Xeon vs. Intel Quad?

[michiguel]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819115027

or

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819117149

?

Miguel

[hgm]

Depends on your application. One has a 14% higher clock rate, the other a 50% bigger cache. So if your application is not really helped by L2, you'd be off better with the Q6700.

The Xeon must be a 45nm design. Otherwise, the chips are nearly identical.

[michiguel]

Depends on your application. One has a 14% higher clock rate, the other a 50% bigger cache. So if your application is not really helped by L2, you'd be off better with the Q6700.

The Xeon must be a 45nm design. Otherwise, the chips are nearly identical.

Thanks,
That is what I saw but I wanted to know whether there was anything else to consider. So, basically, one or the other will be a gamble without testing it. Among other things, it will run a molecular dynamics program. I have the feeling that is memory intensive and the Xeon may be better, but... who knows. I will check prices of the motherboards.

For chess, it may depend on the program...

Miguel

[Nid Hogge]

For exactly the same price you can get the Q9300,

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819115043

which is better than both.

[M ANSARI]

I personally don't recommend that processor unless you plan to do a limited overclock or none at all. A Q6600 or Q6700 has a better fixed multiplier configuration which will end up going much faster and is cheaper. Maybe when the newer Q9xxx come out with higher multipliers then it will be a better choices ... but a Q9300 running at 3Ghz (which is what most are getting) is going to get trounced by a new batch Q6600 running at 3.6 Ghz (which is what most are getting).

[Nid Hogge]

I personally don't recommend that processor unless you plan to do a limited overclock or none at all. A Q6600 or Q6700 has a better fixed multiplier configuration which will end up going much faster and is cheaper. Maybe when the newer Q9xxx come out with higher multipliers then it will be a better choices ... but a Q9300 running at 3Ghz (which is what most are getting) is going to get trounced by a new batch Q6600 running at 3.6 Ghz (which is what most are getting).

3 Ghz? No way.. Most people are maxing out at 3.5Ghz+.

Look here:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/sho ... ight=q9300

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/sho ... ight=q9300

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/di ... html#sect0

Most Q6600 max out at 3.6 GHz.

So if we take the common speeds on both platforms, we have Q6600 at 3.6Ghz, and Q9300 at 3.5Ghz.

Now look at the Xbit review:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/di ... html#sect0

3.5GHz Q9300 runs faster than Q6600 at 3.6Ghz, pretty much on all applications, while drawing significantly less power.

With a good board and cooling, there's no reason you won't be able to do 3.7Ghz with 'em. And even if you won't, youre still going to be faster at 3.5 than most Q6600's

It's a winning deal.

P.S might wanna check out the Q9450's with twice the cache as well.. but they will cost more and availability is very limited at best.

[michiguel]

I personally don't recommend that processor unless you plan to do a limited overclock or none at all. A Q6600 or Q6700 has a better fixed multiplier configuration which will end up going much faster and is cheaper. Maybe when the newer Q9xxx come out with higher multipliers then it will be a better choices ... but a Q9300 running at 3Ghz (which is what most are getting) is going to get trounced by a new batch Q6600 running at 3.6 Ghz (which is what most are getting).

3 Ghz? No way.. Most people are maxing out at 3.5Ghz+.

Look here:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/sho ... ight=q9300

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/sho ... ight=q9300

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/di ... html#sect0

Most Q6600 max out at 3.6 GHz.

So if we take the common speeds on both platforms, we have Q6600 at 3.6Ghz, and Q9300 at 3.5Ghz.

Now look at the Xbit review:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/di ... html#sect0

3.5GHz Q9300 runs faster than Q6600 at 3.6Ghz, pretty much on all applications, while drawing significantly less power.

With a good board and cooling, there's no reason you won't be able to do 3.7Ghz with 'em. And even if you won't, youre still going to be faster at 3.5 than most Q6600's

It's a winning deal.

P.S might wanna check out the Q9450's with twice the cache as well.. but they will cost more and availability is very limited at best.

Thanks!

I still have a concern, wiithout overclocking, Yorkfield 2.5 Ghz is 7% faster than Q6600 at 2.4 Gghz according to the following table. However, the one with the same price in newwegg is Q6700 at 2.66 Gghz. That may mean that it is the same at best (2.66/2.4 is ~10% increase).

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/di ... 300_2.html

Miguel

[Nid Hogge]

Thanks!

I still have a concern, wiithout overclocking, Yorkfield 2.5 Ghz is 7% faster than Q6600 at 2.4 Gghz according to the following table. However, the one with the same price in newwegg is Q6700 at 2.66 Gghz. That may mean that it is the same at best (2.66/2.4 is ~10% increase).

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/di ... 300_2.html

Miguel

Real life difference between Q6700 and Q6600 at stock is going to be much smaller than that. Maybe 2%-3% in some applications.

Q9300 is 45nm, has higer FSB, consumes less power, and has slightly better IPC.

BUT, if your'e not going to OC at all, all 3 options are going to pretty much the same, and youll see little difference between them in real life.

All are good options, But you need to set your priorities: Performance, Power Consumption, Overclocking, Budget, etc..

Ultimately, The choice is your's.

[michiguel]

Thanks!

I still have a concern, wiithout overclocking, Yorkfield 2.5 Ghz is 7% faster than Q6600 at 2.4 Gghz according to the following table. However, the one with the same price in newwegg is Q6700 at 2.66 Gghz. That may mean that it is the same at best (2.66/2.4 is ~10% increase).

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/di ... 300_2.html

Miguel

Real life difference between Q6700 and Q6600 at stock is going to be much smaller than that. Maybe 2%-3% in some applications.

Q9300 is 45nm, has higer FSB, consumes less power, and has slightly better IPC.

BUT, if your'e not going to OC at all, all 3 options are going to pretty much the same, and youll see little difference between them in real life.

All are good options, But you need to set your priorities: Performance, Power Consumption, Overclocking, Budget, etc..

Ultimately, The choice is your's.

Thanks a lot. I am not planning to do overclocking because when it run scientific software for a month, I have to decrease the chances of catastrophe to the minimum possible. However, it seems that people are overclocking these with no apparent bad effects. The other thing I do not have experience overclocking.

Sound like all options are ok. I will check the motherboards now

Miguel

[Stephen Ham]

Thanks!

I still have a concern, wiithout overclocking, Yorkfield 2.5 Ghz is 7% faster than Q6600 at 2.4 Gghz according to the following table. However, the one with the same price in newwegg is Q6700 at 2.66 Gghz. That may mean that it is the same at best (2.66/2.4 is ~10% increase).

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/di ... 300_2.html

Miguel

Real life difference between Q6700 and Q6600 at stock is going to be much smaller than that. Maybe 2%-3% in some applications.

Q9300 is 45nm, has higer FSB, consumes less power, and has slightly better IPC.

BUT, if your'e not going to OC at all, all 3 options are going to pretty much the same, and youll see little difference between them in real life.

All are good options, But you need to set your priorities: Performance, Power Consumption, Overclocking, Budget, etc..

Ultimately, The choice is your's.

Thanks a lot. I am not planning to do overclocking because when it run scientific software for a month, I have to decrease the chances of catastrophe to the minimum possible. However, it seems that people are overclocking these with no apparent bad effects. The other thing I do not have experience overclocking.

Sound like all options are ok. I will check the motherboards now

Miguel

Hi Miguel,

When you have your complete system built, what price range do you expect to pay?

All the best,
Steve