A Computer hardware and components forum. ComputerBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ComputerBanter.com forum » Processors » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Core 2 vs Xeon for development use



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 13th 07, 03:15 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
tbone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Core 2 vs Xeon for development use

I'm trying to understand the significant differences are between the
normal workstation-type processors (Core 2 Duo, Extreme) and the
comparable core-count Xeon chips. Xeons appear to be oriented to
server use; why is that?

I'm looking into getting a new machine. This is not for gaming; it is
for my main development/daily use machine where I run 20-30 apps
concurrently all day long, including file sharing, compilers, music
playback, disk backup, photo editing, and more. Dell offers machines
with both Core 2 Duo and Dual-core Xeon.

Would Xeon be a better choice for me? I'm pretty sure quad core would
be pretty effective for my use.

To be sure I'd get the most out of these processors, I'd want 64-bit
support so I'm planning on Windows XP x64 (I will NOT do DRM with
Vista). Linux would be an option if a Windows virtual machine will
work on it easily (I don't have time to fool around with i)t. Are
programs generally compatible with x64, or are there issues?

Advice and/or references appreciated!
thanks
tbone
  #2  
Old September 13th 07, 10:02 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 261
Default Core 2 vs Xeon for development use

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:15:08 -0400, tbone wrote:

I'm trying to understand the significant differences are between the
normal workstation-type processors (Core 2 Duo, Extreme) and the
comparable core-count Xeon chips. Xeons appear to be oriented to
server use; why is that?

I'm looking into getting a new machine. This is not for gaming; it is
for my main development/daily use machine where I run 20-30 apps
concurrently all day long, including file sharing, compilers, music
playback, disk backup, photo editing, and more. Dell offers machines
with both Core 2 Duo and Dual-core Xeon.

Would Xeon be a better choice for me? I'm pretty sure quad core would
be pretty effective for my use.

To be sure I'd get the most out of these processors, I'd want 64-bit
support so I'm planning on Windows XP x64 (I will NOT do DRM with
Vista). Linux would be an option if a Windows virtual machine will
work on it easily (I don't have time to fool around with i)t. Are
programs generally compatible with x64, or are there issues?

Advice and/or references appreciated!
thanks
tbone


Ever looked at Opteron?
http://anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3091
Latest 4 core (Barcelona) appears to be faster than comparably priced
Xeon (or cheaper than equally performing one). Put 2 of them on a 4x4
board - that'll make 8 cores - more than enough headroom for the next
couple of years. Comparable Intel setup will cost much more due to
more expensive board, and you'll have to deal with FB RAM that is
expensive and produces lots of heat, especially in config over 4GB.

NNN

  #3  
Old September 14th 07, 12:19 AM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Yousuf Khan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 917
Default Core 2 vs Xeon for development use

tbone wrote:
I'm trying to understand the significant differences are between the
normal workstation-type processors (Core 2 Duo, Extreme) and the
comparable core-count Xeon chips. Xeons appear to be oriented to
server use; why is that?



No real functional differences between Xeons or Core 2's, they are
really the same chips. The Xeons come with more support (warranty) for a
server environment. They are often equipped with more cache (though
that's not the case in Core 2 vs. Core 2-based Xeon).

Yousuf Khan
  #4  
Old September 14th 07, 09:40 AM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
David Kanter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 228
Default Core 2 vs Xeon for development use

On Sep 13, 2:02 pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:15:08 -0400, tbone wrote:
I'm trying to understand the significant differences are between the
normal workstation-type processors (Core 2 Duo, Extreme) and the
comparable core-count Xeon chips. Xeons appear to be oriented to
server use; why is that?


I'm looking into getting a new machine. This is not for gaming; it is
for my main development/daily use machine where I run 20-30 apps
concurrently all day long, including file sharing, compilers, music
playback, disk backup, photo editing, and more. Dell offers machines
with both Core 2 Duo and Dual-core Xeon.


Would Xeon be a better choice for me? I'm pretty sure quad core would
be pretty effective for my use.


To be sure I'd get the most out of these processors, I'd want 64-bit
support so I'm planning on Windows XP x64 (I will NOT do DRM with
Vista). Linux would be an option if a Windows virtual machine will
work on it easily (I don't have time to fool around with i)t. Are
programs generally compatible with x64, or are there issues?


Advice and/or references appreciated!
thanks
tbone


Ever looked at Opteron?http://anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3091
Latest 4 core (Barcelona) appears to be faster than comparably priced
Xeon (or cheaper than equally performing one). Put 2 of them on a 4x4
board - that'll make 8 cores - more than enough headroom for the next
couple of years. Comparable Intel setup will cost much more due to
more expensive board, and you'll have to deal with FB RAM that is
expensive and produces lots of heat, especially in config over 4GB.


