Desktop vs Server CPUs

bearnet2001

Member
Nov 12, 2007
51
0
0
What's the difference between desktop and server CPUs? Specifically, what is the difference with respect to a gaming computer?

I was looking at the new Xeons being released by Intel and their specifications look great, but is there a downside as they are "server CPUs", with respect to gaming?

--

Also this is a bonus question that doesn't have to do with CPUs, but do harddrives affect gaming performance? I see a lot of people with expensive 100-150gb drives, much more expensive than the 500 gig drives, and wonder why they use them. Are they better for games? Do you have dual harddrives, one for gaming, one for the rest?

Thanks
 

Aluvus

Platinum Member
Apr 27, 2006
2,913
1
0
It depends. Older Xeons often had extra L2 or L3 cache bolted on to boost performance a bit. Depending on the exact models you compare, there can be a variety of differences. The most significant is that some Xeons support multi-socket configurations (and relatedly, most Xeons use different sockets from their desktop brothers).

If you're comparing, say, a Core 2 Duo and a Xeon that are both Conroe parts, then there is no great difference between them. The Xeon faired a bit better in Intel's internal testing, and so they think it's worth a little extra money. Sometimes this surfaces as better overclockability, and enthusiasts latch onto the server part (this happened for the Opteron 165, for instance). Other times, not.

Faster hard drives improve load times and overall Windows performance, but their impact on performance during game play is minimal. Some people buy them to eek out a little extra performance, and some people buy them because of the hype.
 

myocardia

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2003
9,291
30
91
Bearnet, welcome to anandtech. There's really no difference between the LGA775 Xeon cpu's and their desktop counterparts. A few people seem to think that the Xeons overclock better, but I've never noticed that to be the case. I can tell you that the G0 steppings of both the Xeons and the C2D's/C2Q's do overclock considerably better than the slightly older B3 steppings.

And concerning hard drives, the only difference (besides less space) that a WD Raptor makes in a gaming machine is load times. The game will start slightly faster, and will load maps slightly faster. If that's worth the extra expense to you, like it is to some, so be it. It's never been worth it to me, but I consider myself a patient person. Anyway, your hard drive will provide no actual performance difference in gameplay, besides what I've already mentioned. Lastly, yes, having two hard drives can provide another slight "performance" (not FPS, just load times) advantage, but even less than just having a faster single drive, over a slower single drive.
 

bearnet2001

Member
Nov 12, 2007
51
0
0
Thanks guys.

The question came up as I was looking over at TR's table of the new Xeon's (http://techreport.com/discussions.x/13577). Specifically I was thinking that if I were to buy a CPU now, the E5410 at $256, with 12 MB cache and 1333 mhz FSB looks like a much better buy than the Q6600. About the same price, better FSB, higher cache. Is there something I'm missing here, or is this just a lot better buy than the Q6600?

edit: Also is there any motherboard compatibility problems with Xeon's, compared to the C2Q? Like if I buy an Abit P35, will the Xeon work in it or not?

edit2: Also does that 2.3ghz Xeon (E5410) have similiar overclocking abilities as the Q6600? If you don't know, what would you guess?
 

swing848

Member
Nov 11, 2007
38
0
66
I could give you a long answer or a short answer. Because I am feeling lazy tonight and the wording of your question, I will give you the short answer.

Pertaining to gaming you will not be able to determine any difference with the naked eye between a Xeon and a less expensive CPU that provides the same gaming performance. In fact, current games do well with only 2MB level 2 cache. A fast CPU is very important to some games, not so important to others, so a Core 2 Duo will do just fine. To take it a step higher, some games do a little better with four cores and 4MB of cache, and some do not.

Currently a blazing fast dual core CPU will do you better overall in gaming compared to a much lower speed quad core, in the future this will change, so if you want to future proof your system, get the fastest quad core you can afford along with the fastest video card that you can afford.

As to hard drives affecting gaming performance, yes a fast hard drive can sometimes help in gaming, such as when you are zoning into another map. 10,000RPM or faster hard drives are not absolutely necessary though. Many people, me included, purchase two 7,200RPM drives with a 16MB cache. One drive can be used to install the operating system and the other to install games and other programs that will function faster using this procedure.

To make gaming faster, partition the drive and install games on the outer portion of the platters, the same goes for the boot drive, partition it and install the OS on the outer portion of the platters. When installing a game or program on a second hard drive, the boot drive is still accessed for part of the program to function.

