Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

has anyone actually tried a Xeon E3110 instead of an E8400?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 22, 2008 7:09:34 PM

The stats look almost identical, and have identical cpu id strings, multi, speed, LGA775.

http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sspec=slapm

http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sspec=slapl

The only differences that I can see are:

1. The E3110 has Intel I/OAT, the E8400 does not have I/OAT listed on its spec page (not that it's going to make a difference on a desktop).
2. Xeon label vs. C2D label on outside of chip.
3. Price - E3110 about $50 cheaper than E8400 right now.
4. Availability - Can actually find the E3110 in stock now.

More about : xeon e3110 e8400

February 22, 2008 7:37:28 PM

Well. Could be a nice choice. Intel and AMD have always picked the most durable CPUs for the server segment. You might even find out that it overclocks better than the E8400 (I'm 99% sure it will be so). Give it a shot.
February 22, 2008 7:51:44 PM

If your motherboard supports it then get it. If not dont bother. Your average desktop motherboard wont recognize it. Spend the extra $50.00 or get something cheaper and overclock it. The 6750 runs just about as fast for quite abit cheaper.


Your other post about this already got shot down. Asking again wont make it work.
Related resources
February 22, 2008 8:10:01 PM

I asked about it before, I don't think he did. Other's have gotten it to work fine on the average P35 motherboard. I'll know for sure by Monday or Tuesday though, so I can let you know. But there are a dozen threads about this on a dozen forums across the internet, and so far the agreement seems to be that the chips are identical (with this board being the only exception). It'll be nice if it works; if not, oh well.
February 22, 2008 8:29:41 PM

I dont know the exact specifics but supposedly the xeons have slight differences in optimizations for workstation/servers with I believe the pre-fetchers. Whether these differences actually /do/ exist and aren't just marketting, or whether those differences are even noticeable I do not know. They are alluded to in the Skulltrail (p)reviews in regards to the Xeon vs the EE. Considering the CPU strings are the same thouhg...

Personally, I'ld go with the Xeon after someone else first tests it in the same motherboard.
February 22, 2008 9:03:52 PM

I read around on some of the other forums and the general worldwide-web consensus seems to be that the LGA775 Xeon E3110 and E8400 are identical, aside from Intel marketing specs....Repackaging the E8400 as a Xeon E3110 and marketing it to the server crowd makes huge sense to me... As an IT server engineer, I could never convince my boss to buy a Core2Duo E8400 server - "Xeon E3110 Server" on a purchase request wouldn't be questioned one bit.

Curiousity got the best of me, so I just ordered a Xeon E3110 for $218 - it should be here in 2 business days.

...I have a Gigabyte GA-EX38-DS4, Tuniq 120, and 2GB of OCZ platinum DDR2 6400 sitting on a shelf waiting for a project.

Also, I've noticed several online retailers listing the Xeon E3110 as "Same as E8400" or putting in the title "(E8400/Wolfdale)" - I hope for their sake that it is.

a c 126 à CPUs
February 22, 2008 10:05:19 PM

It looks like it is the same CPU although one guy states it is no better than the E8400. I think it should ba as during the QA Intel will keep th best silicon for the Xeons so if the P35/X38 mobos support this we might even see better OC's than a E8400.
February 25, 2008 3:14:05 AM

If you look closely the Xeon starts with a higher core voltage but does not have a higher range, therefore it cannot overclock higher than the e8400, why they restricted the voltage on the Xeon is beyond me.
February 25, 2008 3:30:28 AM

Yeah, I noticed that too when looking at the published specs.
But I keep seeing posts in other forums where people are overclocking it and it keeps up with the 8400 no problem, but at lower volts.
I'll have one in a few days from now... can't wait to start playing with it.
February 25, 2008 3:48:30 AM

lpsidler said:
If you look closely the Xeon starts with a higher core voltage but does not have a higher range, therefore it cannot overclock higher than the e8400, why they restricted the voltage on the Xeon is beyond me.


