Faceoff between Xeon X3220 & QuadCore Q6600

[mavericktazo]

Considering that after the price cuts
Q6600 (8M L2 cache 2.40 GHz 1066 MHz FSB 65nm) retails for $266
E6850 (4M L2 cache 3.00 GHz 1333 MHz FSB 65nm) also retails for $266
X3220 (8M L2 cache 2.40 GHz (105W) 1066 MHz FSB 65nm) retails for $266

Anadtech has recently posted comparison between Quad Core and Dual Core in the same $266 price segment stating that for multi-threaded ops involving 3D rendering / video encoding quads are better... whereas in gaming and general performance dual cores are one hand up...

Could anyone suggest the performance comparison between Workstation Xeon 3000 series and desktop QuadCore family especially the above mentioned processors ???

I intend to build a workstation for some 3D work but would also like to have decent gaming performance alongside ... The price cuts on the Xeons has left me in a bit of confusion..

 

[swtethan]

I dont think there is a difference... but if someone really knows please tell!

 

[bryanW1995]

no they are exactly the same. aigomorla has a 3220, a 3210, and a Q6600 so you might ask him just to double check, however. I hear that the 3210 is going down to 224 in a few weeks, you might look at that as a real bargain quad core.

 

[Dropmachine]

So basically the X3220 is a more stable, more reliable q6600?

So why wouldn't you get one then, if they are the same price?

 

[PCTC2]

Aigo had trouble OCing his X3220 better than his Q6600 and now the G0 steppings are out, so the Q6600 will probably outperform it when overclocking. Other than that, nothing at all.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I want one of those X3210 quad-cores for $224. That's a bit cheaper than a Q6600, and it should OC just as well, hopefully. I saw in one thread somewhere else that someone had a X3210 @ 3.6Ghz on a P35-DS3R mobo. Apparently, not all S775 mobos will support Xeons, but the aforementioned Gigabyte should, at least.

 

[Markfw]

newegg says the X3210 is a kentsfield, but a dual-core... Idiots.

 

[QuixoticOne]

The X3220 is the same functionally in every respect as a Q6600.

The X3210 is a slight bit slower in specified stock speed and has a
highest CPU multiplier of x8 rather than x9 (which the Q6600 / X3220 have).

There are also B3 and G0 steppings of both the X3210 and X3220 chips, just like
the Q6600.

Other than the CPUID and part number they'll perform the same
and effectively ARE the same chip. They may bin them ever so slightly
differently, but the X3220 is specified to run at the same voltage and frequency
as the Q6600 and has no different software features.

In fact even the list of 'bugs' / 'errata' is the same for the X32xx and the Q6600,
I checked yesterday.

If you can run at somewhere between 490x8 = 3920 (wishful thinking, not gonna happen!),
and 350x8 = 2800 as an overclocked CPU x8 multiplier rate and be happy with the
speed of your CPU and RAM, you might as well just save a few dollars and get the
X3210, you'll end up with effectively the same performance for a little less.

If you need a LOT more 'guaranteed' performance than that, neither the X3220
nor the Q6600 will assure you of that and you should wait for a Penryn or look at the QX6700 or something.

Many motherboards / BIOSes don't list the X3200 series as being compatible
CPUs for their BIOS, though. I've heard that on several popular boards they
work just fine all the same. I'm sure if you had a really limited BIOS and
motherboard you could end up with the BIOS refusing to use the XEON even though
it's no different than a Q6600, really.