mbucari1
  •  mbucari1
  • 50.25% (Neutral)
  • Member Topic Starter
2007-01-05T12:12:19Z
I see that intel now has 2 processors with quad cores, the x5355 and the qx6700. They both seem very similar, but are they both geared twards the same type of computing? Obviously they would both bee good for games at the moment, but is one in particular suited for gaming and the other for hard processing (ie encoding)?
kid007
2007-01-05T12:33:39Z
I would say, that both are not the "same" one (QX6700) is more home friendly than the other one (Xenon X5355).

QX6700
Processor features Intel Smart Memory Access, Intel Advanced Smart Cache, Intel Wide Dynamic Execution, Enhanced SpeedStep technology, Execute Disable Bit capability, Intel Virtualization Technology, Intel Advanced Digital Media Boost, Intel Extended Memory 64 Technology

X5355
Processor features Intel 64 Technology, Demand Based Switching, Intel Advanced Smart Cache, Enhanced SpeedStep technology, Intel Virtualization Technology

also notice that the bus speed are different 1333MHZ is the x5355, comparable to the QX6700 that only has 1066MHZ.
Drago
  •  Drago
  • 51% (Neutral)
  • Advanced Member
2007-01-06T11:26:48Z
The xeon is for the server side of computing not really made for being on a pc and not for gaming at all. As of right now even dual cores are just getting mainstream support for games to take advantage of them so it will be a while till quad cores will be used to their full potential for gaming.
mbucari1
  •  mbucari1
  • 50.25% (Neutral)
  • Member Topic Starter
2007-01-08T02:08:11Z
appreciate the info drago, but why would the xeon not be good for games? Is it because the core 2 series processes more data per clock cycle than the xeons?
Der Meister
2007-01-08T02:20:13Z
Its not rally that, from what i understand its more from the architecture of the chip itself. The Xeon processors are make for more workstation/server type applications in mind. while the Mainstream (Ie C2D or P4) are made more for games and lower end applications. If any thing i would think the Xeon's do more per clock than the mainstream processors do.

Ok found this i guess i was a tad off.

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=5160vs6800&page=2&cookie%5Ftest=1
mbucari1
  •  mbucari1
  • 50.25% (Neutral)
  • Member Topic Starter
2007-01-08T13:23:44Z
appreciate the info. when I finally switch to a quad core (in ~ 1 year) I'm just gonna stick w/ the core 2 extreme. My current mobo will support it which means I will just have to change the processor.
BebeX
2007-01-09T11:28:20Z
don't you think it's a little early to be planning what proc you'll be buying in a year? i mean there'll be a shed load of new processors in a year's time, and considering 'moore's law' they'll be a lot faster than the high-end stuff that's currently available!
mbucari1
  •  mbucari1
  • 50.25% (Neutral)
  • Member Topic Starter
2007-01-09T13:37:08Z
I'm am planning for the most economical solution. I don't plan on buying another mothboard for another several years, nor or vid card. So, when I decide to purchase a new processor, it will be the best that my mobo will support (the core 2 extreme quad core). With this route, moore's law works in my favor. The new 8 core processors that will be available will bring the price of the quad cores down. It is a complete waste of money to buy current top of the line hardware. I bought the e6600 instead of the e6700 because I saved $200 for 200MHz less. If you have the money to constantly upgrade, then great. However, I don't
vrbbmf
2007-01-16T21:15:03Z
quote:

Originally posted by: BebeX
don't you think it's a little early to be planning what proc you'll be buying in a year? i mean there'll be a shed load of new processors in a year's time, and considering 'moore's law' they'll be a lot faster than the high-end stuff that's currently available!


it is a good idea to plan your builds in advance...

a well-thought strategy allows your rig to be targeted
to the builder's purposes
as in a business rig
to performance specs...
as in the needs of particular apps
or cooperation with other hardware
even most importantly project cost...

builders with an eye for the latest gear
are either less concerned with the cost
of things because money is no object...
or aren't actually building rigs, but wishing
they were...
neosho
2007-01-26T00:31:18Z
quote:

Originally posted by: mbucari1
I'm am planning for the most economical solution. I don't plan on buying another mothboard for another several years, nor or vid card. So, when I decide to purchase a new processor, it will be the best that my mobo will support (the core 2 extreme quad core). With this route, moore's law works in my favor. The new 8 core processors that will be available will bring the price of the quad cores down. It is a complete waste of money to buy current top of the line hardware. I bought the e6600 instead of the e6700 because I saved $200 for 200MHz less. If you have the money to constantly upgrade, then great. However, I don't


The most economical solution would be to use what you have, which is just about top of the line right now, and not think about what you are going to buy down the road. Money burns a hole in my pocket too (evidently not with computer stuff as you can see from my sig). I am about to build a new system after 4 years with my current one... the last time i upgraded was 2 years ago. Now that's economical.
neosho
2007-01-26T00:32:58Z
btw, is your monitor a syncmaster 225bw?
ice91785
2007-01-26T02:07:34Z
mbu, I will definately take that C2D off ur hands for u (sorry for helping revive an old thread)
larac
2007-02-14T05:58:32Z
One thing I would say, The new line of dual and quad core xeons and their chipset only accepts FBDDR2 memory modules which have a huge performance hit compared to normal DDR2.

I currently have both and the older Xeon's in my F@H test bay in work.
Dell PE2850 - 2x Xeon 3.2Ghz irwindale core. 4GB DDR.
Dell PE2950 - 2x Xeon 2.667Ghz woodcrest core. 4GB FB DDR2
Dell PE2950 - 2x Xeon 2.333Ghz clovertown core 4GB FB DDR2

There is very little performance diff between the two newer cores unless you have an app or program designed to make use of the 8 cores available. Both run the 1333Mhz FSB, both have 2MB of cache available per core, running at the same speed. For F@H as an example, there is no real difference between them, the 333Mhz diff in clock speed might be 15% or so, but it doesn't equate to much.