Intel Xeon vs Intel Core i7
Solved
Jeankowkow
Posted messages
154
Status
Membre
-
QIFSHA -
QIFSHA -
Hello,
I wanted to know your opinion on Intel Xeon and Intel Core i7 processors. What are their orientations, their performances?
I know that you can put 2 Xeon processors on certain motherboards, but can you do the same with the Core i7?
I wanted to know your opinion on Intel Xeon and Intel Core i7 processors. What are their orientations, their performances?
I know that you can put 2 Xeon processors on certain motherboards, but can you do the same with the Core i7?
Configuration: Windows Vista Internet Explorer 7.0
12 réponses
The Xeon and the Core have different orientations,
The Xeon is a commercial designation for server/workstation processors from Intel.
There have been Xeons "Pentium 4", "Core 2" and now "Core i7 Nehalem".
Xeons are classified with a four-digit number:
Xeon 3XXX = single processor, 5XXX = dual processor, 7XXX = quad processor.
X5XX = Core i7, X4XX = Core 2, etc.
The last two digits indicate the processor frequency.
I'm simplifying for architecture, but that's the idea.
They typically have more cache memory, run on FBDIMM (reliable DDR that costs an arm and a leg), and have more cores than the consumer versions of their architectures.
The quad CPU Core 2 Xeons each have 6 cores, so 4*6 = 24 cores in total for the machine!
Such a high number of cores is completely unnecessary for the average person and is reserved for heavy mathematical calculations and other 3D processing.
For gaming, 4 cores are more than sufficient... (the best value for money is currently for dual cores, especially used ones).
So unless you're rich, because Xeons cost a fortune, or you want to perform heavy mathematical processing or something else on your PC, buy an i7 or Core 2.
The Xeon is a commercial designation for server/workstation processors from Intel.
There have been Xeons "Pentium 4", "Core 2" and now "Core i7 Nehalem".
Xeons are classified with a four-digit number:
Xeon 3XXX = single processor, 5XXX = dual processor, 7XXX = quad processor.
X5XX = Core i7, X4XX = Core 2, etc.
The last two digits indicate the processor frequency.
I'm simplifying for architecture, but that's the idea.
They typically have more cache memory, run on FBDIMM (reliable DDR that costs an arm and a leg), and have more cores than the consumer versions of their architectures.
The quad CPU Core 2 Xeons each have 6 cores, so 4*6 = 24 cores in total for the machine!
Such a high number of cores is completely unnecessary for the average person and is reserved for heavy mathematical calculations and other 3D processing.
For gaming, 4 cores are more than sufficient... (the best value for money is currently for dual cores, especially used ones).
So unless you're rich, because Xeons cost a fortune, or you want to perform heavy mathematical processing or something else on your PC, buy an i7 or Core 2.
The i7 is made "for everyone," so it's also effective for gaming.
On the other hand, Xeons are made for "workstations," ideal when you are working on video or 3D.
Both are high-end processors, so you will be able to run your games just as well on either (they don't have the same orientation).
But to answer your question, it's true that I don't know which one is better when comparing them from every point of view. (And I would be curious to know :/)
On the other hand, Xeons are made for "workstations," ideal when you are working on video or 3D.
Both are high-end processors, so you will be able to run your games just as well on either (they don't have the same orientation).
But to answer your question, it's true that I don't know which one is better when comparing them from every point of view. (And I would be curious to know :/)
I see that the topic is generating a lot of interest.
My experience is that: even in extreme working conditions, a Xeon doesn't always bring much.
I've had Pro64 on a quad-core 3.2GHz and a dual Xeon5520 2.27GHz with 12GB.
I don't play but work on Photoshop, Illustrator, After Effects, 3ds Max (90% of the time) with large scenes between 2 and 10 million polygons.
The advantage of the Xeon is during rendering, 100% of the processor is utilized.
It's clear that this is the fastest option. Furthermore, over time you can upgrade from a single processor to a dual processor.
The downside is that, even in Max and many applications, only one core is utilized, meaning that for a dual Xeon, only 7% is being used. And that's really frustrating when I have to delete 1 million polygons (across several thousand objects) at once; I wait nearly 2 minutes, sometimes even 1 hour. On my quad-core, it's almost instantaneous because it uses the processor much better.
It's crazy, I know, and I've verified that I'm not the only one in this situation.
My solution for large scenes: disable multithreading via the motherboard.
It works much better but less effectively for calculations.
So the real solution is to have a quad-core with the best frequency and internal memory for executing the job and a Xeon as a server for calculations... (otherwise honestly it’s useless if there aren’t any 3D calculations)
Best regards
Cyro
My experience is that: even in extreme working conditions, a Xeon doesn't always bring much.
I've had Pro64 on a quad-core 3.2GHz and a dual Xeon5520 2.27GHz with 12GB.
I don't play but work on Photoshop, Illustrator, After Effects, 3ds Max (90% of the time) with large scenes between 2 and 10 million polygons.
The advantage of the Xeon is during rendering, 100% of the processor is utilized.
