Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Xeons or a quad core?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 28, 2011 5:42:21 PM

hi, I was wondering if 2 3.0ghz hyper-threaded single core xeons (for a total of 4 cores) in a server motherboard would be better for gaming than, say, one intel q6600 2.4ghz quad core. each of the xeons has 800mhz fsb and 1mb L2 cache. i cannot overclock them because of the server mobo bios. the server mobo has SCSI hard drives and in task manager it shows a 6gb page file for memory which i don;t understand because it has 2gb of sdram. please let me know if this would be good for gaming; how well this would orchestrate with a good video card (yes it has pci-e slots) versus the q6600 system i have.
thanks

More about : xeons quad core

January 28, 2011 5:53:09 PM

Q6600 would be faster. Single Core hyper threading 1MB cache means those are Nocona Netburst Xeons. 4 real cores is better than 2+2. Do you really want to live with server fans anyway? They probably also need expensive ECC memory.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 28, 2011 7:03:38 PM

It also depends what you are trying to do....

Many PC programs do better with faster clocks, very few client apps make use of multiple cores, unlike the server world.

In general, the faster clocked part will be better for gaming just because its faster. But the parts for that workstation will cost you more to upgrade.

You could overclock that quad core to 3.0.

6Gb page file is space set aside on your hard drive when programs eat up your sdram space. If used its very slow... 2G sdram is where your games will run out of - this is memory. Normally one sets the page file equal to memory. Some server uses will set up a large page file just to keep running.
Score
0
Related resources
a b à CPUs
January 28, 2011 7:20:36 PM

I just recently switched from a 2 x Xeon 3.2ghz HT 533fsb 1mb L2 to an E4300 OC'd to 2.4ghz 1066 FSB 2mb L2.
In every benchmark I have run (3DMark03/3DMark06/3DMark Vantage/CineBench 11.5/PCMark/Crysis Warhead bench)
the Core2Duo with two cores easily beats the 2 x Xeon HT.
Definitely the Q6600 is the way to go.
Less heat, less power, much better efficiency and performance without any doubt
Score
0

Best solution

January 28, 2011 7:26:38 PM

Can't speak for Xeon CPUs, but right now I'm running an opteron setup that's similar to my quad core single CPU setup, and the quad is quite a bit faster. Better architecture in general in the quads than the single processor units, and hyperthreading does not equal two cores. Also, if you check EBay, you can probably pick up used memory pretty inexpensively and might even be able to grab dual core xeons. I picked up a matched pair of dual core opterons maybe three months ago for 20$.
Share
a b à CPUs
January 29, 2011 2:02:42 AM

The thing is also that a Hyperthreaded core will not be as performant as a dual core, even if it shows two cores in task managers. Moreover, many server motherboards are optimized for reliability rather than raw speed (ECC memory for example). The only time I would recommend a Xeon over a regular CPU is when they are simply re-branded regular CPUs :p 
Score
0
January 29, 2011 2:45:55 AM

Quote:
this is a entry level Xeon
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Yes it can be overclocked. It works on a x58 chipset EVGA x58 classified is the board to use with it.
^will be a good idea if your building a server or into applications that can utilize it.

But you notice its price. You might as well buy a 2600k for that price which will outperform it in gaming coz there's no use for all its features in gaming.


thanks dude, but im not buying new, I just found an old server someone recycled and was wondering if it was worth using as a desktop pc, but i guess not. ill stick with teh q6600 till i find some better server hardware or go sandy bridge
Score
0
a b à CPUs
January 29, 2011 2:57:33 AM

You could always make a file server out of it, some sort of NAS.
Score
0
January 29, 2011 5:03:44 AM

haha I work at the place so i get a discount, but I'm not sure, I won't ask now cause its clearly not the way to go
Score
0
January 29, 2011 5:10:43 AM

but very cheap, <200 most likely
Score
0
February 5, 2011 12:02:51 AM

Best answer selected by zaknafiend.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2011 10:19:28 AM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Score
0
!