• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Difference between Core and Xeon CPUs

Mars999

Mars999

Senior member
What are the benefits of using Xeon vs. Core? I don't care about overclocking, but would like to know if the FPU is faster on Xeon? What about precision of the CPU? Rounding errors?


I have to believe there has to be something better about them? More reliable?

Thanks
 
Mars999 said:
What are the benefits of using Xeon vs. Core? I don't care about overclocking, but would like to know if the FPU is faster on Xeon? What about precision of the CPU? Rounding errors?


I have to believe there has to be something better about them? More reliable?

Thanks
Click to expand...

more reliable, creme de la creme chips go to the server line. You would be able to overclock it better on a lower voltage. Comes from exactly the same die, just a more favorable position.
 
soccerballtux said:
more reliable, creme de la creme chips go to the server line. You would be able to overclock it better on a lower voltage. Comes from exactly the same die, just a more favorable position.
Click to expand...

imho, not really. I've went through both ant often they oc nearly identically.
 
In the Xeon 3000 series there is no difference.
I have had them both and they function identically.
 
soccerballtux said:
more reliable, creme de la creme chips go to the server line. You would be able to overclock it better on a lower voltage. Comes from exactly the same die, just a more favorable position.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but to the best of my knowledge, there's zero factual proof in that statement.

I have no doubt that sometimes Xeons might be better for OCing due to luck, etc, as were some of the Opteron vs. the Athlon 64s.

I am not aware of any higher quality control involved w/ the Xeons vs. Core i7s though.
 
well, when there were still a lot of C0's around for the 920's, the xeon equivalent W3520 I believe, was a guaranteed D0.

That is one reason I guess.
 
Mars999 said:
So why do people pay extra for them vs. Core CPUs?
Click to expand...

Sometimes the Xeon line has a lower VID and people commonly misinterpret this as a better OC ability. Otherwise, I honestly have no idea other than the common misconception that they OC better.
 
I've ran across one defective CPU in my life and it was a Xeon. It happened last year. It took our system manufacturer months to find out what the problem as they assumed the kernel panics were being caused by something else: the OS, the hard drives, etc. It was only until they swapped out one of the CPUs did the problem disappear.
 
A while ago when I met with Intel they stated the Xeon chip comes from a certain part of the wafer known to have less defects. I forgot if that is the middle or side *shrug*. It can also take a wide variety of voltages.
 
I've been wondering the same with these xeon pcs recently because I need to build one web server...
I haven't found benchmark comparing these pricey CPU with cheaper one to justify the price.
 
The price difference between the 35xx Xeon and the i7 isn't really that bad if you ignore the Microcenter deals (i7 $290, W3520 $310) and the ability to use ECC memory can be important for server work. The price of the 55xx Xeons is a a different matter, but they have both lower TDP for the same speed and the second QPI link.
 
mozartrules said:
The price difference between the 35xx Xeon and the i7 isn't really that bad if you ignore the Microcenter deals (i7 $290, W3520 $310) and the ability to use ECC memory can be important for server work. The price of the 55xx Xeons is a a different matter, but they have both lower TDP for the same speed and the second QPI link.
Click to expand...

Last time I have ECC on my Dell it causing me BSD, but that is era Pentium pro I think. But maybe it should get better ?

I don't know much about some stuff you mention: lower TDP and QPI Link What makes them so valuable that intell charge premium to that ?

Thanks,

Jon
 
Mars999 said:
So why do people pay extra for them vs. Core CPUs?
Click to expand...

Big business have no time to sit around doing their own benchmarking and stress test to see if there is any real difference between Core and Xeon chips. One day late in making a decision or one day of downtime cost them hundreds of thousands to millions, far more than the difference between a Core and Xeon chip. Plus, they don't have to to waste like sending the chip for RAM or replacing one blade due to a defective chip. It's not just real gains, but peace of mind.

The tech guys in those companies have probably been convinced by Intel that Xeon processors are more reliable theoretically and more imprtantly statistically.

After all Intel does divide all the chips they produce to different lines from China blackmarket to Celerons to Cores to ULVs to Core Extreme, to Xeons.
It's a combination of real quality difference and extremely good marketing.

People pay 40 dollars for bottled water, half a million for wine, why not for Xeon?
 
There is also the QPI link.
Core i7 and Xeon X3500 have 1 QPI link.
Xeon X5500 has 2 QPI links
Future XEON's chips will have 4 QPI links.

All i7's only have 1 QPI link, but XEON is able to run in dual-CPU config (and quad-CPU config in the future.)
 
Lonbjerg said:
There is also the QPI link.
Core i7 and Xeon X3500 have 1 QPI link.
Xeon X5500 has 2 QPI links
Future XEON's chips will have 4 QPI links.

All i7's only have 1 QPI link, but XEON is able to run in dual-CPU config (and quad-CPU config in the future.)
Click to expand...

The Xeon 3500 sequence runs off the same X58 chipset as the Core i7's and does NOT support dual socket configuration on paper, but does support ECC.

The Xeon 5500 sequence (not just the X5500's) has 2 QPI links, supports dual socket configurations and ECC. Also, certain Xeon classes have lower TDP, aiming at 1U operation in datacenters, where power and heat factor more than in your living room.

The processing density of having four lower TDP quad cores in a 1U form factor is what you pay for in the Xeon name. Can anyone say private cloud computing in minimal colo space?
 
Beautiful_Life said:
Big business have no time to sit around doing their own benchmarking and stress test to see if there is any real difference between Core and Xeon chips. One day late in making a decision or one day of downtime cost them hundreds of thousands to millions, far more than the difference between a Core and Xeon chip. Plus, they don't have to to waste like sending the chip for RAM or replacing one blade due to a defective chip. It's not just real gains, but peace of mind.

The tech guys in those companies have probably been convinced by Intel that Xeon processors are more reliable theoretically and more imprtantly statistically.

After all Intel does divide all the chips they produce to different lines from China blackmarket to Celerons to Cores to ULVs to Core Extreme, to Xeons.
It's a combination of real quality difference and extremely good marketing.

People pay 40 dollars for bottled water, half a million for wine, why not for Xeon?
Click to expand...

Or those tech guys paid by those big companies probably know when a processor needs to support ECC memory and multiple sockets.
 
Ben90 said:
Beautiful_Life said:
Big business have no time to sit around doing their own benchmarking and stress test to see if there is any real difference between Core and Xeon chips. One day late in making a decision or one day of downtime cost them hundreds of thousands to millions, far more than the difference between a Core and Xeon chip. Plus, they don't have to to waste like sending the chip for RAM or replacing one blade due to a defective chip. It's not just real gains, but peace of mind.

The tech guys in those companies have probably been convinced by Intel that Xeon processors are more reliable theoretically and more imprtantly statistically.

After all Intel does divide all the chips they produce to different lines from China blackmarket to Celerons to Cores to ULVs to Core Extreme, to Xeons.
It's a combination of real quality difference and extremely good marketing.

People pay 40 dollars for bottled water, half a million for wine, why not for Xeon?
Click to expand...
Or those tech guys paid by those big companies probably know when a processor needs to support ECC memory and multiple sockets.
Click to expand...

it's not really a "processor needs to support" it's a "we have a 200GB database that we need to function reliably-- it breaks itself enough as it is-- we can't afford to pay our guys to be tracking down bugs occurring because one bit flipped from a 1 to a 0 and cascaded down the line crashing the entire database". So it's economic for them to pay buku money to make sure their failures are 100% not the fault of hardware.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top