Xeon 3502 Too Hot?

[shawn_eary]

I am thinking about upgrading from a home built Pentium D 2.8 GHZ with 95W TDP computer to a Lenovo with a W3503 with 130 W TDP. After reading the www.spec.org benchmarks I was almost convinced since it appears that the W3503 Xeon is 2x as fast as the Pentium D 2.8 GHZ for typical tasking; unfortunately, the 130 W TDP of the Xeon W3503 really scares me. I think that's about 36 % more power usage and heat.

I am afraid that if I throw a new Xeon 3503 at a 4 hour MPEG rendering session via PowerDirector, that it will blow up. My current Pentium D gets pretty cranky when I render a full 4.7 GB DVD of images.

Do you think the Xeon 3503 will run too hot for the Lenovo? Should I crank out the cash and get a more expensive Xeon E5502 system which only has a TDP of 80W.

BTW: The main reason I am looking at Xeons is the fact that I desire ECC memory for my new computer. I could potentially go with a Core 2 type processor if the motherboard had an onboard ECC correction.

 

[GhislainG]

The Xeon 3503 should run cooler than a Pentium D. They are designed to run at 100% CPU utilization all day long, therefore you don't have to worry about it if you'll only keep it busy for a few hours at a time. A higher TDP doesn't directly translate into higher CPU temps.

 

[MU_Engineer]

I am thinking about upgrading from a home built Pentium D 2.8 GHZ with 95W TDP computer to a Lenovo with a W3503 with 130 W TDP. After reading the www.spec.org benchmarks I was almost convinced since it appears that the W3503 Xeon is 2x as fast as the Pentium D 2.8 GHZ for typical tasking; unfortunately, the 130 W TDP of the Xeon W3503 really scares me. I think that's about 36 % more power usage and heat.

I am afraid that if I throw a new Xeon 3503 at a 4 hour MPEG rendering session via PowerDirector, that it will blow up. My current Pentium D gets pretty cranky when I render a full 4.7 GB DVD of images.

Do you think the Xeon 3503 will run too hot for the Lenovo? Should I crank out the cash and get a more expensive Xeon E5502 system which only has a TDP of 80W.

BTW: The main reason I am looking at Xeons is the fact that I desire ECC memory for my new computer. I could potentially go with a Core 2 type processor if the motherboard had an onboard ECC correction.

Here are a few things to think about:

1. I'll bet you are using the stock heatsink that came with your Pentium D if you are complaining about it overheating. Intel's stock heatsinks are not all that great and don't stand up well to extended full-load use, as you found out. However, you can always get a much better aftermarket heatsink for that Xeon W3530 for $40 or so that will keep the CPU running nice and cool no matter how heavily you load it.

2. The Xeon E5502 is a dual-core CPU with only 4 MB of L3 cache, no HyperThreading, no Turbo Boost, and is limited to using only DDR3-800 memory. If you are wanting to do a lot of rendering, you want as many cores and threads as you can get, so the W3530 with 4 cores and 8 threads is going to be much faster than the E5502. The E5502 is also a dual-CPU-capable unit and is this going to be more expensive than the single-CPU-only Xeon 3000 series.

3. There are two lines of new Xeons that support ECC- the socket 1366 Xeon 3500 series with 3 memory channels and then the socket 1156 Xeon 3400 series with 2 memory channels. Other than the number of memory channels and socket, the chips are pretty much the same as most are 4-core, 8-thread units with 8 MB of L3 cache. The Xeon 3400 line has a 95-watt TDP as opposed to the 3500 line's 130 watts. I would avoid the X3430 as it does not have HyperThreading enabled, but the other members of the Xeon 3400 line should perform relatively similarly to the 3500s at similar clock speeds for rendering.

4. ECC support in Intel's LGA775 CPUs depends on the chipset in the motherboard. The Xeon chipsets support ECC, as does the 975 chipset. Motherboards with the Xeon chipset will always have ECC support. Some 975 board makers did not put in the BIOS options and such to support ECC, so you will need to look at the specific motherboard to see if the motherboard supports ECC or not.

5. Like the Xeon 3400s, 3500s, and 5500s, AMD's Opteron, Phenom, Phenom II, and Athlon II CPUs all support ECC. ECC support with these CPUs thus depends on if the particular motherboard, just like with Intel 975 motherboards. I will say that not all that many "non-server-oriented" Socket AM2/AM2+/AM3 motherboards have ECC support, so you will need to look around a bit.

 

[shawn_eary]

They are designed to run at 100% CPU utilization all day long.

