q6600 or X3220 : what the hell. :D

[Dropmachine]

So, all I can gather out of this forum is that the only differences betweeen the two chips is that one is binned better, or something. And I have no idea what the hell that means anyways.

For a guy thats gonna run a lot of photoshop/ painter/ maya/ dreamweaver stuff, and do a fair amount of gaming, whats the choice?

and if I don't intend to overclock things very much, will there be a performance difference betweent eh B3 chips and the G0 ones?

Thanks much. Buying this week, should be fun.

 

[Shimmishim]

No, you should see no performance difference between a B3 and G0 Q6600/X3220.

The only difference is the fact that G0 runs a bit cooler.

There should also be no difference between the Q6600 and X3220. however, i do not believe there has been as significant in price drop for the X3220 compared to the Q6600.

someone else can address the binning question since i am not 100% sure about it.

 

[Rike]

Originally posted by: Shimmishim
No, you should see no performance difference between a B3 and G0 Q6600/X3220.

The only difference is the fact that G0 runs a bit cooler.

Exactly.

On the binning, conventional wisdom is that server chips will clock higher as they are binned for lower heat at the same speed than regular chips. I have no idea if that is actually true or not.

 

[Dropmachine]

So there is no reason to NOT get the 3220? Be fine for games too?

MB is the Asus P5N32-E SLi, i fthat makes a difference.

 

[Rike]

Originally posted by: Dropmachine
So there is no reason to NOT get the 3220? Be fine for games too?

MB is the Asus P5N32-E SLi, i fthat makes a difference.

It's the same chip with the same specs. I suppose some BIOS might have a problem with the Xeon chip. I doubt your mobo would have a problem with it but you could always check with Asus.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Shimmishim
No, you should see no performance difference between a B3 and G0 Q6600/X3220.

The only difference is the fact that G0 runs a bit cooler.

There should also be no difference between the Q6600 and X3220. however, i do not believe there has been as significant in price drop for the X3220 compared to the Q6600.

someone else can address the binning question since i am not 100% sure about it.

okey this is how it went according to DDTung, a legend over at XS.

The two chips are identical. But The xeon's used to get Better Bin'd C2D chips when making them. This is not true anymore, so i dont see the need of you guys getting a Xeon over a Q anymore.

My Xeon had a lower start up voltage, which ment it should scale a lot higher in the higher end. The Q had a slightly higher start voltage, which also ment it should overclock slightly worse then the X3220.

My board doesnt like Xeon's for some apparent reason. The 680i had a uber FSB wall at 375FSB-399FSB. Then at 400 it took a rediculous amount of voltage to hold up. Once i dropped in the Q6600, my max voltage went down to about 1.49Vcore on the Q.

The Xeon required 1.51Vcore. Now on the P35 it completely changed. The Xeon3220, is most likely my second best quad. It can go as high as 3.75 dual orthos stable, on the P35, but required voltage at 1.51Vcore to hold it stable there.


If your looking for the better overclocking chip, i would say your best bet is the G0 Q6600. The Xeon's to my last knowledge on XS doesnt overclock as well as they used to anymore. There basically the same draw as a Q6600 in overclocking now.


However i want a Cloverdale :T Wish they made a overclocking 771 board.


If anyone is wondering what my best quad is, its the G0 Q6600 ES.

 

[Monotaur]

I hate to dig up an old thread, but what about the Intel Virtualizatio Technology that the X3220's have (I don't think that the Q6600's have that)? Does this really help out in terms of VM performance? I was debating on using a *nix OS as the host OS and then just run Windows VM'ed (for a variety of reasons), and was wondering if the IVT really performed as advertised (ie, it's supposed to negate almost 100% of the penalties when running in a VM).

Thanks.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Monotaur
I hate to dig up an old thread, but what about the Intel Virtualizatio Technology that the X3220's have (I don't think that the Q6600's have that)? Does this really help out in terms of VM performance? I was debating on using a *nix OS as the host OS and then just run Windows VM'ed (for a variety of reasons), and was wondering if the IVT really performed as advertised (ie, it's supposed to negate almost 100% of the penalties when running in a VM).

Thanks.

Actually, every E6x00 & E65x0 processor has the hardware virtualization acceleration. As a matter of fact, the only desktop C2D's that don't have it are the E4x00's and the E2x00's.

 

[Monotaur]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Monotaur
I hate to dig up an old thread, but what about the Intel Virtualizatio Technology that the X3220's have (I don't think that the Q6600's have that)? Does this really help out in terms of VM performance? I was debating on using a *nix OS as the host OS and then just run Windows VM'ed (for a variety of reasons), and was wondering if the IVT really performed as advertised (ie, it's supposed to negate almost 100% of the penalties when running in a VM).

Thanks.

Actually, every E6x00 & E65x0 processor has the hardware virtualization acceleration. As a matter of fact, the only desktop C2D's that don't have it are the E4x00's and the E2x00's.

Thanks. But I'm a bit confused... does this mean that the Q6600 DOES have the IVT? Also, what else is required for IVT to function (MB + BIOS support) and how common is this? Lastly, does it really help VM performance all that much? As I had said, I'm contemplating running a *nix host OS and running several Windows machines in VMs for application separation and didn't want to get too much of a performance hit there.

Sorry if these are noob questions. Thanks!

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Monotaur

Originally posted by: myocardia
Actually, every E6x00 & E65x0 processor has the hardware virtualization acceleration. As a matter of fact, the only desktop C2D's that don't have it are the E4x00's and the E2x00's.

Thanks. But I'm a bit confused... does this mean that the Q6600 DOES have the IVT? Also, what else is required for IVT to function (MB + BIOS support) and how common is this? Lastly, does it really help VM performance all that much? As I had said, I'm contemplating running a *nix host OS and running several Windows machines in VMs for application separation and didn't want to get too much of a performance hit there.

Sorry if these are noob questions. Thanks!

If Intel makes the processor, and it has a 6 anywhere in it's description/name, it has IVT. I don't know how to be any more clear than that.

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: myocardia
If Intel makes the processor, and it has a 6 anywhere in it's description/name, it has IVT. I don't know how to be any more clear than that.

Not true any longer.

Intel apparently has now launched the e4600 although I just found it today. Quiet launch or what?

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Denithor

Originally posted by: myocardia
If Intel makes the processor, and it has a 6 anywhere in it's description/name, it has IVT. I don't know how to be any more clear than that.

Not true any longer.

Intel apparently has now launched the e4600 although I just found it today. Quiet launch or what?

Haha, I didn't know about that one either. BTW, I did think of another way to put it: the cheapest (although not the slowest) processor that Intel sells with IVT is the E6550. So, if it costs more than or equal to the E6550, it has IVT.

 

[SexyK]

The E2160 also has a 6 and no IVT

 

[Monotaur]

Originally posted by: SexyK
The E2160 also has a 6 and no IVT

This isn't helping.