Difference between Quad Core Intel® Xeon® and Intel® Core™ 2 Quad proc

Hello friends,
What is the difference between Quad Core Intel® Xeon® and Intel® Core™ 2 Quad processors? Which one is the best and why 9especially if the OS is windows 2003 Small Business Server) ?

Also what is the equivalent processor for Quad Core Intel® Xeon® in terms of regular processors for desktop?

My final concern ... which one is good for video editing and converting for one format to other (like real media to MPG formats) applications?

Thanks in advance and sorry if I am asking dumb questions.

Thanks for your reply. I have licensed Windows 2003 SBS. Another thing is i7 cost more money where Quad Core Intel Xeon system I am getting like $400 bucks. Is it suggestable?
Also just wondering why we cannot use C2Q ( intel's consumer grade quad cores) in place of business class processors Xeons? Can't the consumer C2Q processors tolerate the load? Can any one put some more light for me please? At least some urls so that I can go thru to gain knowledge. Thanks in advance.

Quad Core Intel® Xeon® X3220, 2.40GHz, 2x4M Cache, 1066MHz FSB
4GB, DDR2, 800MHz, 2x2GB,Dual Ranked DIMMs [add $32]
160GB 7.2K RPM SATA 3Gbps 3.5-in Cabled Hard Drive
Those are the main things and remain is the same as just regular PC. Is it suggestable to buy for $400 bucks?

I can't really say if its worth it to you or not, but that is not a bad deal. From what I've seen the i7 on vista 64 will perform about 30- 50% faster than what you have there with video editing...your cost would be about 75% more for the i7 system. I'll let you make the call on whether or not price increase is worth the performance increase.

The term "Xeon" is a moving target, much like the term "Celeron".

"Xeon" has been re-branded several times e.g. search for "Xeon"
at Newegg and get a very long list:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] on&x=0&y=0


Xeons are also available for the LGA-1366 socket e.g. X5000 series.



MRFS

ps. If you're debating between c2d and xeon you'd probably be looking at a socket 775 xeon. The problem with that is that from what i can tell they've all been discontinued, which leaves you looking from a socket 771 board, the pickings of which are significantly thinner.

Please find the links to this information. AFAIK the two are the same, operationally speaking.

To all those waiting for the link, not gonna happen. last time I looked it up it took 3 weeks of reading about processor architecture.

Two things though
1. several of you point out differences cache, hyper-threading, multi processor, heat. And then say they are the same
2. do you really think major corporate IT teams the same people who won't upgrade your workstation, or install vista on anything, spend more money to put xeons in the their servers without good reason

how would the xeon compare in gaming with a C2Q, i7, and PII

Simple explanation:
Xeon: Designed to run @ full load for 3 years 24/7 (3 years being the average life span of a server)
Xeons were never intended for desktop use, so they aren't optimized for feeble tasks like gaming.
Now tasks that actually use processor power like video editing, compiling, simulations, DB handling, ect... you might see some benefits, but then
again you might see more benefits from a nVidia Quadro like you get in most Workstations.

C2D/Q: Designed to last 1 year @ full load 12 hours and idle for the other 12 hours (1 Year being the average lifespan of a desktop)
Desktops do desktop things like: gaming, word processing, minor video editing, the average user requirements, ect...

i7: Easy way to describe it is best of both, not entirely as potent as a Xeon but much better at handling the load than a C2D/Q. You do get Xeons that
are based on the i7 technology.

my 2 cents...

I don't agree.

The purpose of a desktop computer and the purpose of a server are very different. In many situation servers will constantly run and run and run 24\7, never idling.

The purpose of the desktop computer is to serve a single user that will use for only part of the day, and even during that use the load on the CPU may only be minimal. Even if you game, you can only do that for so long, then you stop, and the computer idles.

I just repaired an Athlon 1600 based HP Pavillion. It would keep randomly turning off. The issue was the power supply fan, it was so old it didn't work anymore. Those Pavillions are small and don't use a standard power supply, so I had to improvise. I opened up the PSU, ripped the fan out (which was smaller than standard 120mm fan). A normal small fan wouldn't fit inside, so I externally mounted a 120mm case fan just outside the power supply.

Believe it or not, it worked. The computer no longer shuts off after about 5 minutes of use.

Generally computers fail because of moving components, such as fans and hard drives. I rarely see a failure that wasn't related to the failure of a moving part (exception: Dell GX270\280 mother capacitor manufacturer defect).

I do know the purpose of a desktop computer and the purpose of a server LOL.

So your telling me because I bought a desktop chip instead of a server chip, I'm not supposed to leave my machine on or do a ton of video rendering?

Sorry that's rubbish

The two chips are virtually identical, tdp is the same as well as heat tolerances.

your funny the way you talk down to me,lol

you think your smarter than me so you can feel better about yourself,lol

Your pathetic

I never make any of my post personal until someone rubs me the wrong way and you have.

And you don't know what your talking about... Do you think people have crunched with their cpus before they could do it with their video cards? In case you don't know that's 100 percent load or close to it. I know a couple of people that have overclocked e6600's that have left them on for almost the entire time while crunching when their not using their computer. When did the e6600 come out, hmmm, And I would like to add that is overclocked as well, which puts additional ware on the chip. still no problems after 3 years + of use.

Being the same manufacturing tech and architecture does in fact make them almost the same, you dumbass. The main difference is that server chips are optimized for fully buffered ram and to be run in a team environment (muti socket).

That being said, the desktop chips and the server chips should be able to handle to same punishment. The reason being are 1) They are in fact built on the same Tech. 2) Voltage- both max and min. are the same for both chips. 3) heat tolerances (like I said) are exactly the same.

Get a clue about what your talking about before starting sh-t with people you ignorant f--k

good for you troll....