Why do people not get server-grade CPUs for desktop grade applications? What's the difference? For around $230 you can get 4 cores/8 threads with the Xeon E3 1230 V2. The only difference I see is that it's cheaper and there's no integrated graphics. Plus it even goes on the LGA 1155 mobo. So, why not get one of these?
Why do people not get server-grade CPUs for desktop grade applications? What's the difference? For around $230 you can get 4 cores/8 threads with the Xeon E3 1230 V2. The only difference I see is that it's cheaper and there's no integrated graphics. Plus it even goes on the LGA 1155 mobo. So, why not get one of these?
A lot of people with workstations do.
It is also not cheaper its 40$ more then the I7 2600k.
It also is not unlocked.
I must say, I never noticed that they were that much cheaper really. Generally speaking I'd expect Xeons to actually cost more, due to the extra reliability they offer and such. I'm also rather curious whether there is another reason.
Though it's worth noting that only selective boards support them. It seems like most Z77 based ASRock, MSI and Gigabyte boards support them according to their websites, however a lot of Asus boards do not, in order to push their sever and workstation board sales (which do bring additional features, but at a much higher price).
Are they locked? I guess it would make since that they are.
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” — Albert Einstein
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." — Robert Heinlein
What makes them less suitable for gaming? Is it just the high core count with each core not being too powerful?
The high core count, less power per core, they work better with ECC RAM (which I would not recommend for gaming), they are more expensive (the lowest end one, per core, will be worse than a 2500k), their motherboards are generally more expensive, the RAM is more expensive, traditionally they are more power hungry, and you will just not be getting near as much performance per $ as you would if you went with the typical gaming/desktop hardware.
At that point, even a laptop would get you better performance per $ spent.
It's just unnecessary, and a bit of a waste. Xeons are meant for programs that are threaded well and take full advantage of all cores, not games, which at the MOST right now only use 4 cores (usually 2 or 3 of which are barely used at all eg: WoW, GTA IV).
I'm using an i7-3930K which is kind of like a cross between the two (3.2 to 3.8GHz stock, unlocked, six cores/twelve threads). The 3960X isn't generally going to be worth it for the excessively marginal performance increase it offers.
But yes, for a cost effective gaming machine you don't need the extra cores.
A lot of people with workstations do.
It is also not cheaper its 40$ more then the I7 2600k.
It also is not unlocked.
Are they locked? I guess it would make since that they are.
Plus their hardware is more expensive, they are (generally) more expensive, and they are locked.
Why do desktop environments not perform as well? Aren't they both just Ivy Bridge
Cause they are for servers and workstations for a reason: they have been optimized and created to do so.
Desktop CPUs were made having in mind what the regular desktop user does (gaming, rendering, etc etc etc), so they were optimized for doing so.
Really, if you want a server-grade desktop CPU then get i7 3960x, it basically is a Xeon with lased off cores.
They separated CPUs into desktop and workstation/server for a reason...
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." — Robert Heinlein
They use ECC ram and most server cpus will be lower clocks and more cores.
What makes them less suitable for gaming? Is it just the high core count with each core not being too powerful?
2 or 3 months.A long-ass time.Oh boy, visual basic. I can barely contain my excitement. Not.
At that point, even a laptop would get you better performance per $ spent.
It's just unnecessary, and a bit of a waste. Xeons are meant for programs that are threaded well and take full advantage of all cores, not games, which at the MOST right now only use 4 cores (usually 2 or 3 of which are barely used at all eg: WoW, GTA IV).
But yes, for a cost effective gaming machine you don't need the extra cores.
OS: Windows 7 Professional SP1 64bit, Debian GNU/Linux 64bit | CPU: Intel i7-3930K @ 4.2GHz | Motherboard: ASUS P9X79 WS | RAM: Corsair Dominator 64GB Quad Channel DDR3 @ 1600MHz (8×8GB DIMMS) | Graphics: EVGA GeForce GTX Titan Black Superclocked @ 1124MHz (×2, SLI) | Power: Corsair AX1200 (1200W, 100.4A @ 12V) | Case: Corsair Obsidian 750D | Cooling: Corsair H110, NOCTUA NF-A14 industrialPPC-3000 PWM (×5) | Storage: Samsung 840 EVO 1TB SATA III SSD (system drive), Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA III HDD (media, backups), Western Digital My Passport 2TB USB 3.0 External HDD (backups) | Optical: Sony Optiarc Internal 12x Blu-ray Burner BD-5300S-03 | Display: Sony Bravia 46" 1920×1080
This computer's BOINC Stats: http://boincstats.com/en/stats/-1/host/detail/165430523