Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

2 Xeon vs 1 Core 2 Extreme

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 24, 2008 5:27:05 AM

Well, that is a very broad question you are asking.

There are many varyables, but generally 2 xeons would be better.

You do know that a Core 2 Extreme is just a regular core 2 duo with an unlocked multiplier for overclocking right? you can easily but a q6600 and OC it to be significantly faster than a core 2 extreme.
May 24, 2008 8:23:41 AM

An extreme CPU is NOT the same as the standard. The QX9650 for example has 820 million transistors vs 410 million for Q6600 vs 584 million for QX6700. The best way to gauge dual socket vs single socket is to read Tom's skulltrail review where they actually posted bench's for both. There are some surprises and well worth the read.
Related resources
May 24, 2008 9:44:53 AM

Skulltrail is a horrible example, its a diffrent cpu type, built for a diffrent purpose. It was purpose built for video editors who dont want to blow 50,000 dollars on a system. Xeons are built for servers. And it also depends what he is going to use them for, if its gamin or the such, core 2 would serve the purpose better. If he converts video, edits, or does large numbers of cpu intensive tasks zeons would serve him better. Also the QX9650 has a higher clock then the Q6600 at stock speeds, in order to gauruntee this yeah intel is going to put more transistors on the chip.
May 24, 2008 10:37:14 AM

If it was purpose built for video editors why did some of the video benchmarks mark below the performance of a QX9650? This surprised even the reviewers. Please read the article before commenting. Also how does putting more transistors on a cpu guarantee a higher clock? I would suggest you have NO idea what your talking about.
a b à CPUs
May 24, 2008 10:50:23 AM

Vertigon said:
An extreme CPU is NOT the same as the standard. The QX9650 for example has 820 million transistors vs 410 million for Q6600 vs 584 million for QX6700. The best way to gauge dual socket vs single socket is to read Tom's skulltrail review where they actually posted bench's for both. There are some surprises and well worth the read.


:sarcastic:  QX9650 is 45nm with 6mb L2 per die (dual die - 2x6mb to get 12mb total) where as the Q6600 and Q6700/QX6700 are a 65nm part with 2x4mb L2, as for extreme vs normal - the ONLY difference is the unlocked multi - take a look at a Q9450 vs the QX9650 - the latter is just a higher clocked chip with an unlocked multi.
a b à CPUs
May 24, 2008 11:01:12 AM

Vertigon said:
If it was purpose built for video editors why did some of the video benchmarks mark below the performance of a QX9650? This surprised even the reviewers. Please read the article before commenting. Also how does putting more transistors on a cpu guarantee a higher clock? I would suggest you have NO idea what your talking about.


LOL i wont suggest you have no idea what your talking about, but ill tell you you are clueless and shouldnt be posting here when you are the one who has no idea what you are talking about.

More transistors to guarantee a higher clock... tell me, how come i cant clock my Pentium 1 with a pathetic ~3 million transistors to 3+ghz?

The QX9650 was using faster (and cheaper) desktop memory on a less reliable/stable but faster "desktop" chipset, running apps that are not totally designed to scale with more cores - what do you expect?

The Skulltrail is a power house system, pretty much a server with SLI support and more desktop features, but is still essentially a server rig, and as more and more apps support multi-threading, the faster it will be, its not designed for now really (desktop system wise), and apps that arnt multi threaded will be running on one core @ 3.2ghz with reduced memory sub system performance and higher latencies on a server chipset.
a b à CPUs
May 24, 2008 11:22:50 AM

Quote:
Well I will say there is no such thing as a pentium 1, lol.
Actually the first pentiums were called P5's.


Referring to the Pentium S as in P54C (Non MMX), and very true that, there was no number although most bios's reported "Pentium 1", the core or series was called P5 as in sort of like 586, replacing the 486 (and the latter successor the Pentium Pro - P6 etc). The Codes like P54C and P55C were replaced after with names like Duschutes, Clamath, Katmai etc.
May 24, 2008 12:31:15 PM

apache_lives said:
...

More transistors to guarantee a higher clock... tell me, how come i cant clock my Pentium 1 with a pathetic ~3 million transistors to 3+ghz?

...


Id bet real money it wouldnt matter how many transistors they threw on that puppy, at the time, theres no way in hell you could have gotten a chip to 1Ghz, much less 3. Its the process technology that allows for higher clocks, the added transistors allow for more to get done per clock. And neither metric actually determines how fast a chip runs, thats in the design.
a b à CPUs
May 24, 2008 1:05:42 PM

B-Unit said:
Id bet real money it wouldnt matter how many transistors they threw on that puppy, at the time, theres no way in hell you could have gotten a chip to 1Ghz, much less 3. Its the process technology that allows for higher clocks, the added transistors allow for more to get done per clock. And neither metric actually determines how fast a chip runs, thats in the design.


Spot on there mate, manufacturing process and design, pipelines, etc create a good chip.