When you say "they" do you mean Xeons? So far, the only benefit I seem to find in Xeon's is that the tend to come on ECC ready systems by way of either the CPU or the Motherboard. Are there other benefits to Xeons vs typical Core 2 and i7 style processors?

 

[MU_Engineer]

When you say "they" do you mean Xeons? So far, the only benefit I seem to find in Xeon's is that the tend to come on ECC ready systems by way of either the CPU or the Motherboard. Are there other benefits to Xeons vs typical Core 2 and i7 style processors?

He does. Xeons are rated to operate at 100% load for years, while i7s and Core 2s are not (although they usually can do so if suitably cooled.)

The other advantages to Xeons are that you can run most of them in multi-socket motherboards, whereas Core 2s and i7s and such can only work in single-CPU setups.

 

[shawn_eary]

If Xeon's are that hearty, then I will probably be okay with a Lenovo with a Xeon 3503 running at 130W TDP. My main reason for wanting a Xeon is ECC and reliability. Even though my current computer does not have ECC, I do not trust computers without ECC.

Yes, it is true, I do not trust my current computer.

BTW: I think the PIII Copermine was a revolutionary advance. I am so glad they switched to Copper traces.

 

[MU_Engineer]

If Xeon's are that hearty, then I will probably be okay with a Lenovo with a Xeon 3503 running at 130W TDP. My main reason for wanting a Xeon is ECC and reliability. Even though my current computer does not have ECC, I do not trust computers without ECC.

Yes, it is true, I do not trust my current computer.

I understand that completely. My current computer does not have ECC support but my next one sure as heck will.

Also, remember that if all you want is ECC, just about all ASUS socket AM3 motherboards and AMD's socket AM3 CPUs (Phenom II, Athlon II) support ECC. You can get an Athlon II X4 620 and an ASUS 785G motherboard for less than one Xeon X3530 costs and get your ECC support. AMD's chips are also not difficult to cool when running at full load as AMD's stock heatsinks are better than Intel's, particularly if you get a Phenom II. The only difference between the consumer Phenom II and Athlon II chips and the single-socket Xeon and Opteron CPUs is a longer warranty on the server parts, if I remember correctly.

BTW: I think the PIII Copermine was a revolutionary advance. I am so glad they switched to Copper traces.

That's a myth. The Coppermine used aluminum interconnects. The name "Coppermine" refers to the Coppermine River, which was selected as part of Intel's typical selection of natural features in the U.S. Northwest as code names for CPUs. The first x86 CPU with copper interconnects was the original 250 nm AMD Athlon K7 ("Argon.") Intel didn't introduce copper interconnects until the PIII Tualatin in 2001. The only new thing with the PIII Coppermine was that it debuted Intel's first desktop/server flip-chip PGA arrangement. All of their previous socketed chips were standard die-downwards PPGA, CPGA, DIP, or leaded pin-edge carrier units.

 

[shawn_eary]

...if all you want is ECC, just about all ASUS socket AM3 motherboards and AMD's socket AM3 CPUs (Phenom II, Athlon II) support ECC. You can get an Athlon II X4 620 and an ASUS 785G motherboard for less than one Xeon X3530 costs and get your ECC support. AMD's chips are also not difficult to cool when running at full load as AMD's stock heatsinks are better than Intel's

Awesome Point!

Shawn Said>>
BTW: I think the PIII Copermine was a revolutionary advance. I am so glad they switched to Copper traces.

MU_Engineer Said>>
That's a myth. The Coppermine used aluminum interconnects. The name "Coppermine" refers to the Coppermine River, which was selected as part of Intel's typical selection of natural features in the U.S. Northwest as code names for CPUs. The first x86 CPU with copper interconnects was the original 250 nm AMD Athlon K7 ("Argon.") Intel didn't introduce copper interconnects until the PIII Tualatin in 2001. The only new thing with the PIII Coppermine was that it debuted Intel's first desktop/server flip-chip PGA arrangement. All of their previous socketed chips were standard die-downwards PPGA, CPGA, DIP, or leaded pin-edge carrier units.

Dude! You are a genius!!!!
Funny, I thought I actually had copper interconnects on my PIII all that time!

Mr. MU_Engineer, I really appreciate your high quality feedback.

 

[MU_Engineer]

[

Dude! You are a genius!!!!
Funny, I thought I actually had copper interconnects on my PIII all that time!

I went and looked it up one day. My brother had a new laptop with a Pentium M "Dothan" and I wondered what the heck that code name meant. (It is "dove" in Hebrew in case you cared.) I came across a page that detailed the code names for various Intel CPUs and what they referred to, and they mentioned the Coppermine had no copper interconnects.