Erm - the Core2Duo is vastly faster than Barcelona for compiling
stuff.

DK

  #5  
Old September 14th 07, 04:37 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 261
Default Core 2 vs Xeon for development use

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:40:12 -0000, David Kanter
wrote:

On Sep 13, 2:02 pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:15:08 -0400, tbone wrote:
I'm trying to understand the significant differences are between the
normal workstation-type processors (Core 2 Duo, Extreme) and the
comparable core-count Xeon chips. Xeons appear to be oriented to
server use; why is that?


I'm looking into getting a new machine. This is not for gaming; it is
for my main development/daily use machine where I run 20-30 apps
concurrently all day long, including file sharing, compilers, music
playback, disk backup, photo editing, and more. Dell offers machines
with both Core 2 Duo and Dual-core Xeon.


Would Xeon be a better choice for me? I'm pretty sure quad core would
be pretty effective for my use.


To be sure I'd get the most out of these processors, I'd want 64-bit
support so I'm planning on Windows XP x64 (I will NOT do DRM with
Vista). Linux would be an option if a Windows virtual machine will
work on it easily (I don't have time to fool around with i)t. Are
programs generally compatible with x64, or are there issues?


Advice and/or references appreciated!
thanks
tbone


Ever looked at Opteron?http://anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3091
Latest 4 core (Barcelona) appears to be faster than comparably priced
Xeon (or cheaper than equally performing one). Put 2 of them on a 4x4
board - that'll make 8 cores - more than enough headroom for the next
couple of years. Comparable Intel setup will cost much more due to
more expensive board, and you'll have to deal with FB RAM that is
expensive and produces lots of heat, especially in config over 4GB.


Erm - the Core2Duo is vastly faster than Barcelona for compiling
stuff.

DK


I have no idea as to what exactly you are compiling - but from my own
experience I can tell that my 3 year old dual Opty248 (2.2GHz) rig at
home compiles MS VS 2005 solutions (C#) faster than brand spanking new
Dell with Core2Duo 2.0GHz I have at work - and the Dell has 2x the
memory and faster HDD. No, I didn't run any benchmarks, but the delay
is noticeable by naked eye. Both boxes run WinXP Pro SP2 32bit and
the same version of VS2005 (.NET framework v2.0.50727).
IMHO, Core2Duo has no chance against 4 core Barcelona if the thing
they run is well multithreaded and can span all 4 cores. Core2Quad is
a closer comparison.

NNN

  #6  
Old September 14th 07, 05:57 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Nate Edel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 219
Default Core 2 vs Xeon for development use

tbone wrote:
I'm trying to understand the significant differences are between the
normal workstation-type processors (Core 2 Duo, Extreme) and the
comparable core-count Xeon chips. Xeons appear to be oriented to
server use; why is that?


Xeon 3000 is just repackaged Core 2, although some of the lower-clock-speed
quad core ones don't have comparable Core 2 Quad models. The difference is
just marketing.

Xeon 51xx/53xx is a dual-socket capable Core 2

I'm looking into getting a new machine. This is not for gaming; it is
for my main development/daily use machine where I run 20-30 apps
concurrently all day long, including file sharing, compilers, music
playback, disk backup, photo editing, and more. Dell offers machines
with both Core 2 Duo and Dual-core Xeon.

Would Xeon be a better choice for me? I'm pretty sure quad core would
be pretty effective for my use.


There are two advantages to dual sockets with Xeon 51xx/53xx over Core 2:
* the total memory bandwidth will be higher, if you use a quad-channel
memory configuration.
* you can get a total of 8 cores in a dual-socket/quad-core Xeon 53xx
setup.

Also, in most cases the total memory configurable for dual-socket systems is
higher, but that's not an inherent advantage to the Xeons - just a typical
motherboard design decision.

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/

"What's the use of yearning for Elysian Fields when you know you can't get
'em, and would only let 'em out on building leases if you had 'em?" (WSG)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Intel Xeon Quad Core Processor Corso General 2 June 27th 07 07:13 AM
Quad Core Xeon plus Dual Core Xeon? Gerry_uk General 11 May 5th 07 12:39 AM
Dual-Core Xeon vs 2 seperate Xeon on Motherboard [email protected] Intel 6 May 2nd 06 05:39 PM
Server Question RE Dual Core vs Xeon Robert R Kircher, Jr. Dell Computers 0 January 20th 06 09:52 PM
Intel releases dual-core Xeon finally YKhan General 23 October 16th 05 10:46 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 ComputerBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.