For most gamers a single 7200RPM hard drive with 16MB cache will prove adequate, just remember to defrag very often, as some games and programs throw data all over the place, like little children that throw toys everywhere and never pick them up unless forced to.
 

Nathelion

Senior member
Jan 30, 2006
697
1
0
The Q6600 is a quad core, which means you can run 4 threads simultaneously. That is its advantage. It does perform worse in single-threaded apps however, so whether you want it depends largely on how long you plan to keep it (it will be superior on a timescale of one or a couple of years, but lose out in the short term).
Quad cores run hotter and therefore do not overclock as well as their dual core counterparts. If you want to OC a quad at all, you should invest in an aftermarket heatsink.
 

swing848

Member
Nov 11, 2007
38
0
66
Originally posted by: bearnet2001
Thanks guys.

The question came up as I was looking over at TR's table of the new Xeon's (http://techreport.com/discussions.x/13577). Specifically I was thinking that if I were to buy a CPU now, the E5410 at $256, with 12 MB cache and 1333 mhz FSB looks like a much better buy than the Q6600. About the same price, better FSB, higher cache. Is there something I'm missing here, or is this just a lot better buy than the Q6600?

edit: Also is there any motherboard compatibility problems with Xeon's, compared to the C2Q? Like if I buy an Abit P35, will the Xeon work in it or not?

edit2: Also does that 2.3ghz Xeon (E5410) have similiar overclocking abilities as the Q6600? If you don't know, what would you guess?

You have to be careful when purchasing a Xeon for gaming purposes. Xeons often have different pin outs, among other things. For example the E5410 is a LGA771. So to answer your question, no, you will not be able to put the E5410 into a desktop [non-server] Abit P35 motherboard, as it uses 775 pins [LGA775]

 

bearnet2001

Member
Nov 12, 2007
51
0
0
Originally posted by: Nathelion
The Q6600 is a quad core, which means you can run 4 threads simultaneously. That is its advantage. It does perform worse in single-threaded apps however, so whether you want it depends largely on how long you plan to keep it (it will be superior on a timescale of one or a couple of years, but lose out in the short term).
Quad cores run hotter and therefore do not overclock as well as their dual core counterparts. If you want to OC a quad at all, you should invest in an aftermarket heatsink.

The E5410 is also a quad core.
 

bearnet2001

Member
Nov 12, 2007
51
0
0
Originally posted by: swing848
Originally posted by: bearnet2001
Thanks guys.

The question came up as I was looking over at TR's table of the new Xeon's (http://techreport.com/discussions.x/13577). Specifically I was thinking that if I were to buy a CPU now, the E5410 at $256, with 12 MB cache and 1333 mhz FSB looks like a much better buy than the Q6600. About the same price, better FSB, higher cache. Is there something I'm missing here, or is this just a lot better buy than the Q6600?

edit: Also is there any motherboard compatibility problems with Xeon's, compared to the C2Q? Like if I buy an Abit P35, will the Xeon work in it or not?

edit2: Also does that 2.3ghz Xeon (E5410) have similiar overclocking abilities as the Q6600? If you don't know, what would you guess?

You have to be careful when purchasing a Xeon for gaming purposes. Xeons often have different pin outs, among other things. For example the E5410 is a LGA771. So to answer your question, no, you will not be able to put the E5410 into a desktop [non-server] Abit P35 motherboard, as it uses 775 pins [LGA775]

So I would have to buy an expensive server motherboard if I wanted to run the E5410 for a gaming computer? Would normal video cards fit into it, like an 8800 GT?
 

bearnet2001

Member
Nov 12, 2007
51
0
0
Still guys, what's the bottom line? Is the E5410 a better deal than the Q6600 right now? It has 4 mb more cache, 300 mhz higher FSB, is a quad core, has 77 mhz lower clock speed, and a $10 lower price.

Does the requirement of a server motherboard really price things up, making the Q6600 better? Can the E5410 not overclock as well? What's the downside to teh E5410, for gaming, vs the Q6600? Or is there no downside?
 

lyssword

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2005
5,761
25
91
5xxx xeon series is 2-way (means the 2 processors can talk to each other in 2 socket mobo) 3xxx xeon series is one-way, and exactly like c2d counterpart. 7xxx xeons are 4way.
Amd has something similar, 1xxx opterons are 1-way (cant buy quadcore version) 2xxx are 2-way, 8xxx are for 4-way cpu configuration.