I managed to overclock a Pentium MMX to 300/100 - only one sample did it :D 
May 24, 2008 2:17:25 PM

apache......bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Your analogy is stupid, the e8400 has 410 million transistors and still clocks at 3 standard.

one minute your saying "More transistors to guarantee a higher clock"
next your agreeing with B-Unit when he basically states the number of transistors are irrelevant:

"Its the process technology that allows for higher clocks, the added transistors allow for more to get done per clock. And neither metric actually determines how fast a chip runs, thats in the design."

Email Intel and ask them about the differences in their chips, I did.

The original question was "Would 1 COre 2 Extreme be better than 2 Xeons ? "

Benches:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-skulltrail-pa...

As you can see the single socket QX9650 compares well at less than half the price, maybe you need someone to explain things to you in a slower and more concise fashion.

May 25, 2008 8:45:04 AM

they are too much xeon which one
a b à CPUs
May 27, 2008 8:50:01 AM

Your benchmarks with the QX9650 show me that software isnt ready for more then two cores etc - old news, same deal as now seeing a dual core clocked to 4ghz beating a quad core at ~3ghz.

I used the P1 as an example that transistors and clock speeds dont matter for performance and overall max clock or average clock speed etc.

What happened to you claiming the EE's have more transistors now? Hmmmmm, wonder who actually looks stupid?
May 27, 2008 8:59:19 AM

Depends alot really. Building for a future, i can tell you one thing rock your Xeons !!! For stability(uptime), you cant compare a Xeon to a "normal" market cpu. You probably gonna get a 8 core system, choose your board wisely. And PSU.

For the same money, i would go for the Xeons. Or Opterons, hands down. Now, whats the model your thinking of ? Thats important too for a more (serious) opinion.
May 27, 2008 9:37:27 AM

"I used the P1 as an example that transistors and clock speeds dont matter for performance and overall max clock or average clock speed etc.

What happened to you claiming the EE's have more transistors now? Hmmmmm, wonder who actually looks stupid?"

What the hell are you talking about? Do you even know?
a b à CPUs
May 28, 2008 12:40:39 AM

I have a feeling this is going to become a flame war.
a b à CPUs
May 28, 2008 8:32:12 AM

radnor said:
Depends alot really. Building for a future, i can tell you one thing rock your Xeons !!! For stability(uptime), you cant compare a Xeon to a "normal" market cpu. You probably gonna get a 8 core system, choose your board wisely. And PSU.

For the same money, i would go for the Xeons. Or Opterons, hands down. Now, whats the model your thinking of ? Thats important too for a more (serious) opinion.


The motherboard and psu are more likely to go up compared to a cpu, id say xeon (server) based systems are more reliable simply because they have the higher grade platform to match etc compared to cheap desktop systems.

Vertigon - "An extreme CPU is NOT the same as the standard. The QX9650 for example has 820 million transistors vs 410 million for Q6600 vs 584 million for QX6700. The best way to gauge dual socket vs single socket is to read Tom's skulltrail review where they actually posted bench's for both. There are some surprises and well worth the read." - sound familiar?

May 28, 2008 9:52:11 AM

apache_lives said:
The motherboard and psu are more likely to go up compared to a cpu, id say xeon (server) based systems are more reliable simply because they have the higher grade platform to match etc compared to cheap desktop systems.

Vertigon - "An extreme CPU is NOT the same as the standard. The QX9650 for example has 820 million transistors vs 410 million for Q6600 vs 584 million for QX6700. The best way to gauge dual socket vs single socket is to read Tom's skulltrail review where they actually posted bench's for both. There are some surprises and well worth the read." - sound familiar?


yes, i understand their diferent. But honestly, i would prefer to pay a bit more for 2 xeons, than for 1 EE. You wont see too much performance in gaming (atm ofc, we are heading multicore, so), its a build that will last longer. If he just wants to game, i would honestly recomend a Q6600 overclocked at 3.2Ghz. Price/performance its a good bet. And yes, we agree on that one, that Xeon/Opteron systems are much more reliable because the mobo and the PSU goesd up a notch or two in quality.

Its being discussed to spend 1000$ on one cpu. Lets check all the variables first :) 


May 28, 2008 9:18:50 PM

I don't mean to hijack the thread but since you guys are already weighing in on the subject I have something similar I need help with.

I have 3 Asus boards
P5W64 Pro
P5WDG2 Pro
Asus Maximus Formula

All of them are employed in financial trading while the Max Formuls is also a game machine

I have an opportunity to get a (Gateway 960) Xeon MB (1)CPU2.0Ghz, 512K ddr ECC-Reg ram, and Gateway Server case for $140. (looks brand new) My purpose is for it to do some video editing when I am not using it for financial trading. I am using the Max Formula as a trading/game machine with a Q6600 and will be getting a 4870x2 when it comes out(maybe a new processor if necessary).--I am set for gaming.

This "server cpu-based" computer will be used for Financial trading and video editing. While it only has 1 cpu included it seems like I can get 3.06 Ghz cpu's for this thing fairly cheaply. What are the pros and cons for its intended use. Am I missing something because it sems like a good bang for the buck to me. I already have some PCI-X SCSI cards even thoug this beast comes with 2 SCSI ports on the MB. I will be using a Matrox video system and some of their video cards for the financial monitors (which I already have). Matrox PCI video cards also will take advantage of the higher PCI-X bus speeds. All in all it will be a 2D system I want for reliability(That is why I buy ASUS boards).

