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

vvkp

Distinguished
Aug 25, 2009
9
0
18,510
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.
 

belial2k

Distinguished
Feb 16, 2009
1,043
0
19,310
Xeon is business class, made for servers and such. On these reliability and multitasking is the key. Lots of motherboards for these will even support 2 processors on the same board. C2Q was intels consumer grade quad cores. These are more concerned with performance for the price. These are being phased out in favor of the i5. The best consumer processor you can currently buy for your uses is the i7. Like the Xeon it is a great multitasker and is the fastest overall architecture on the market right now. This means clock for clock, the i7 is faster than any other processor you can buy.
 

vvkp

Distinguished
Aug 25, 2009
9
0
18,510
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.
 

belial2k

Distinguished
Feb 16, 2009
1,043
0
19,310
I would need to see the specs on the xeon system to make a recommendation. If that is a new system, I really wouldn't recommend it. For that price you will probably not be happy with the speed of the system. The cheapest i7 system I know of prebuilt is $700. It has a 920 processor that runs @ 2.67 per core. That is roughly equivalent to a C2Q @ 3.2 or so.
 

vvkp

Distinguished
Aug 25, 2009
9
0
18,510
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?
 

505090

Distinguished
Sep 22, 2008
1,575
0
19,860
There are some differences but they are very low level something to do with the way the trace, queue, and cache all interact, unfortunately I lost the link. Also I believe the xeons have a lower heat output.

Any will work for both desktops or servers, but the xeons were specifically optimized for the server environment.
 

belial2k

Distinguished
Feb 16, 2009
1,043
0
19,310
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.
 

endorphines

Distinguished
Mar 11, 2008
68
0
18,640
Xeons are silicon that has been tested to be more stable than the core two quads. if you have a xeon and core 2 quad at the same clock rate they are going to be near identical performance wise, but since xeons are the cream of the crop they'll have better reliability (and generally more overclocking headroom). one thing to watch out for is, if you get a lower end core 2 quad, one which has no xeon counterpart they generally have certain things turned off like sse4.1 and vitalization technologies. if you're re-encoding lots of video sse4.1 is a crucial feature for you to have.
 

endorphines

Distinguished
Mar 11, 2008
68
0
18,640
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.
 

radnor

Distinguished
Apr 9, 2008
1,021
0
19,290
To the OP.

Forget the Opteron/Xeon models entirely.

The diferences are:

1- Sticker ( i mean name ) and warranty
2- Microcode
3- Price

All bad for us desktop users. We don't want to pay more, the microcode is basicaly useless to us and we don't need the extra warranty. We upgrade too often. And the motherboard are ussually more expensive and have features that are useless to us desktop users. Server Chips (Xeon/Opteron) are sometimes picky on witch memory you put on them. While ussually working, this is not always the case.

Get a nice Core 2 Quad, i7/i5 or Phenom II.
 

joefriday

Distinguished
Feb 24, 2006
2,105
0
19,810

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

radnor

Distinguished
Apr 9, 2008
1,021
0
19,290


Yes i'm curious about those links also. AFAIK the two are the same but while the desktop CPU can only be used as single CPU, the Xeon/opteron can be used as multiple CPUs. On the same board of course. So they should have the appropriate modifications to be optimized that way.

I guess in terms of Prefetchers, Dispatchers Busses and other components, the diferences will be related to MP configurations.

Anyway, just pointing out, im waiting for the links also :bounce:
 

505090

Distinguished
Sep 22, 2008
1,575
0
19,860
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
 

radnor

Distinguished
Apr 9, 2008
1,021
0
19,290


I hunger for articles like that. Honestly.
 

belial2k

Distinguished
Feb 16, 2009
1,043
0
19,310
depends on which one...but its going to cost you more for the same performance. Business hardware is always going to have a price premium for the same performance as consumer grade products.
 

N@n0

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2007
112
0
18,690
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.
 

joefriday

Distinguished
Feb 24, 2006
2,105
0
19,810
I'm not sure where the "1 year is the average lifespan of a desktop" came from, lol. Ever see how old the desktops are at people's houses? I have a college instructor how has a Pentium II Dell rig at his house. My and my wife's parents are getting by just fine on Dell P4 computers, purchased back in 2004.
 


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).
 

Upendra09

Distinguished
i am getting by ok on a tualatin celeron, also known as rebranded OCed Pentium3 ( i feel kind of ripped off actually) bought back in '01, then again i couldn't help it my parents bought it, Of course i do enjoy my laptop alot more
 

sportsfanboy

Distinguished
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.