Core 2 vs Xeon for development use

[tbone]

I'm trying to understand the significant differences are between the
normal workstation-type processors (Core 2 Duo, Extreme) and the
comparable core-count Xeon chips. Xeons appear to be oriented to
server use; why is that?

I'm looking into getting a new machine. This is not for gaming; it is
for my main development/daily use machine where I run 20-30 apps
concurrently all day long, including file sharing, compilers, music
playback, disk backup, photo editing, and more. Dell offers machines
with both Core 2 Duo and Dual-core Xeon.

Would Xeon be a better choice for me? I'm pretty sure quad core would
be pretty effective for my use.

To be sure I'd get the most out of these processors, I'd want 64-bit
support so I'm planning on Windows XP x64 (I will NOT do DRM with
Vista). Linux would be an option if a Windows virtual machine will
work on it easily (I don't have time to fool around with i)t. Are
programs generally compatible with x64, or are there issues?

Advice and/or references appreciated!
thanks
tbone

 

[nobody]

I'm trying to understand the significant differences are between the
normal workstation-type processors (Core 2 Duo, Extreme) and the
comparable core-count Xeon chips. Xeons appear to be oriented to
server use; why is that?

I'm looking into getting a new machine. This is not for gaming; it is
for my main development/daily use machine where I run 20-30 apps
concurrently all day long, including file sharing, compilers, music
playback, disk backup, photo editing, and more. Dell offers machines
with both Core 2 Duo and Dual-core Xeon.

Would Xeon be a better choice for me? I'm pretty sure quad core would
be pretty effective for my use.

To be sure I'd get the most out of these processors, I'd want 64-bit
support so I'm planning on Windows XP x64 (I will NOT do DRM with
Vista). Linux would be an option if a Windows virtual machine will
work on it easily (I don't have time to fool around with i)t. Are
programs generally compatible with x64, or are there issues?

Advice and/or references appreciated!
thanks
tbone

Ever looked at Opteron?
http://anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3091
Latest 4 core (Barcelona) appears to be faster than comparably priced
Xeon (or cheaper than equally performing one). Put 2 of them on a 4x4
board - that'll make 8 cores - more than enough headroom for the next
couple of years. Comparable Intel setup will cost much more due to
more expensive board, and you'll have to deal with FB RAM that is
expensive and produces lots of heat, especially in config over 4GB.

NNN

 

[Yousuf Khan]

I'm trying to understand the significant differences are between the
normal workstation-type processors (Core 2 Duo, Extreme) and the
comparable core-count Xeon chips. Xeons appear to be oriented to
server use; why is that?

No real functional differences between Xeons or Core 2's, they are
really the same chips. The Xeons come with more support (warranty) for a
server environment. They are often equipped with more cache (though
that's not the case in Core 2 vs. Core 2-based Xeon).

Yousuf Khan

 

[David Kanter]

Ever looked at Opteron?http://anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3091
Latest 4 core (Barcelona) appears to be faster than comparably priced
Xeon (or cheaper than equally performing one). Put 2 of them on a 4x4
board - that'll make 8 cores - more than enough headroom for the next
couple of years. Comparable Intel setup will cost much more due to
more expensive board, and you'll have to deal with FB RAM that is
expensive and produces lots of heat, especially in config over 4GB.

Erm - the Core2Duo is vastly faster than Barcelona for compiling
stuff.

DK

 

[The Kat]

Erm - the Core2Duo is vastly faster than Barcelona for compiling
stuff.

Not by any benchmark I've seen.





--

Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.

This sig censored by the Office of Home, Land & Planet Insecurity...

Remove XYZ to email me

 

[nobody]

Erm - the Core2Duo is vastly faster than Barcelona for compiling
stuff.

DK

I have no idea as to what exactly you are compiling - but from my own
experience I can tell that my 3 year old dual Opty248 (2.2GHz) rig at
home compiles MS VS 2005 solutions (C#) faster than brand spanking new
Dell with Core2Duo 2.0GHz I have at work - and the Dell has 2x the
memory and faster HDD. No, I didn't run any benchmarks, but the delay
is noticeable by naked eye. Both boxes run WinXP Pro SP2 32bit and
the same version of VS2005 (.NET framework v2.0.50727).
IMHO, Core2Duo has no chance against 4 core Barcelona if the thing
they run is well multithreaded and can span all 4 cores. Core2Quad is
a closer comparison.

NNN

 

[Nate Edel]

I'm trying to understand the significant differences are between the
normal workstation-type processors (Core 2 Duo, Extreme) and the
comparable core-count Xeon chips. Xeons appear to be oriented to
server use; why is that?

Xeon 3000 is just repackaged Core 2, although some of the lower-clock-speed
quad core ones don't have comparable Core 2 Quad models. The difference is
just marketing.

Xeon 51xx/53xx is a dual-socket capable Core 2

I'm looking into getting a new machine. This is not for gaming; it is
for my main development/daily use machine where I run 20-30 apps
concurrently all day long, including file sharing, compilers, music
playback, disk backup, photo editing, and more. Dell offers machines
with both Core 2 Duo and Dual-core Xeon.

Would Xeon be a better choice for me? I'm pretty sure quad core would
be pretty effective for my use.

There are two advantages to dual sockets with Xeon 51xx/53xx over Core 2:
* the total memory bandwidth will be higher, if you use a quad-channel
memory configuration.
* you can get a total of 8 cores in a dual-socket/quad-core Xeon 53xx
setup.

Also, in most cases the total memory configurable for dual-socket systems is
higher, but that's not an inherent advantage to the Xeons - just a typical
motherboard design decision.