What say Ye!!

Thanks

a b à CPUs
May 30, 2008 8:38:31 AM

hcforde said:
I don't mean to hijack the thread but since you guys are already weighing in on the subject I have something similar I need help with.

I have 3 Asus boards
P5W64 Pro
P5WDG2 Pro
Asus Maximus Formula

All of them are employed in financial trading while the Max Formuls is also a game machine

I have an opportunity to get a (Gateway 960) Xeon MB (1)CPU2.0Ghz, 512K ddr ECC-Reg ram, and Gateway Server case for $140. (looks brand new) My purpose is for it to do some video editing when I am not using it for financial trading. I am using the Max Formula as a trading/game machine with a Q6600 and will be getting a 4870x2 when it comes out(maybe a new processor if necessary).--I am set for gaming.

This "server cpu-based" computer will be used for Financial trading and video editing. While it only has 1 cpu included it seems like I can get 3.06 Ghz cpu's for this thing fairly cheaply. What are the pros and cons for its intended use. Am I missing something because it sems like a good bang for the buck to me. I already have some PCI-X SCSI cards even thoug this beast comes with 2 SCSI ports on the MB. I will be using a Matrox video system and some of their video cards for the financial monitors (which I already have). Matrox PCI video cards also will take advantage of the higher PCI-X bus speeds. All in all it will be a 2D system I want for reliability(That is why I buy ASUS boards).

What say Ye!!

Thanks


Those server parts you listed would be slower then the desktop machines you have, for video editing stick with your desktop machines, the server parts etc you listed there are only good for mission critical apps etc

People get odd ideas that server parts (video cards, cpus etc) are somehow faster then desktop components - part for part there equal or slower (stability and reliability over performance), where as servers have the advantage from dual sockets upward etc and even then require the software to be able to use the extra cores and ram etc.
June 4, 2008 11:30:45 AM

Thanks Apache_

Think I will just use my fast game machine for video editing and not use it for financial trading. I forgot that I needed a 3D card to render the effects. All this server box has is PCI-X card slots. However its speed with the scsi raid is much faster than I had even thought. It is more than adequate for financial trading for a great price. I just picked up a gig of ECC Registered ram for $30.00 so not a bad box imho for under $200.

Thanks
June 29, 2008 11:18:01 PM

Wow guys, you give techies a bad name. Chillax, you're only talking about computer components. Man!
Anyways, to put in my two cents. As you can guess, I have little to no technical knowledge of how the processors work. However, my studio does invest heavily in our workstation/computers, so I can tell you about my personal experience, working mainly on large 3D animation/architectural, video, and CAD-related apps.
Generally speaking, for small to medium sized files with less intensive processes, the Extreme chip blew away the Xeons. Faster starts, about the same practical processing/rendering speeds, so the Extremes have that one. With regard to medium/heavy sized files/processes, the Xeons were much more stable, the apps crashed less often, and generally finished the processes much faster.
If your intended scenes are small, I'd go for the Extremes. If you see yourself working on very large files (for 3D, say 5million+ polys, raytracing, caustics, etc) I'd absolutely go with the pair of Xeons.
Can's stress enough again, techy people, you're generally cool people, you really help my kind out, but please, don't be an idiot about your knowledge! Share the wealth, learn to discuss, and relax!!!, knowing about computer components won't give a six pack!
June 29, 2008 11:22:07 PM

and guys, get a girl, can't stress enough, playing with silicone is a lot more fun than playing with silicon.
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2008 8:31:41 AM

cicero38 said:
Wow guys, you give techies a bad name. Chillax, you're only talking about computer components. Man!
Anyways, to put in my two cents. As you can guess, I have little to no technical knowledge of how the processors work. However, my studio does invest heavily in our workstation/computers, so I can tell you about my personal experience, working mainly on large 3D animation/architectural, video, and CAD-related apps.
Generally speaking, for small to medium sized files with less intensive processes, the Extreme chip blew away the Xeons. Faster starts, about the same practical processing/rendering speeds, so the Extremes have that one. With regard to medium/heavy sized files/processes, the Xeons were much more stable, the apps crashed less often, and generally finished the processes much faster.
If your intended scenes are small, I'd go for the Extremes. If you see yourself working on very large files (for 3D, say 5million+ polys, raytracing, caustics, etc) I'd absolutely go with the pair of Xeons.
Can's stress enough again, techy people, you're generally cool people, you really help my kind out, but please, don't be an idiot about your knowledge! Share the wealth, learn to discuss, and relax!!!, knowing about computer components won't give a six pack!


Xeon vs Desktop equivalent the chips are identical (altho i hear intel claims to alter a few things etc, performance stays the same), the major difference is the platform - FBDIMM's, more ram total, platform stability etc, you cant compare an extreme on a crappy MSI (for example) motherboard to a Dual-FSB Quad Channel FBDIMM platform etc, and there are multiple extreme version cpus - netburst based (single and dual) and core2's (dual and quad) etc
!