Go Back   Hardware Canucks > HARDWARE > CPU's and Motherboards

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old July 24, 2007, 07:11 PM
enaberif's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgahree, AB
Posts: 10,604
Default C2D vs Quad vs Xeon

I know that with the C2D you get a cpu that has 2 cores and usually 2-4mb cache and with the quads you get 4 cores and a 8mb cache, but whats up with the Xeons? I've never really understood these aside from them usually being in a server system.

They say it has a 8mb L2 cache so does that mean the L1 has a 8mb cache and the L2 the same?

Also now that the 6750 and the 6850 are out running at the 1333 fsb a lot of people are asking the question is the 6x50 worth it or get the quad? I usually say the say cause of the price and future proofing, but what would you ultimately get.

Someone please enlighten me and no links either I want word of mouth!
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old July 24, 2007, 08:26 PM
belgolas's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: St. Thomas Ontario close to london
Posts: 3,928

My System Specs

Default

Xeon's are meant for servers and work sataions. Don't buy them for normal use. the 8mb L2 cache is only for L2. There is different cache for L1. For what processor I would choose the quad core because it can last longer but for now and the forseeable future the faster dual cores would be better for the average person. Although you could overclock either but the quads use more energy. It is all on what you are going to be using it for.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old July 24, 2007, 08:29 PM
enaberif's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgahree, AB
Posts: 10,604
Default

Then how much cache does the L1 cache have on the Xeons?
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old July 25, 2007, 04:53 AM
Fallen Folder
F@H
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: folding in GTA
Posts: 375
Default

the quad xeon's x3210 and x3220 (s775) are the same as the q6400 (never retail released) and the q6600 respectively in terms of cache. They are all 8MB L2. Some of the 771 lowend xeons are only 4 mb cache but all the highend ones are 8MB.

The s775 xeons are just binned differently and will run on lower V (ie. VID will be lower). They may oc better due to the binning, but that is not the binning criteria ... lower power consumption and heat production is the objective since no OEM server mobos support oc'ing anyway.

But since the x3xxx xeons run s775, us oc'ers get our hands on them and find that they sometimes oc better than their desktop siblings.
I have found that x3210's oc about the same as b3 stepping q6600's but at slightly lower volts even with a lower multi. This is based on my 4 x3210's and 2 q6600's.

The x3xxx's don't show any new steppings (yet) so they are still b3. I will be trying out a G0 q6600 soon so the oc'ing vs volt balance may change in favour of the new q6600's.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old July 25, 2007, 08:18 AM
enaberif's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgahree, AB
Posts: 10,604
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pscout View Post
the quad xeon's x3210 and x3220 (s775) are the same as the q6400 (never retail released) and the q6600 respectively in terms of cache. They are all 8MB L2. Some of the 771 lowend xeons are only 4 mb cache but all the highend ones are 8MB.

The s775 xeons are just binned differently and will run on lower V (ie. VID will be lower). They may oc better due to the binning, but that is not the binning criteria ... lower power consumption and heat production is the objective since no OEM server mobos support oc'ing anyway.

But since the x3xxx xeons run s775, us oc'ers get our hands on them and find that they sometimes oc better than their desktop siblings.
I have found that x3210's oc about the same as b3 stepping q6600's but at slightly lower volts even with a lower multi. This is based on my 4 x3210's and 2 q6600's.

The x3xxx's don't show any new steppings (yet) so they are still b3. I will be trying out a G0 q6600 soon so the oc'ing vs volt balance may change in favour of the new q6600's.
Lemme know how that works as the price of a x3220 or q6600 isn't much different and I know the Xeons can be better at times.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old August 9, 2007, 05:08 PM
milkoholicbear's Avatar
Rookie
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal - West Island
Posts: 13
Default

Xeons can run in multi processor (sockets) machines, which the others can't.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old August 9, 2007, 07:33 PM
Eldonko's Avatar
Hardware Canucks Reviewer
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 5,445
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pscout View Post
the quad xeon's x3210 and x3220 (s775) are the same as the q6400 (never retail released) and the q6600 respectively in terms of cache. They are all 8MB L2. Some of the 771 lowend xeons are only 4 mb cache but all the highend ones are 8MB.

The s775 xeons are just binned differently and will run on lower V (ie. VID will be lower). They may oc better due to the binning, but that is not the binning criteria ... lower power consumption and heat production is the objective since no OEM server mobos support oc'ing anyway.

But since the x3xxx xeons run s775, us oc'ers get our hands on them and find that they sometimes oc better than their desktop siblings.
I have found that x3210's oc about the same as b3 stepping q6600's but at slightly lower volts even with a lower multi. This is based on my 4 x3210's and 2 q6600's.

The x3xxx's don't show any new steppings (yet) so they are still b3. I will be trying out a G0 q6600 soon so the oc'ing vs volt balance may change in favour of the new q6600's.
Good post, bang on. Both a Q6600 and X3320 will be pretty close in terms of oc id say, cant go wrong with either.
__________________
Donkeys kill more people annually than plane crashes or shark attacks.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old August 9, 2007, 07:47 PM
Fallen Folder
F@H
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: folding in GTA
Posts: 375
Default

a bit of an update ... there are new G0 steppings out for the x3210 and x3220, although they may take a while to make it through the supply chain.

Also, i just tried out a b3 x3220 and was sadly disappointed with how much v it took to oc stable to 3.1. My x3210's are much nicer. But i was also supprised that the vid on the x3220 was the same as my b3 q6600's so it was probably just a bad x3220. Q6600 G0's are way better ... and it sounds like others got even nicer G0's than i did.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old August 9, 2007, 08:07 PM
belgolas's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: St. Thomas Ontario close to london
Posts: 3,928

My System Specs

Default

Some can get 4+GHz with the Q6600 G0!
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old August 9, 2007, 10:40 PM
Fallen Folder
F@H
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: folding in GTA
Posts: 375
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by belgolas View Post
Some can get 4+GHz with the Q6600 G0!
I might be able to do it on mine too but i did not go over 1.4V on air. Mine are running 100% load 724 folding stable. Bumping the oc with high vc costs a ton of watts (and $) past this point, and it is hard to cool a rack with a bunch of them on it.

High vc and oc doesn't cost much when the machine is idling most of the time.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
xeon Rapid-X CPU's and Motherboards 17 March 9, 2008 05:07 AM
Xeon Workstation Build TOBoiDan CPU's and Motherboards 6 February 8, 2008 10:35 AM
Is this a good deal on a Xeon X3220? r00tman CPU's and Motherboards 3 July 11, 2007 08:13 PM
GamePC reviews Intel Xeon E5345 and X5355 quad-core processors Supergrover Reviews & Articles from the Web 0 January 5, 2007 06:28 PM