It's clear that this is the fastest option. Furthermore, over time you can upgrade from a single processor to a dual processor.
The downside is that, even in Max and many applications, only one core is utilized, meaning that for a dual Xeon, only 7% is being used. And that's really frustrating when I have to delete 1 million polygons (across several thousand objects) at once; I wait nearly 2 minutes, sometimes even 1 hour. On my quad-core, it's almost instantaneous because it uses the processor much better.
It's crazy, I know, and I've verified that I'm not the only one in this situation.
My solution for large scenes: disable multithreading via the motherboard.
It works much better but less effectively for calculations.
So the real solution is to have a quad-core with the best frequency and internal memory for executing the job and a Xeon as a server for calculations... (otherwise honestly it’s useless if there aren’t any 3D calculations)
Best regards
Cyro
I have a dual-processor XEON E5520 quad-core PC (at work) and I'm planning to buy an i7 2.8 or 2.93 GHz.
I could tell you the difference if you want, but the price is not the same. The Dual-Xeon setup costs 1500 euros for the computer, while the i7 is half that price.
As a first approach, the motherboard for the Xeon is intended for "server" use, so it's not easy to install a graphics card (it's already lacking a 16X slot).
** In terms of speed, the Xeon is very fast (installing Windows 7 Ultimate in 6 minutes)
** For the display, the Xeon, without a video card, has windows that don't move smoothly (I will be installing an appropriate video card)
But I confirm what was said above, the dual-Xeon (in my case) and the i7 have different purposes. The first is for heavy calculations or servers, while the second is more geared towards gaming (which also requires power)
When looking at the Dell website for example, the high-end models feature either i7 or Xeon (and maybe even bigger Xeon models - let's say consumer pricing)
But if you have benchmarking software to compare the two, I'd be willing to give it a try.
I could tell you the difference if you want, but the price is not the same. The Dual-Xeon setup costs 1500 euros for the computer, while the i7 is half that price.
As a first approach, the motherboard for the Xeon is intended for "server" use, so it's not easy to install a graphics card (it's already lacking a 16X slot).
** In terms of speed, the Xeon is very fast (installing Windows 7 Ultimate in 6 minutes)
** For the display, the Xeon, without a video card, has windows that don't move smoothly (I will be installing an appropriate video card)
But I confirm what was said above, the dual-Xeon (in my case) and the i7 have different purposes. The first is for heavy calculations or servers, while the second is more geared towards gaming (which also requires power)
When looking at the Dell website for example, the high-end models feature either i7 or Xeon (and maybe even bigger Xeon models - let's say consumer pricing)
But if you have benchmarking software to compare the two, I'd be willing to give it a try.
Hello, as for the clock speed, there is definitely a slight difference between the i7 at 1.6 and the i7 at 2.6... but in my opinion, given the initial capabilities of the i7... you should know that some i7s (which are no longer for sale) the extreme editions still require a different socket from the "traditional" i7s. But it's clear that a good i7 870 at 2.93 GHz is still appreciated. After, you can't really say that one i7 processor is more powerful than another because if you take an i7 860 at 2.80 and overclock it to 2.93, well... since the cache memory is the same as the 870, they'll be on par...
As for the Xeons, I read an article claiming there is an embedded Xeon with Nehalem technology, rumors or not...
take a look:
https://www.clubic.com/actualite-254362-processeur-intel-xeon-huit-coeurs-nehalem.html
It's crazy at Intel...
As for the Xeons, I read an article claiming there is an embedded Xeon with Nehalem technology, rumors or not...
take a look:
https://www.clubic.com/actualite-254362-processeur-intel-xeon-huit-coeurs-nehalem.html
It's crazy at Intel...
Professionally, I used a DELL T7500 BI XEON 2.26 GHz (8 physical cores and 8 virtual ones if I'm not mistaken) with 12GB RAM + NVIDIA QUADRO FX 3800 1GB graphics card.
Honestly, I miss that workstation, as it was a delight for surface modeling (3D), rendering, and 2D.
I really pushed it to its limits; I loaded it with simultaneous calculations and I always finished my tedious work on time thanks to it.
In general, I would run about 10 to 12 images for calculation under Maxwell Render with lots of lights in my scenes, while continuing to model in Rhinoceros 3D V5. Obviously, it was the number of cores and not the memory that allowed me to successfully complete my tasks...
I did feel some slowdowns at times during modeling and the automatic saves seemed more frequent, but the workstation never crashed in 3 years.
I would like to know if the i7 can hold up in comparison...
I might invest in a T7500... I just checked DELL and looking for a nearly equivalent machine to the one I had, I'm arriving at a price of €2639 (back then it was €3900).
Does anyone have an idea for building an equivalent machine by myself? (Motherboard + case + power supply + fans that are also quiet)
Honestly, I miss that workstation, as it was a delight for surface modeling (3D), rendering, and 2D.
I really pushed it to its limits; I loaded it with simultaneous calculations and I always finished my tedious work on time thanks to it.
In general, I would run about 10 to 12 images for calculation under Maxwell Render with lots of lights in my scenes, while continuing to model in Rhinoceros 3D V5. Obviously, it was the number of cores and not the memory that allowed me to successfully complete my tasks...
I did feel some slowdowns at times during modeling and the automatic saves seemed more frequent, but the workstation never crashed in 3 years.
I would like to know if the i7 can hold up in comparison...
I might invest in a T7500... I just checked DELL and looking for a nearly equivalent machine to the one I had, I'm arriving at a price of €2639 (back then it was €3900).
Does anyone have an idea for building an equivalent machine by myself? (Motherboard + case + power supply + fans that are also quiet)
Ok, thanks for the response...
Questions like the choice of a Xeon over an i7 come up when approaching a retail vendor, with the idea of buying a machine equipped with Xeons; many seem to consider these processors as obsolete, due to a lack of knowledge.
Thanks to the internet for your insightful advice.
Questions like the choice of a Xeon over an i7 come up when approaching a retail vendor, with the idea of buying a machine equipped with Xeons; many seem to consider these processors as obsolete, due to a lack of knowledge.
Thanks to the internet for your insightful advice.
That's a bit of a problem with some salespeople... Sometimes the goal is just to sell, and they don't necessarily know their subject well depending on the stores...
The kind of salesperson who assures their "client" that with an i3-2100 and a GT 530 they can play Crysis 2 on "Hardcore" in full HD because they have 6GB of RAM and 3GB of graphics memory, and if you talk to them about machines for professional/semi-professional use, they don't even understand what you're talking about... You're more likely to get good advice from a technician/builder in a "small local shop."
The kind of salesperson who assures their "client" that with an i3-2100 and a GT 530 they can play Crysis 2 on "Hardcore" in full HD because they have 6GB of RAM and 3GB of graphics memory, and if you talk to them about machines for professional/semi-professional use, they don't even understand what you're talking about... You're more likely to get good advice from a technician/builder in a "small local shop."
If you want to play, get an i7 because what determines the quality of calculations for games is the number of GHz, while a Xeon only reaches 2.9 GHz, whereas you can boost an i7 to over 4.5 GHz and even more (but be prepared for liquid nitrogen x) ); and Xeons have a huge number of cores to be able to do a lot of things at the same time, so for gaming: i7; for work: Xeon.
Hello.
By postponing Xeon for a moment, I see for my part that there are several types of i7 processors, but I was wondering..
Which one is the best, or does it really make a difference to see the type and notice that the GHz level is not the same?
When looking at most of these processors, I often see i7... (1.6 GHz) and the i7 620M gives (2.66 GHz).
Can you enlighten me?? If it is so powerful, does it make a difference?
By postponing Xeon for a moment, I see for my part that there are several types of i7 processors, but I was wondering..
Which one is the best, or does it really make a difference to see the type and notice that the GHz level is not the same?
When looking at most of these processors, I often see i7... (1.6 GHz) and the i7 620M gives (2.66 GHz).
Can you enlighten me?? If it is so powerful, does it make a difference?
Hello,
so the i7s are the high-end processors from Intel.
Originally designed for servers (yes), the Nehalem processors (name of the architecture) will soon be adapted for desktop PCs and also for laptops. But they will be less powerful or some features will be cut. Some will even have an integrated graphics chipset (in 2010). And above all, the socket will no longer be the same.
Comparing an i7 to a Xeon is like comparing two processors from different eras.
Soon, dual i7 motherboards will make their appearance for servers. (late 2009) for now, that's not the case.
Of course, 2 Xeons are more powerful than a single i7 (that's normal.) Just like 2 P3 processors were more powerful than 1 P4.
But when the dual i7 boards are ready, it will be another story.
so the i7s are the high-end processors from Intel.
Originally designed for servers (yes), the Nehalem processors (name of the architecture) will soon be adapted for desktop PCs and also for laptops. But they will be less powerful or some features will be cut. Some will even have an integrated graphics chipset (in 2010). And above all, the socket will no longer be the same.
Comparing an i7 to a Xeon is like comparing two processors from different eras.
Soon, dual i7 motherboards will make their appearance for servers. (late 2009) for now, that's not the case.
Of course, 2 Xeons are more powerful than a single i7 (that's normal.) Just like 2 P3 processors were more powerful than 1 P4.
But when the dual i7 boards are ready, it will be another story.
It’s true that Xeons are very expensive, so I'm going to go for an i7 now, but ...
I bought a Xeon 5110 tower in 2006 with 4GB of FBDIMM that cost me an arm and a leg... I was quite surprised three weeks ago to see it still holding up against a Phenom X2 with 4GB of DDR3 1000.
(I’m not talking about benchmarks or other synthetic tests but about distortion in Photoshop or creating smoke)
So the advantages:
1- When you have the money, even years later it still holds some value, whereas even the best gaming tower from 2006 would be completely outdated.
2- It’s indestructible
On the other hand, it’s not at all made for gaming, and let’s say that 15% of the price is only justified by the Xeon legend for pros.
...get another opinion quickly before believing just anyone, anywhere...
Charlatans have always thrived in castle courts as jesters among other things...
:)
:)
:)