p3 vs athlon, What about xeon!!!

[rcf84]

everyone talks about the p!!! vs athlon. but what about the p3 xeon. FACE IT A XEON 700 2MB could wipe out the p3 and athlon at the same level. face it its big fast and CO$TLY and it FLYS!!!, but its the p3 xeon who is king. for now!!

 

[Guest]

Xeon ROFL first of all, the price is incrediably rediculous so I'd say you are comparing apples-oranges. Also I wonder if it'd compare to a 1Ghz T-bird with DDR memmory?

 

[Guest]

actually, I'd like to see a benchmark, if for no other reason than to satisfy curiousity.
The xeon isn't that much technically superior to the P!!!. They are extremely similar in design from my understanding, though I could have old info. An article on this would be nice. HOWEVER, the pricetag sets it in a class of processors that doesn't even compete remotely with either processor. The xeons are supposed to compete with dedicated server architectures. Perhaps you should compare it where it is intended to compete, where I guarantee you it will get smacked down. The chips it would be battleing are for the most part 64 bit, its still 32. And I am not even sure it could out perform the 1.2 tbird.

-Infornography
life as we know it is absurd

 

[Diablo]

The P3 and Xeon P3 have both the SAME core, the only difference is that the Xeon has a large cache (1Mb of so against 256Kb for the p3 FC-PGA).So when we talk about raw cpu performance no intel cpu beats the AMD cpu's...


Visit me at <A HREF="http://casemod.tripod.com" target="_new">http://casemod.tripod.com</A>

 

[SoulReaper]

No WAY. Athlon kicks the Xeon's butt 10 fold. Xeon's suck. They have crap for motherboards. Plus they are too dam expensive. It's all Athlon baby!!!!

"upgrading is no longer an option...it's a necessity"
Visit www.elitehunters.com
--SoulReaper =)

 

[Guest]

The only case where Xeon's are the killers is in Storage area networks!

I must know it. We had such a baby here in my work and tested it with 3D Studio MAX.

After the render-test there wasn't much difference, but two seconds.
The rendertime was about 10 minutes for both PIII
and PIII Xeon (both @ 800MHz)!

 

[ClancyDK]

I think you could describe the battle between p3 and Xeon as a battle between the first p2 and celeron: Celeron has a smaller cache, but i didn't mean that much at all. In Denmark the Xeon 550 Mhz with 2MB cache cost about 10000 $!!! so i would rather go with a Tbird 1.2 Ghz and scsi....

 

[jg38141]

We just got a new Dell Server for my school that I've had the pleasure to be able to play with until the end of this semester when we'll set it up as a new domain controller. It has dual pIII xeons 800mhz 1meg cache. The performance differences are noticed only when:
1.I run many programs at once- this may have more to do with its dual nature rather than the chip itself.
2.I connect many computers to the domain. With dual 800 pIII's (non xeon) the system gets more bogged down and can't run programs on the computer as effectively when many are connecting and using it's harddrives.
Otherwise- game performance, graphics benchmarks, system speed tests etc. the xeons perform only very slightly better than the pIII's. And I doubt either outperform the 1.2 thunderbird. In this case the cache is not the limiting factor- ie. new pIII's have less cache than some earlier pIIIs but it's arranged better. (I think thunderbirds may have less than early athlons too- correct me if I'm wrong) This shows that cache size only effect performance to a point on most applications.
Xeons shine on servers, but that's all.

 

[jg38141]

did I mention that xeon's are not so great as they are hyped up to be?