Because server chips are never overclocked in the quest for ultimate stability.
February 28, 2008 5:29:25 AM

My E3110 arrived and I built my system this evening. Everything worked the first power-on. My motherboard recognized the CPU without issue (Gigabyte EX38-DS4). I just noticed while checking for BIOS updates, that the Xeon E3110 is now listed as a supported processor for this board... strange because it wasn't listed on their website a few days ago. My board came with the latest bios rev installed, F2.
a c 126 à CPUs
March 11, 2008 3:15:37 AM

Ninjawithagun said:
I decided to buy the E3110 when I found it on the ewiz.com website for $205 with free shipping. I got it a couple days later and installed it into my EVGA 780i motherboard and had no problems whatsoever. Both my Windows XP Pro and 64-bit Vista Ultimate booted up without any problems. Vista required a restart after installing the CPU drivers for the Xeon, but that was it. All works perfectly on both OSes (I have a dual-boot setup). I did some overclocking as well and was able to easily overclock to 3.4Ghz using the stock voltage. I had read in another forum that the E3110 will overclock up to 3.8Ghz on the stock voltage. I'll have to try that out sometime later this week ;) 

For now, I am very curious to know what it is exactly that is different between the E8400 and the E3110's microarchitecture. Is there really a difference that can be measured. So far, all my benchmarks show that there is no loss at all when it comes to the performance when gaming. Maybe someone else can shed some light onto this particular area in question?


Thats the thing. With this particualr series of Xeons there is no difference. It is more than likely a DP Server chip so it uses the same LGA775 and same specs. You probably wont be able to tell the difference between your CPU and a E8400 at the same clock speeds in gaming or anything really.

Now if it was a MP Server chip thats when the differences come in. Different socket, different chipsets, FB-DIMMS and overall differeces in architecture mainly it being setup for servers. This might have been another chip Intel wanted out there for everyone to be able to use. We shall never know. But as far as we can tell its just an overall nice chip for a good price. Talk about bang for your buck.
March 12, 2008 1:59:55 AM

Hey, is the stock heatsink any better than on the E8400?
March 12, 2008 11:40:56 AM

maybe i should try that when upgrading to a yorkfield quad, the server ones might be cheaper.
March 12, 2008 4:52:14 PM

No, the heatsink that came with my Xeon E3110 is the same old cheap looking aluminum heatsink that comes with the home version of the cpu.
March 12, 2008 11:03:21 PM

I was wondering the same thing. I can't find a comparison anywhere though, which is strange considering other people are thinking the same thing. We're all impatient I'm sure for the e8400 (I am at least) to hit the market again. The best thing is to just play it safe, wait, and go for the e8400 when it hits. Remember that it's supposed to retail at $185, which i think is less then the e3110.
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2008 12:05:13 PM

Got my parts yesterday, plugged my E3110 in my DS3L (rev. 2) with F7 BIOS and it booted like a charm.

Moreover, and I'm the first one surprised, my old XP installation even worked without having to reinstall; my old system was an Athlon XP 2800+ on Asus A7N8X with a 7800GT AGP so it is VERY different :p . Still I will reinstall completely.

Curious thing is that my version of PCWizard 2008 recognized my CPU as being a E8400 so I guess they really are the same.
March 19, 2008 12:20:42 PM

"Curious thing is that my version of PCWizard 2008 recognized my CPU as being a E8400 so I guess they really are the same."

Now, I do find that interesting.
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2008 8:34:23 PM

^Agreed.

@Zenthar: Mind posting some benchmarks?
March 19, 2008 9:04:22 PM

Quote:
@Zenthar: Mind posting some benchmarks?


+1
March 19, 2008 9:21:36 PM

I wonder if Intel will catch on and change prices a bit on one cpu or the other.

Or they dont really care. Anyone want to guess?
March 19, 2008 9:31:05 PM

They probably don't care...
March 19, 2008 11:42:04 PM

alpine18 said:
I read around on some of the other forums and the general worldwide-web consensus seems to be that the LGA775 Xeon E3110 and E8400 are identical, aside from Intel marketing specs....Repackaging the E8400 as a Xeon E3110 and marketing it to the server crowd makes huge sense to me... As an IT server engineer, I could never convince my boss to buy a Core2Duo E8400 server - "Xeon E3110 Server" on a purchase request wouldn't be questioned one bit.

