Boo Berry Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Xeon processors are for servers/workstations. Depending on the socket, a Xeon might work 'unofficially' in a non-server motherboard. If you plan on doing any overclocking, then consider a desktop processor instead. Do you absolutely need 6+ cores? Do you just want more cores? More cores don't necessarily mean a performance increase. Most programs, especially games, usually don't use more than 2 cores at a time. Are you doing something like video editing? If so, look at the high-end Sandy Bridge-E or Ivy Bridge-E CPUs... or wait for Haswell-E and its rumored 8 core processors. No need to consider AMD's 6+ core processors because as far as I know (going on what I knew about Bulldozer) the FX series with 6+ cores uses integer cores. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan R. Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Very true -- but most people would tend to run more than one program at a time, not including background services and such.. those extra cores should improve "relative performance" as the OS allocates the workload across what's available. Not going to do anything for ye olde single threaded programs, but it won't bog the system down either as the extra cores free it up to do something else, at least with later versions of Windows (and Linux obviously), if I remember right XP was fairly bad at it. This is basically the same thing as "Yes, theoretical performance increases but real-world performance is negligible". While the OS will be able to better spread the processing load, does it really justify the huge cost? It's just not viable in the consumer market. SSD helps a lot too. SSDs help with performance in general but it's not at all in the same way as parallel processing. Loading files is a serial process and the as with anything serial (one task after another) it's easy to become a bottleneck. SSDs help in that they can get each individual file loaded very quickly and go on the next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Norris Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 This is basically the same thing as "Yes, theoretical performance increases but real-world performance is negligible". The OS will be able to better spread the processing load but, really, will it justify the huge cost? It's just not viable in the consumer market. Sure if you're referring to the Xeon's. Just rebuilt my daughter's system a few weeks ago with an 8 core Vishera, ~$160 for the processor, no huge cost involved. It certainly did help her system when there's a bunch of background stuff that systems tend to have running, relative performance != theoretical, it's real. But yea, like I mentioned, a single application won't notice a difference if it isn't designed to take advantage of it, but the overall responsiveness of the OS itself definitely improved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan R. Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Sure if you're referring to the Xeon's. Just rebuilt my daughter's system a few weeks ago with an 8 core Vishera, ~$160 for the processor, no huge cost involved. It certainly did help her system when there's a bunch of background stuff that systems tend to have running, relative performance != theoretical, it's real. But yea, like I mentioned, a single application won't notice a difference if it isn't designed to take advantage of it, but the overall responsiveness of the OS itself definitely improved. Ah, it's been quite a few years since I've even used an AMD processor and that is a nice price. The OP did state "Intel CPU with 8 cores" and that he has a motherboard he's trying to work with. Pretty much any Intel processor with 8 cores is going to be ridiculously expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Norris Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Ah, it's been quite a few years since I've even used an AMD processor and that is a nice price. The OP did state "Intel CPU with 8 cores" and that he has a motherboard he's trying to work with. Pretty much any Intel processor with 8 cores is going to be ridiculously expensive. Very true, I was just commenting on the viability in general, I usually stick with Intel's myself but couldn't pass on that price and have been quite impressed with the processor, overclocks very nicely, etc. I am curious as to what Intel's new 8 core processor is going to run when it's released though.. hopefully arms and/or legs aren't involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MindTrickz Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 The only Intel CPU's with 8 or more cores are the Xeon CPU's and those are intended for the servers. So unless you're running a server og applications that are optimized for Hyperthreading then you do not need it. Not to mention that the Xeon CPU's are hella expensive. Anyway, I have a top of the line Haswell i7-4770K and even that has only 4 cores. Which is more than enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Berry Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Not to mention that the Xeon CPU's are hella expensive. Anyone who is considering buying a 8+ core, $2,000+ Xeon processor for a desktop PC is nuts. :p MindTrickz 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts