What would happen if you put a server CPU in a gaming PC?

Solution
At those prices, the Xeon is no longer a value. I would just get a 4770k over a 4771 or 1275 v3. Anything past a 1245 really doesn't make much sense from a price/performance stand if you want i7 performance and IGP in a non overclocking rig.
That Xeon in particular wouldn't be great for gaming. Something like a 1230v2 would serve (too funny) you better. The Xeon I listed for example would perform the same as an Ivy Bridge i7 with the same clock speed. It just lacks a few features that the other CPus have, none that most people even use though.
 

vmN

Honorable
Oct 27, 2013
1,666
0
12,160
Today there arent the big diffirences on server cpu and gamer cpu.
Server cpu is stabler, reason why it cant overclock.

Server cou can utilize different memory also if i remember correctly(ecc)
 

casper1973

Distinguished
Dec 30, 2012
942
0
19,360
I've seen a few people on here go for the Xeon e3-1230v3 instead of an i5 recently.

Provided you have no plans to over-clock, the Xeon is only 0.1GHz lower than an i5-4670 but has Hyper-threading enabled. It's also compatible with most H87 motherboards.

It costs about $40 more but totally worthwhile for the Hyper-threading, especially in games like BF4 which have good multi-threaded support.


The higher-end Xeons are not compatible with standard desktop boards. These boards tend to be more expensive and don't support features such as SLI/Crossfire since they are designed for use in a server/workstation.
 

DeathAndPain

Honorable
Jul 12, 2013
358
0
10,860
The truth is that there are faster Xeons than Core i's for regular mainboards (measured by clock speed). They typically have no integrated graphics, but you don't want that anyway. In return they have a larger CPU cache which can improve performance. The fastest Xeons that fit into regular mainboards are pretty expensive, but they work.

Yes, you cannot overclock them, but overclocking is not an attractive feature for Intel CPUs anyway, IMHO. Too much disadvantages.


  • ■ You lose most of the outstanding power-saving features that make Haswell stand out
    ■ You need a better cooling solution -> more expensive
    ■ You need a K-type CPU -> more expensive
    ■ K-type CPUs have a few less features/abilities
    ■ Unless you go for that non-Z-overclocking-feature, you need a Z87 chipset -> much more expensive
    ■ Unless you go for a really expensive and fault-prone water cooling solution, you have higher racket from cooling
    ■ Cooling your case becomes harder because more heat is blown into the case
    ■ You have a higher electricity bill because CPU power consumption rises linear with clock speed and even square with voltage (and overclocking often requires a higher voltage)
    ■ In summer you get more unwelcome heat blown into your room

All the above for a few hundred more MHz. The above list especially shows that the additional performance from overclocking is not free. You pay for it at several ends - and Intel made sure some of this additional money goes into their purse. The original idea of squeezing out more performance for free is defeated.
 

TriBeard

Honorable
Jan 13, 2014
183
0
10,710
It used to be that some of the server chips were faster than even the highest end consumer chips, and that there were a lot more multi-cpu boards for the server chips. So people would get 2 super fast dual core or sometimes quad core xeon chips and put them on the same board and get great performance. Now-a-days though, we have consumer chips that are at a high enough clock speed while having more than enough cores for pretty much everyone that doesn't actually need a server that the benefits of using a server chip are pretty much null unless you want the ecc memory or are making a workstation and want some extra stability, which comes more from the server motherboards you use them on than the processors themselves.
 

DeathAndPain

Honorable
Jul 12, 2013
358
0
10,860
Nobody is talking about getting an expensive server board here. Those Xeons fit into the exactly same boards as regular Core i7's. Unless the situation that you described in which you had to pay a fortune in gold and silver for your server-CPU solution, these Xeons are not more expensive than their i7 counterparts. So the question is, why get an i7 with an integrated GPU that you never plan on using when for the same money you can get a Xeon that has a larger CPU cache instead? The advantage isn't much, but there is no drawback (other than the impossibility to overclock, but I do not consider that a drawback, see my preceding reply)! For that reason, I would pick a Xeon over an i7 anytime unless I really plan on setting up a pure work computer that needs a lot of processing performance but no good graphics so I can use the integrated GPU. In fact the Xeon might be the better choice even then, because it will allow you to use the whole thermal budget of the CPU fro processing data.
 

Arishok N7

Honorable
Aug 6, 2012
389
0
10,810

Which Xeon CPU's would you recommend over an I5, I7?
 

DeathAndPain

Honorable
Jul 12, 2013
358
0
10,860
I would use a 1270 so I have no drawback to the 4770.


Yes, but then I can as well get an i7.
 

Arishok N7

Honorable
Aug 6, 2012
389
0
10,810


Are any of the Xeon E5 CPU's any good?
 

DeathAndPain

Honorable
Jul 12, 2013
358
0
10,860

True, but if you want a little more speed, the 4771 is cheaper than the 1275 v3. :) If you want even more unoverclocked speed, there is no speed-equivalent i7-counterpart to the 1285 v3 though.