Dual Xeon 3.06GHz with 1GB/160-320SCSI

[Neverender730x]

Hello all, yes I'm a noobie to this here forum, but in no way a noobie to computer tech. I've been reading this forum for a while, but could never join because I had a Yahoo! address, well now I got a Verizon one, but understandable. I'll get right to it. I have been into computers since I can remember and always an avid SCSI man. Never cared much for IDE in any way except for cd-rw's and so-on. Anyway, I got offered a great deal on a pair of Dual (matched) Xeon 3.06GHz (yes, 533 fsb,512kb L2) processors matched with a nice Server board with SCSI on-board (Ultra 320. Model: SE7501HG2). I really haven't messed around with anything over like 2.0GHz in intel before. I've always been messing with AMD for some (probably financial) reason. Anywho, I was wondering if anyone has ever had any experience with the Xeons... I know one Xeon is great, but I can't imagine 2! I will be using some LL RAM, at least a gig if not 2. I will be using Ultra 160 SCSI 10,000 RPM drives (Seagate mostly) because I have a lot of those in 9.1 and 36 gb flavors. I will either harness the on-board SCSI or get my own Adaptec 29160 card, because I have had great luck with those. Or I could just invest in some new 320 SCSI's, but I only have experience with the 160's and below.

I'm not a gamer, I don't do spreadsheets that much. I just like performance. My cars are fast, I like to have my computers fast. I would like to try some of the games out. I know they aren't meant for HT or Dual processors, but they should handle it just fine. I know AMD is great for games and bla bla bla, but I am interested in the Dual Xeon setup with the Server board. While AMD is great with games, I think Intel is better with crunching numbers, so thats why I chose Intel. I may choose to go to a FX-55 AMD Athlon 64, but for the next year or two I think dual Xeons should be great.

What do you think? If I left some information out, please let me know. And please let me know what you think of my setup....rrrr....future setup.

 

[Mik3y]

dual opteron would be better. they are better for games and are faster then the xeons and are a better price for performance. 🙂

 

[Neverender730x]

They're a better price????? I saw some that were way more expensive than the Xeons... I must have been in the wroooooong place. Thanks!

Mark

 

[Mloot]

I can't say that I have any experience w/Xeons, but the guys over at the 2Cpu forums have gobs of information about them. It's the best place I've found so far concerning anything Xeon, Opteron, MP's, etc. Check them out, if you haven't already.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Mik3y
dual opteron would be better. they are better for games and are faster then the xeons and are a better price for performance. 🙂

World does not revolve around games and the opterons are not always cheaper...

A dual xeon setup even the 533fsb variety with HT for each chip will easily out crunch an dual opteron setup in FH for near the same price....

I looked at a dual xeon setup just a few months ago. I think it is better cause I can oc xeons a heck of a lot better then opterons, and get true BANG FOR THE BUCK!!!!

I could get a Asus NCCH-DL mobo = 250's

2x 2.4ghz 533fsb or 2.66fsb and oc them to the 3.3+ghz rage for 400 buck or less for both chips....NOthing amd has will beat that for similar price...sorry but fact....

Ofcourse I was going to OC and that made it an advantage versus the opterons. It is closer without that....


I am an Amd fan as of my current setupo, but I am really tired of the first response in all Intel threads is...AMD is better, AMD is cheaper, blah blah blah.....



Price for performance for opterons is not the same as A64's....check it out!!

 

[Bateluer]

Heh, dual Opterons would pound Xeon 3.06s (533Mhz FSB) into the dirt. Poor Intel chips only have 266.5Mhz of effective FSB bandwidth because of how they share the FSB. Opteron's do not suffer from this weakness. As such, the Opterons routinely best the Xeons in common applications. Intel's latest Xeons, with the 800Mhz FSB and HT do much better though they cost even more and still suffer from the limited bandwidth.

But, if you already got the Xeon system, good for you. I hope you enjoy it. But if you do not play games, spreadsheets, etc, why do you need a dual CPU setup with SCSI drives? Seems like a Sempron 3100 with SATA would fulfill your needs and cost a fraction of the price.

 

[Neverender730x]

Mloot- Thanks for the information, I'm going to head over to 2cpu and check it out!

Duvie- Thanks for actually reading the post. Everyone I ask keeps on saying AMD is better for games, which I stated in the post that I already know. I don't doubt AMD's capabilities, I just prefer Intel, and I would like to do this setup. The Opterons that I found were rediculously priced, especially the duals. I like the duals because they DO have better umph than a single processor. I had a pair of 533/133/256kb p3's that would eat up the Athlon box I made. I'm not into OC that much so I don't think I will benefit from that, although if the board allows me to do it safely I may give it a shot. I am with you, I hate how people are now second-guessing Intel, like AMD is superior just because they have everyone's attention. I love AMD, and I think their new architecture is great, but I know Intel is going to fire back soon with some new stuff. Plus, I haven't seen anything yet that takes advantage of the 64-bit Athlon.

Bateluer- Have you ever built a dual opteron box? I don't really know the performance of them. But I know they utilize the single BUS 2000 MT/s or whatever and are not meant to be server worthy if you don't use 4 or more. From what I found they are much higher in price than dual Xeons. I googled, Yahoo'd and eBay'd it and still found boxes that start around 1200 just for the processors. Whereas I can get the chips and a nice Intel server board (ATX) for around $1100. I just cant find any Opterons cheaper than that that comes with all the features Intel does. I am not out to sound better, I would really like to know which is better IN THIS CASE, not every other. I don't do gaming or spreadsheets. I have not even checked out the Sempron yet, so I got no idea if it would be good for me or not. Thanks, I will check that out. I haven't screwed with SATA drives yet, but I have heard all good. I like SCSI because they always seemed more responsive, better seek times and higher RPM and what-not. I would like to check out the 3.6GHz Xeon too, so maybe I can hold off and check out the Sempron and the newest Xeon with the 1mb cache... Thanks a lot!!