which old computer to take

[Zstream]

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
What is the processor number for the 3.2 GHz?

The only 90nm processors which support 64 bit are the 7020, 7030, 7040, 7041 from intel's website, and none of those run at 3.2 GHz. All the 3.2GHz procs lack the important EM64T.

Umm, error!

64-bit Xeon MPs were introduced in April 2005. The cheaper "Cranford" was an MP version of Nocona, while the more expensive "Potomac" was a Cranford with 8 MB of L3 cache. All these Prescott-derived Xeons have the product code 80546.

 

[Zstream]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: Extelleron
An X2 3800+ is far superior to dual SC Xeons @ 3.2GHz, in performance without a doubt and when it comes to performance/watt the X2 3800+ is another ballpark. For most workloads there isn't going to be a question as to which is better.

If you do a lot of rendering the Xeons have more of a chance, where HT comes into effect and performance may be around equal.

I'm surprised by this. What sources/benchmarks back this up?

Look at any of the reviews. It is a pentium D with a bit more cache.

 

[Sureshot324]

I'm curious, what operating system was the Xeon system running before? There'd be no point in putting in 6gb of ram if it was running Windows 32bit

 

[DarkTXKnight]

It was running XP 64 before and is certified for vista 64. This board will max out @ 16 GB of RAM

Btw... I made a mistake on the processors. I just got the box and booted it up.These are Dual XEON 3.8s with 2MB cache.Also the system drive is a 74GB raptor. does that change the opinion ?

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: Zstream
Umm, error!

64-bit Xeon MPs were introduced in April 2005. The cheaper "Cranford" was an MP version of Nocona, while the more expensive "Potomac" was a Cranford with 8 MB of L3 cache. All these Prescott-derived Xeons have the product code 80546.

Well done you can quote wiki... please feel free to reference it if you quote it word for word.

Too bad that MP != DP
(and they don't run at 3.2 (or 3.8) GHz)

The Potomac core based processors included a 3.0 GHz and a 3.33 GHz Xeon MP with 8 MB L3 cache as well as a cheaper 2.83 GHz version with only 4 MB L3 cache. The lower-end Xeon MP processors (based on the Cranford core) came with 1 MB L2 cache and ran at 3.16, or 3.66 GHz.

fail

Originally posted by: DarkTXKnight
It was running XP 64 before and is certified for vista 64. This board will max out @ 16 GB of RAM

Btw... I made a mistake on the processors. I just got the box and booted it up.These are Dual XEON 3.8s with 2MB cache.Also the system drive is a 74GB raptor. does that change the opinion ?

Intels processor finder still doesn't list the 3.8GHz procs as having 64 bit extensions...

http://processorfinder.intel.c...tails.aspx?sSpec=SL7ZB
http://processorfinder.intel.c...tails.aspx?sSpec=SL8P2

Although they should be essentially server versions of the Prescott 670s (which did have EM64T).

Look up reviews of 670s against X2 3800+ for single threaded programs you are interested in :thumbsup:

Multi threaded programs will be a bit harder to judge...

 

[Zstream]

God are you one arrogant person... ALL Nocona cores have 64bit extenstions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"The maximum frequency in the single-core Xeon series has reached 3.8GHz. This is the limit of the NetBurst architecture which is employed in desktop Pentium 4 CPUs as well as in Xeon CPUs for servers and workstations. However the Pentium 4 3.8GHz can be easily found in any shop, while the Xeon 3.8GHz is much harder to spot. We are far from accusing Intel of a paper announcement on September 26, 2005, yet we couldn?t get a sample of the processor for our tests. Intel?s representatives refused our request and our nearby shops couldn?t provide us with this Xeon, either. Instead, Xeons with a clock rate of 3.6GHz are going to perform for you today.

Intel offers two flavors of the Xeon 3.6GHz, with 1 and 2 megabytes of L2 cache, and we got the newer model with the larger cache. Such processors are much alike to the 600 series of the Pentium 4 (on the Prescott-2M core) and are based on the 90nm Nocona core."

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...eon-workstation_4.html

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: Zstream

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: Extelleron
An X2 3800+ is far superior to dual SC Xeons @ 3.2GHz, in performance without a doubt and when it comes to performance/watt the X2 3800+ is another ballpark. For most workloads there isn't going to be a question as to which is better.

If you do a lot of rendering the Xeons have more of a chance, where HT comes into effect and performance may be around equal.

I'm surprised by this. What sources/benchmarks back this up?

Look at any of the reviews. It is a pentium D with a bit more cache.

In that case, then, except for gaming, the Dual Xeons are pretty similar to the X2 3800+. Check out Anand's own review of the X2 3800+, the Pentium D 830 holds its own.

 

[DarkTXKnight]

Actually after looking up a few reviews they are more or less the same for everything except where the X2 does better in gaming and the XEON in video conversion. Everything else is about even. With that said I am thinking that I'll get the most out of keeping the x2 3800 as my gaming rig and use the xw8200 for the other
mythbuntu core\vmserver\fileserver\wife's backup machine . since with two X2 equivalent processors I can do more work with it and it seems that as long as the older hardware is supported there are more stability options in 64bit linux than there are in 64 bit windows ( XP 64 bad, and only leaves vista 64)