Xeon Chips typically for Workstations and Servers, Intel “I” series typically for home (But there’s still a lot to be said for going with multiple processors to build a fast 3D graphics render machine):
Thinking out loud here, leaving a partial research trail: Xeon chips are workstation chips and can be as new as the ‘i’ series. It is a parallel line made for servers. They typically have more cores, come with ECC (error checking correction memory) for stability, and are more expensive. It looks like if you want to run multiple processors the Xeon series really is set up to take advantage of that whereas the “i” series is not.
Googling the phrase: “Asus, dual Xeon, GTX580” to try an come up with a motherboard I can start with and upgrade brings more info from an Adobe forum (but no motherboard). This fellow is not as concerned with 3D rendering so his conclusion (going with an overclocked i7 and a GPU) may ultimately be different than mine:
He’s trying to build a fast grpahics computer to run Adobe in October 2012:
Also, this article from Tom’s Hardware favors a six core i7 over Xeon (EXCEPT when using a high number of threads, as in rendering):
Credit Link above, I found this excerpt a very helpful commentary for the discussion here (Date: April 2012):
“i7 3930K (or i7-3960X) vs. Xeon E5 2690 eight core
I`m wondering how is i7 3930K (or i7-3960X) is holding up to the Xeon E5 2690 eight core; i saw that hp realeased their new workstation z820 wich supports a variety of 8 core processors (even dual 8 cores = 16 cores) but the system is very expensive.
So in terms to performance how are the six core i7 3930K (or i7-3960X) in comparison with 8 cores processors? Are the 8 cores E5``s really worth it? are they really that powerfull and fast? becouse, as i said in financial terms a i7 3930K system would be half the money (or more)
* i couldnd find a proper benchmark where the E5`s were listed
any help would be much appreciated
blazorthon 04-16-2012 at 09:48:05 AM
The 8 cores with reduced clock speed are fairly similar to the X79 i7 six core CPUs in highly threaded performance and inferior in lightly threaded performance. The Xeons are more expensive because of their more server/workstation oriented features (ECC memory compatibility, more stable, multi-CPUs per board compatibility, etc.), not because of them being faster, except for the fastest of the Xeons (IE an eight core Xeon with a higher than 3GHz clock frequency and the ten core Xeons).
Archi_B 04-16-2012 at 09:57:42 AM
thanks for your imput blazorthon,
regarding ppl`s general opinion this is what i found out:
“For the money that you spent, dual E5s do not perform anywhere near that much faster than systems equipped with single i7-39xx CPUs. In fact, dual E5s might actually perform slower than single i7s in H.264 encodes due to the excessive latencies in the switching in dual-CPU systems (and the more CPUs within the single system, the greater the latency).”
Archi_B 04-16-2012 at 09:59:24 AM
“Here is one major problem with all dual-CPU setups (not just dual e5s):
No dual-CPU system performs anywhere near twice as fast as an otherwise comparable single-CPU system. In fact, without all of the latencies and bottlenecks that switchers, disk systems and graphics systems impose on the system, a dual-CPU system performs at best 41 percent faster than a single-CPU system. (In fact, one would need a quad-CPU system just to theoretically double the overall performance of a given single-CPU system.) Add in the chipset, disks and GPU, and the performance advantage could plummet to less than 20 percent. That’s way too small of a performance improvement for such an astronomical increase in total system cost (which could amount to double or even triple the cost of an otherwise comparable single-CPU system). And that’s not to mention that the second CPU increases the total system cost by at least $2,000 up to a whopping $6,000. No wonder why dual-CPU systems are relatively poor values (bang-for-the-buck).”
blazorthon 04-16-2012 at 10:34:36 AM
The E5-2670 and the i7-3930K and the i7-3960X should all be about equal in highly threaded performance (12/16 threads in this context) and the i7s pull ahead significantly in anything that uses less than 16 threads. Same goes for the E5-2690. If these are your CPU choices, then get an i7-3930K or an i7-2700 and overclock it to about 5GHz (or whatever it will go to at below 1.4v). If you are also willing to overclock the i7-3930K, then you can probably get it up to about 4.5 or 4.6GHz (maybe a little higher) with an $80-$100 cooler.
thanks blazorthon, well i`m looking for a new computer for work, and i must say that i have little experience with building one, most of my computers, laptops, current workstation is HP ( i am a hp fan)
so what i currently have i mind is this:
HPE Phoenix h9se series
- 2nd Generation Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3960X six-core processor [3.3GHz, Shared 15MB Cache]
- 16GB DDR3-1333MHz SDRAM [4 DIMMs]
- 256GB Solid state drive
- 1GB DDR5 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti [2 DVI, mini-HDMI. VGA adapter]
Hp: total cost 2400$
Reply to Archi_B
Archi_B 04-16-2012 at 11:01:00 AM
is this worth it or should i consider a custom buid(ask a friend to help), that for the same amount of money get better hardware?
blazorthon 04-16-2012 at 05:33:24 PM (shortened from link)
Get the i7-3930K instead of the i7-3960X. It has nearly identical performance to the 3960X at all workloads for $400 less money. Also, I recommend getting 1600MHz memory. It should cost about the same as 1333MHz memory does if you buy the memory yourself from a site such as newegg. Make sure that you get 1.5v quad channel memory if you do.
Build it Yourself
...OEM computers tend to get more overcharged as they go up in performance. For example, for a low end machine, you might get the same performance for a home built machine, but for a high end machine, you might pay 50% to several times what it would cost to build it yourself. The memory and video card are usually the worst offenders in cost. Since you were opting for a fairly low end grapics card (at the bottom of the middle end class today, won’t be long before it is considered the top of the low end class), you probably weren’t getting a price as bad as a similar gaming machine would have, but it still seems like too much money for such a system.
Considering that Tom’s built an X79 computer with some frills for looks and noise reduction that had a 3930K and Radeon 7970 (the 7970 alone was about $600 of that budget), I’d say that you should try either a home built or a partially home built such as what I suggested. If you have a friend that can help, then it would just be even easier.
Going for something similar except with less frills (cheaper case, PSU, CPU cooler) and the GTX 550 TI instead of the powerhouse of a 7970, you should be able to get something similar (or greater than) the specs that you listed for about $1200-$1400…..