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive with NCQ and 16MB DataBurst Cache?
160GB (10,000 rpm) SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive with NCQ and 16MB DataBurst Cache?

option 2: Dell Precision T3400

Intel® Core?2 Extreme 525W,QX6850 (3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 8MB L2, Quad Core)
4GB ( (4 x 1.0GB DIMM) 800MHZ DDR2 ECC SDRAM Memory
256MB PCIe x16 nVidia Quadro FX 570, Dual Monitor DVI or VGA Graphics Card (ELGA11)
NO RAID ALL SATA Drives ( 3 drives)
160GB (10,000 rpm) SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive with NCQ and 16MB DataBurst Cache?
160GB (10,000 rpm) SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive with NCQ and 16MB DataBurst Cache?
160GB (10,000 rpm) SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive with NCQ and 16MB DataBurst Cache?


what confuses me right now is, will the slower FBD ram be a bottleneck for the Xeon option, I mean will the slower clock speed (2.83) + the slower FBD dimms combination be slower than the QX6850 (3 Ghz)+ 800 MHz ram, knowing that everything else is identical (except the motherborad), and as I said before, my work is with development and working with lots of applications at the same time,
Will I be completely wrong if I go with the second option? ( the price difference is around 600$, the company will pay anyway), so from pure performance perspective ( I don't think reliabiltiy will be an issue here, I mean it's not a live production server, you know what I mean!!)

so, your last word of advice guys ???
( BTW these are the only options I have - so only one of the listed above can be ordered)

thanks alot guys

 

[Duvie]

I run tons of CAD and I use a desktop platform....Set up my own Raid platform, backup drives, multiple optical drives....

I think Jag is right when he suggest why spend all the money on the top end parts that no doubt will have been reduced to fractions in the matter of a 1/2 to 1 year. The Q6600 is already at the bottom end of pricing in reality. The DDR2 platform is matured and near rock bottom prices.

I say save money now so you can upgrade more in the future. That is how over the years I have upgraded so frequently. I dont buy bleedinedge new products. I buy a few chips down...

Ask MarkFW900 what it cost him to build dual opteron system in the day? Now barely worth 1/15-1/20th only 3-4 years later, and crushed by his computers he has bought now by several times and for 1/4th the cost.

In this age of obsolesence with PC parts minimize your loss....Even as a write-off it isn't worth it. The only way would be if I got my boss to buy it. Even then I dont rob her and find the best deal...

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Maxtor79
hi aigomorla/JAG87 ,
thanks alot for your replies earlier, it seems that I have another issue, Dell guys convinced me to pay extra for the faster FBD dimms (800MHz instead of 667), but they called me yesterday saying that the 800MHz is not supported for the T7400 Precision workstations, and they offered me discount on the smaller workstation T3400, so now I have those two offers from DELL

option 1: Dell Precision T7400

Intel® Xeon® E5440 (2.83GHz, 1333FSB, 2x6MB Cache, Quad Core)
4GB DDR2 667 Quad Channel FBD Memory (4x1GB)
256MB PCIe x16 nVidia Quadro FX 570, Dual Monitor DVI or VGA Graphics Card (ELGA11)
NO RAID ALL SATA Drives ( 3 drives)
160GB (10,000 rpm) SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive with NCQ and 16MB DataBurst Cache?
160GB (10,000 rpm) SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive with NCQ and 16MB DataBurst Cache?
160GB (10,000 rpm) SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive with NCQ and 16MB DataBurst Cache?

option 2: Dell Precision T3400

Intel® Core?2 Extreme 525W,QX6850 (3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 8MB L2, Quad Core)
4GB ( (4 x 1.0GB DIMM) 800MHZ DDR2 ECC SDRAM Memory
256MB PCIe x16 nVidia Quadro FX 570, Dual Monitor DVI or VGA Graphics Card (ELGA11)
NO RAID ALL SATA Drives ( 3 drives)
160GB (10,000 rpm) SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive with NCQ and 16MB DataBurst Cache?
160GB (10,000 rpm) SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive with NCQ and 16MB DataBurst Cache?
160GB (10,000 rpm) SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive with NCQ and 16MB DataBurst Cache?


what confuses me right now is, will the slower FBD ram be a bottleneck for the Xeon option, I mean will the slower clock speed (2.83) + the slower FBD dimms combination be slower than the QX6850 (3 Ghz)+ 800 MHz ram, knowing that everything else is identical (except the motherborad), and as I said before, my work is with development and working with lots of applications at the same time,
Will I be completely wrong if I go with the second option? ( the price difference is around 600$, the company will pay anyway), so from pure performance perspective ( I don't think reliabiltiy will be an issue here, I mean it's not a live production server, you know what I mean!!)

so, your last word of advice guys ???
( BTW these are the only options I have - so only one of the listed above can be ordered)

thanks alot guys

I like option 2 better....

The bottleneck wouldn't have to do with the 2.83ghz of clock speed but the bus speed....and both of those are 1333fsb...so I dont see one neing any worse then the other in that regards

 

[rchiu]

Well, not trying to downplay the importance of a development box(I am a developer myself), you really don't need that much horse power for a development box compared to a production box handling millions of transactions a day. So I think both of your option should give you plenty of power for what you do. In my opinion, the decision come to the platform choice, the Xeon platform will give you more server type of expansion option in the future, for example if you want to add scsi raid, which is important if you get into production datawarehouse type of stuff with lots of data transfer. The Qx6850 will give you prob 5% more cpu speed, the memory is probably a toss up, FBDIMM is suppose to double the bandwidth of DDR2 theoretically, so it should offset the faster 800Mhz ddr2 in option 2.

For a development box, option 2 probably give you a little more up front cpu power, I'd say 5%, dunno if that justify the cost. For a server/production box environment, option 1 is def. better.