Curiousity got the best of me, so I just ordered a Xeon E3110 for $218 - it should be here in 2 business days.

...I have a Gigabyte GA-EX38-DS4, Tuniq 120, and 2GB of OCZ platinum DDR2 6400 sitting on a shelf waiting for a project.

Also, I've noticed several online retailers listing the Xeon E3110 as "Same as E8400" or putting in the title "(E8400/Wolfdale)" - I hope for their sake that it is.


If the device ID is the same then the same uCode will load and you should be free and clear running it on your motherboard. My friend at Intel told me they are finally going to show support for the 775 LGA Xeons based on the Kentsfield and Conroe processor cores. He said the uCode that is loaded is exactly the same for the standard Kentsfields and Conroes as to the Xeon versions.

I was told that one of the tests they perform in their Bios lab is to verify that supported processors load the correct uCode and if they don't the Bios is rejected.
March 20, 2008 12:37:29 AM

alpine18 said:
No, the heatsink that came with my Xeon E3110 is the same old cheap looking aluminum heatsink that comes with the home version of the cpu.

It is the same heatsink they ship with the Celeron.
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2008 11:34:09 AM

Shadow703793 said:
^Agreed.

@Zenthar: Mind posting some benchmarks?
I will post 3DMark 2006 score as soon as I have everything up and running; I installed Vista x64 yesterday. Any other benchmarks you want?
March 20, 2008 12:33:57 PM

But what about server quads, should they should work the same? That might be the only way to get those penryn quads to desktops soon.(other than the extreme edition)
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2008 12:50:40 PM

gamecrazychris said:
But what about server quads, should they should work the same? That might be the only way to get those penryn quads to desktops soon.(other than the extreme edition)
I searched a bit on Intel's website and on Wikipedia, and there seems to be no Quad-Core Xeon 45 nm using LGA 775 sockets, so at first glance, the answer would be no.
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2008 9:56:21 PM

Ok, here are my scores. Few extra things:
  • I got a 8800GTS (G92) video card
  • I'm running Vista 64 Ultimate
  • I didn't tweak anything yet, everything is default (for example, my RAM runs at 6-6-6-18 instead of 4-4-4-15)
  • I didn't shutdown any background services (anti-virus, ...), ...

    SM 2.0:5778
    SM 3.0:5543
    CPU:2770
    Overall:12236

    If you want a direct comparison, here is the link.

    Compared to other higher scores for similar system (Same CPU, GPU, OS, ...), I noticed the main difference was the SM 3.0 score by ~150 at most. Why .... no idea :p .
    a b à CPUs
    March 20, 2008 10:22:07 PM

    Jake_Barnes said:
    "Curious thing is that my version of PCWizard 2008 recognized my CPU as being a E8400 so I guess they really are the same."

    Now, I do find that interesting.
    I re-did the PCWizard 2008 "test" with the latest version I could find on the web (1.84, dated from February 2008) and I still get the same reported E8400 :p .

    March 21, 2008 8:47:07 PM

    Zenthar said:
    I searched a bit on Intel's website and on Wikipedia, and there seems to be no Quad-Core Xeon 45 nm using LGA 775 sockets, so at first glance, the answer would be no.


    Well, there is the Xeon X3360:

    http://compare.intel.com/pcc/showchart.aspx?mmID=555555&familyID=5&culture=en-US

    The pricing I have seen from retailers is around $500-$600 - not bad for a 2.83Ghz quad-core Yorkfield with a Xeon name on it, considering the QX9650 is only 0.17 GHz faster and is twice the price.

    I doubt they really have one in stock: http://www.lagoom.com/INTEL_CPU_XEON_QUAD_CORE_X3360/EU80569KJ073N/partinfo-id-580392.html
    a b à CPUs
    March 22, 2008 12:18:09 AM

    Glad to be wrong :p 

    I wonder if it will have the same CPUID as the Q9450 since they seem to share the same spec...
    !