- Apr 3, 2014
- 92
- 3
- 71
Hello,
i unable to find any actual benchmarks or comparison of Dual Xeon machine and entusiast Core i7 machine.. I dont think that this market doesn't exist at all..
There are lots of people which want something better than single Core i7, lots of people actually bought such machine, but its really worth, its performance really better?
On internet are only numbers for particular machines and bla, bla, bla.. how awesome particular build is, but not apples to apples comparison.
Few facts are already know facts / rumors,
- Xeon has slower ECC memory max. 2400 DDR4 on my board, for desktop is available much faster non ECC memory already 3600 or something like that and price will get lower and lower over time,
and with Xeon i cant upgrade.. Its not future proof.
-Xeon couldnt be overclocked, or at least not easily and there is not bigger room for improvements, i read something like 200-300Mhz gain
- Xeon for gaming is now slighly slower than desktop CPUs, regarding of anandtech reviews, and im ok with that:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8679/intel-haswellep-xeon-12-core-review-e5-2650l-v3-and-e5-2690-v3/4
But maybe with DX12 or Vulkan and future games which would use more than 4 threads, Xeons would take some advantage.
- Xeons - more memory, Skylake is locked up to 64 GB, maybe i future i will need 128GB, but for now and i think 2 years would be 64 GB enough
- Xeons video editing performance - maybe suck, i saw videos, where people said that Xeons are worse than Core i7 for Adobe products and they dont scale properly, i didnt found anything about Sony Vegas which i like more
- Xeons boards have usualy some remote management possibility
- Xeon boards have 2 network cards, which i want to use for double gigabite transfer speed
- ECC memory means a bit less crashes
- Xeons are probably better (i dont remember right now so comparison with X99) for lots lightweight threads apps - like Web / App servers, or Databases
- Cinebench and Geekbench numbers for Xeons are great, but what it means for real life?
but i still want to see real numbers..
I personally want to build this machine:
2 x Xeon E5-2630 v3 - 2x 6 core / 12 threads, i choice them because are has relatively low TDP - 85W, even lower lowerable through this MB bios, some CPU coolers would runs under 1000 PRM
MB-ASUS Z10PE-D8 WS
64 GB - quad channel 8x8 GB 2400MHz ECC
512 GB Nvme - OS SSD
1+2 TB SSDs for data, non critical OSes, no raid for now
only air cooling, i have but experience with watercooling and lots friends with some water fail accident
but maybe some Core i7 X99 would be better..
- Know that today was released some new broadwell-E series:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10337...x-6900k-6850k-and-6800k-tested-up-to-10-cores
But i dont need comparison with this new line.
I mainly dont want to choose X99 platform because of CPU TDP - 130W / 140W, im used to silent 65W intel Core i7 XXXS series or Broadwell 5675C and i dont want to hear noise during working, even PSU would be passivelly cooler Silverstone Nightjar - 520W, or it would fail - Corsair 1200W - which should not rotate fan until - 500W and my power input, at least with 1 gpu, wouldbe lower.
My typical computers usage:
- Windows (primary) / Hackingtosh / Linux - triple boot workstation and gaming machine all in one
- nothing specials lots of windows in browsers, Excel, lots of resident windows utilities - even Dropbox could be quite CPU heavy, antivirus is in Windows always up
- gaming 1x 1070, in future maybe second in SLI, nothing special, but i want to have 60 FPS at 1080p in every situation, even if some cpu heavy process is running together with game
- some video editing (Sony vegas, maybe Premiere later), rendering, i need have possibility to render and work together
- scheduled antivirus checks
- scheduled backuping every day - Acronis and R-Drive
- coding Visual Studio, Mono develop..
- game engines usage - im mainly designer (its means boring spreadsheets and docs), but also testing what developers created - Unity / Unreal 4, would be nice if building would be faster than on generic Core i7 4/4 65W machine
- during my work / gaming, usually running some youtube video or kodi
- virtualization Vmware - i dont need too much, 1 or 2 relatively slow machines (1 core, 4gb memory on single SSD) which are started for some tasks, not running all the time
Main question is maybe, is OS - Mainly windows really capable properly divide work between lots of slower cores? Or we still life in world where strong single, double, quad threads performance is a king?