2way and up cpu's usually have more pins added (or just simply different config) for ability to communicate with other processors, so they won't fit into mobo designed for 1 single processor,which is most desktop versions are, 1 cpu socket.

And yes, server motherboards use much more expensive, slower memory.
 

bearnet2001

Member
Nov 12, 2007
51
0
0
So the bottom line is because of the mobo requirements and 'slower memory', the E5410 is worse than the Q6600 for a gaming rig, unless I want 2 processors?
 

swing848

Member
Nov 11, 2007
38
0
66
Originally posted by: bearnet2001
Still guys, what's the bottom line? Is the E5410 a better deal than the Q6600 right now? It has 4 mb more cache, 300 mhz higher FSB, is a quad core, has 77 mhz lower clock speed, and a $10 lower price.

Does the requirement of a server motherboard really price things up, making the Q6600 better? Can the E5410 not overclock as well? What's the downside to teh E5410, for gaming, vs the Q6600? Or is there no downside?

I thought someone already suggested that you use the Q6600, may be I am mistaken. I tried to steer you clear of a server solution and you are still asking questions.

I will be very specific, the Q6600 is the best choice.

There are many reasons, however, you might be better off if I provide you with this article to read.

 

bearnet2001

Member
Nov 12, 2007
51
0
0
Originally posted by: swing848
Originally posted by: bearnet2001
Still guys, what's the bottom line? Is the E5410 a better deal than the Q6600 right now? It has 4 mb more cache, 300 mhz higher FSB, is a quad core, has 77 mhz lower clock speed, and a $10 lower price.

Does the requirement of a server motherboard really price things up, making the Q6600 better? Can the E5410 not overclock as well? What's the downside to teh E5410, for gaming, vs the Q6600? Or is there no downside?

I thought someone already suggested that you use the Q6600, may be I am mistaken. I tried to steer you clear of a server solution and you are still asking questions.

I will be very specific, the Q6600 is the best choice.

There are many reasons, however, you might be better off if I provide you with this article to read.

Thanks for the link, I'll have a look.

 

swing848

Member
Nov 11, 2007
38
0
66
If you read the article you will find that the eight core sever setup was slower in games compared to a desktop quad core. And, the server setup cost $3800.

There is a lot of explaining in the article, so I suggest you read it.
 

NXIL

Senior member
Apr 14, 2005
774
0
0
So the bottom line is because of the mobo requirements and 'slower memory', the E5410 is worse than the Q6600 for a gaming rig, unless I want 2 processors?

Dear Bear:

as Swing said:

I will be very specific, the Q6600 is the best choice.

Someone mentioned that the Xeon chip you were looking at is a socket 771, not socket 775. You want socket 775. Period.

A motherboard that will take that 771 CPU, and have a 16X PCIe slot will have a 5000X chipset: these run about $400 to $500 or so:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...2122%2CN82E16813151049

To take full advantage of them, you need two of those Xeon 771 CPUs, and, you need FB-DIMM memory:

It's more expensive than DDR2, which is an historic bargain right now, and it runs hotter and slower than DDR2. Oh, and it uses more electricity to get the same work done: that's why it's hotter.

In addition, to fire up that 5000X board, you will need a very capable--meaning more expensive--power supply.

I recommend: the Q6600: it's an amazing CPU at an incredible price....get a P35 chipset motherboard, one of the highly rated Abit or Gigabyte boards....check out some forum user's sigs to see what they bought.

Recommend you read some articles like this one about putting together a mid priced game system:

http://www.tomshardware.com/20...cost_system/page2.html

http://www.anandtech.com/guides/showdoc.aspx?i=3125&p=3

Sounds like you have decided on the 8800GT: looks like a great card.

I recommend you reread Swing's note of: 11/11/2007 @ 09:38 PM: there is much wisdom in there.

In summary: Q6600 is an excellent choice. 8800GT: excellent. Abit or Gigabyte P35 motherboard. Two hard drives with 16mb of cache (these are pretty standard now) Quality DDR2 800 memory: Crucial, Kingston, Corsair. Quality power supply.

HTH

NXIL




 

bearnet2001

Member
Nov 12, 2007
51
0
0
Also, swing, don't be a douchebag. Either have some manners or don't post in my thread - you aren't acting like the type of person I want to talk to.
 

lyssword

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2005
5,761
25
91
Originally posted by: bearnet2001
Also, swing, don't be a douchebag. Either have some manners or don't post in my thread - you aren't acting like the type of person I want to talk to.

I think you are the douchebag, swing has been very informative in this thread.