i7 3770k vs e3-1240 questions.

[philipma1957]

okay the i7 3770k is 329.00

and

the e3-1240 is 259.00

If I don't oc and use standard ram what am I losing with the e3-1240.

I will use a 7970 graphics card.

they both give me 4 core with hyper threading. total 8 cores

they have the same 8mb cache.

 

[TemjinGold]

The e3 is a 32nm Sandy and a Xeon. If you don't care about Sandy vs. Ivy, why not just go with the i5-2500k?

 

[Ken g6]

If you're considering a Xeon, consider the e3-1230 v2. It is Ivy, and costs less even than the 1240.

 

[philipma1957]

The e3 is a 32nm Sandy and a Xeon. If you don't care about Sandy vs. Ivy, why not just go with the i5-2500k?

8 cores vs 4 cores.

 

[postmortemIA]

8 cores vs 4 cores.

4 HT cores aren't really full cores, albeit they do improve performance in apps (and operating systems) that support them. I did went with i7 also and I'm very glad I did: video editing, code compilation is significantly faster.

Per intel, you would need a server motherboard to use Xeon, and you would also be able to stick two of them in a such board (if it has 2 sockets). But some makers went around intel and they support Xeons on their workstation motherboards.

 

[philipma1957]

thanks I have a few boards that could use them and i was curious if I could pinch a penny or two.

 

[Ferzerp]

albeit they do improve performance in apps (and operating systems) that support them

Nothing special is needed for an application to benefit from HT.

 

[TemjinGold]

8 cores vs 4 cores.

If that matters to you, you should also mention what you're doing with it. And as the other guy said, they aren't 8 real cores. Heck, why not a Piledriver then?

 

[crazymonkeyzero]

If you're considering a Xeon, consider the e3-1230 v2. It is Ivy, and costs less even than the 1240.

I second this idea.

 

[philipma1957]

FOUND THIS http://www.amazon.com/Intel-i7-3770K...words=I7+3770K


299 and got a 10 promo 289.


thanks for the advice at 289 the i7 is good for me.

 

[Ferzerp]

Just make sure you weren't planning on using an igpu if you go that route. (not that I expect you were, but just in case).

 

[postmortemIA]

Nothing special is needed for an application to benefit from HT.

I wish that is true, but many benchamrks have shown that single-threaded apps (such as older games) don't benefit from HT. Application needs to be aware how many threads CPU supports. HT does not make non-threaded apps faster.

 

[Ferzerp]

Of course it doesn't make single threaded apps faster*. The point is that HT or physical core, nothing special needs to be done to differentiate.

At the same time, in the simplist case, single-threaded apps perform much better on a single core with HT than just a single core due to lessened contention with other threads. Your position suggested that something different needs done for HT cores vs physical cores, and that just isn't the case. HT doesn't work as well as real cores, but there is nothing special needed to "support" it at an application level. The OS scheduler needs only to understand how to handle it properly.

*assuming no thread contention. If it is present, it will help single threaded apps.

 

[anikhtos]

4 HT cores aren't really full cores, albeit they do improve performance in apps (and operating systems) that support them. I did went with i7 also and I'm very glad I did: video editing, code compilation is significantly faster.

Per intel, you would need a server motherboard to use Xeon, and you would also be able to stick two of them in a such board (if it has 2 sockets). But some makers went around intel and they support Xeons on their workstation motherboards.

e3 is a single socket cpu