Without numbers it looks like that dual processor - Xeon workstation sucks a lot, that is only about ego, or at least lots of people say it, it looks like.. and Xeons make sense only for "some server usage".
i unable to find any actual benchmarks or comparison of Dual Xeon machine and entusiast Core i7 machine.. I dont think that this market doesn't exist at all..
There are lots of people which want something better than single Core i7, lots of people actually bought such machine, but its really worth, its performance really better?
On internet are only numbers for particular machines and bla, bla, bla.. how awesome particular build is, but not apples to apples comparison.
Few facts are already know facts / rumors,
- Xeon has slower ECC memory max. 2400 DDR4 on my board, for desktop is available much faster non ECC memory already 3600 or something like that and price will get lower and lower over time,
and with Xeon i cant upgrade.. Its not future proof.
-Xeon couldnt be overclocked, or at least not easily and there is not bigger room for improvements, i read something like 200-300Mhz gain
- Xeon for gaming is now slighly slower than desktop CPUs, regarding of anandtech reviews, and im ok with that:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8679/intel-haswellep-xeon-12-core-review-e5-2650l-v3-and-e5-2690-v3/4
But maybe with DX12 or Vulkan and future games which would use more than 4 threads, Xeons would take some advantage.
- Xeons - more memory, Skylake is locked up to 64 GB, maybe i future i will need 128GB, but for now and i think 2 years would be 64 GB enough
- Xeons video editing performance - maybe suck, i saw videos, where people said that Xeons are worse than Core i7 for Adobe products and they dont scale properly, i didnt found anything about Sony Vegas which i like more
- Xeons boards have usualy some remote management possibility
- Xeon boards have 2 network cards, which i want to use for double gigabite transfer speed
- ECC memory means a bit less crashes
- Xeons are probably better (i dont remember right now so comparison with X99) for lots lightweight threads apps - like Web / App servers, or Databases
- Cinebench and Geekbench numbers for Xeons are great, but what it means for real life?
but i still want to see real numbers..
I personally want to build this machine:
2 x Xeon E5-2630 v3 - 2x 6 core / 12 threads, i choice them because are has relatively low TDP - 85W, even lower lowerable through this MB bios, some CPU coolers would runs under 1000 PRM
MB-ASUS Z10PE-D8 WS
64 GB - quad channel 8x8 GB 2400MHz ECC
512 GB Nvme - OS SSD
1+2 TB SSDs for data, non critical OSes, no raid for now
only air cooling, i have but experience with watercooling and lots friends with some water fail accident
but maybe some Core i7 X99 would be better..
- Know that today was released some new broadwell-E series:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10337...x-6900k-6850k-and-6800k-tested-up-to-10-cores
But i dont need comparison with this new line.
I mainly dont want to choose X99 platform because of CPU TDP - 130W / 140W, im used to silent 65W intel Core i7 XXXS series or Broadwell 5675C and i dont want to hear noise during working, even PSU would be passivelly cooler Silverstone Nightjar - 520W, or it would fail - Corsair 1200W - which should not rotate fan until - 500W and my power input, at least with 1 gpu, wouldbe lower.
My typical computers usage:
- Windows (primary) / Hackingtosh / Linux - triple boot workstation and gaming machine all in one
- nothing specials lots of windows in browsers, Excel, lots of resident windows utilities - even Dropbox could be quite CPU heavy, antivirus is in Windows always up
- gaming 1x 1070, in future maybe second in SLI, nothing special, but i want to have 60 FPS at 1080p in every situation, even if some cpu heavy process is running together with game
- some video editing (Sony vegas, maybe Premiere later), rendering, i need have possibility to render and work together
- scheduled antivirus checks
- scheduled backuping every day - Acronis and R-Drive
- coding Visual Studio, Mono develop..
- game engines usage - im mainly designer (its means boring spreadsheets and docs), but also testing what developers created - Unity / Unreal 4, would be nice if building would be faster than on generic Core i7 4/4 65W machine
- during my work / gaming, usually running some youtube video or kodi
- virtualization Vmware - i dont need too much, 1 or 2 relatively slow machines (1 core, 4gb memory on single SSD) which are started for some tasks, not running all the time
Main question is maybe, is OS - Mainly windows really capable properly divide work between lots of slower cores? Or we still life in world where strong single, double, quad threads performance is a king?
Without numbers it looks like that dual processor - Xeon workstation sucks a lot, that is only about ego, or at least lots of people say it, it looks like.. and Xeons make sense only for "some server usage".
Facebook
Twitter