XEON or Core 2 Duo for pure gaming?

[Regert]

Is ther eanyone here that has been using a server CPU for gaming? Any ideas if it would be better to use XEON instead of an Core 2 Duo cpu for gaming, since games also are multithreaded in some cases. I know that it woulb be impossible (at least I have not seen any mobo's that support that) to use SLI or Crossfire, but if you have one good card and fast memories?

What do you think?

XEON is expensive. And any motherboard recommendation?

[Japlabot]

In a single processor configuration, Xeon and Core 2 Duo would be pretty simular in performance, Xeon might have a slight edge but in Gaming it would be very insignificant (even insignificant in a Dual-Processor configuation) in comparison to the edge that a better Graphics Card will give you.

The only reason I would recommend a Xeon over a Conroe is if the primary task is for processor intensive applications such as Graphics Design, CAD, CGI, Video Editing, Multimedia Encoding, etc.

Basically, for pure gaming, Xeon is a pure waste of money. The CPU is not a bottleneck in gaming performance and I'ld be surprised if there was even 1FPS in performance difference between a Core 2 Duo and 2x Xeon 5100.

The only thing Xeon would offer (in your case) is bragging rights. But even then if you brag to someone that has a clue, they will tell you that you wasted your money.

[Regert]

In a single processor configuration, Xeon and Core 2 Duo would be pretty simular in performance, Xeon might have a slight edge but in Gaming it would be very insignificant (even insignificant in a Dual-Processor configuation) in comparison to the edge that a better Graphics Card will give you.

The only reason I would recommend a Xeon over a Conroe is if the primary task is for processor intensive applications such as Graphics Design, CAD, CGI, Video Editing, Multimedia Encoding, etc.

Basically, for pure gaming, Xeon is a pure waste of money. The CPU is not a bottleneck in gaming performance and I'ld be surprised if there was even 1FPS in performance difference between a Core 2 Duo and 2x Xeon 5100.

The only thing Xeon would offer (in your case) is bragging rights. But even then if you brag to someone that has a clue, they will tell you that you wasted your money.

Heh... Well OK. I understand. Well I was wondering. Building or planning to build a gaming computer for a friend. So I needed to know. But well. A XEON based computer would on the other hand suit me better, since I mostly do Graphics Desing and such things (mainly image editing and photo editing) on my system.

And now that adobe has released the Lightroom Beta, and you can use it together with Photoshop, it eats away the cpu like nothing else. So a XEON system and (I guees) an wildcat or Parhelia would have been just sweet if I could afford it.

But thanks alot for your answer. :-D

I konw now. But what is the biggest bottleneck today. I have got it cleared that the FSB should run on a Core 2 Duo system at 800 Mhz so foar you don?'t considero overclocking, (which is overkill so far).

Is it the graphics board or is it all the heat the all the components produce?

The goal is to be able to play way hm.... say wow virtually any lag or q4 over 60/70 fps in an normal resolution. In other words, rather texture heavy games. And what do you need to be sure that the next series of physics engines will be able to run smooth on a computer?

[benderthefender]

Heh... Well OK. I understand. Well I was wondering. Building or planning to build a gaming computer for a friend. So I needed to know. But well. A XEON based computer would on the other hand suit me better, since I mostly do Graphics Desing and such things (mainly image editing and photo editing) on my system.

And now that adobe has released the Lightroom Beta, and you can use it together with Photoshop, it eats away the cpu like nothing else. So a XEON system and (I guees) an wildcat or Parhelia would have been just sweet if I could afford it.

But thanks alot for your answer. :-D

I konw now. But what is the biggest bottleneck today. I have got it cleared that the FSB should run on a Core 2 Duo system at 800 Mhz so foar you don?'t considero overclocking, (which is overkill so far).

Is it the graphics board or is it all the heat the all the components produce?

The goal is to be able to play way hm.... say wow virtually any lag or q4 over 60/70 fps in an normal resolution. In other words, rather texture heavy games. And what do you need to be sure that the next series of physics engines will be able to run smooth on a computer?

i personally think, you should invest into an xeon system with a powerful graphics card, this should handle you work (ie. photoshop, cad etc) and you will have enough power for gaming, with xeon+powerful graphics card.

note xeon is designed to work in multi processor mode meaning, the architecture for xeon is designed to handle work load that is distributed over multiple cores (3+ cores), your photo editing + video editing fits into this option, hence im saying go for xeon. core 2 is not designed to run in multiple core mode i.e. 3 cores or more, i think, or i may be wrong, please correct if im wrong.

to achieve high fps i.e.60/70 go for sli graphics, either ati crossfire or nvidia sli and get the most powerful cards u can afford plus get a large psu.

and one more thing, plenty of ram and i mean plenty, yes, editing takes alot of power but u need alot of storage both RAM and hdd, possible consider a backup solution aswell (configure a raid etc), i assuming u are doing work in HD.

but if money is an issue then go for core 2 with powerful graphics card (sli/crossfire) or at least 2gb of ram.

REMEMBER core 2 is also a fantastic product, its very powerful and great overall cpu better than amd (im a AMD, INTEL AND POWER PC FAN)

hope it helps.

[Regert]

i personally think, you should invest into an xeon system with a powerful graphics card, this should handle you work (ie. photoshop, cad etc) and you will have enough power for gaming, with xeon+powerful graphics card.

note xeon is designed to work in multi processor mode meaning, the architecture for xeon is designed to handle work load that is distributed over multiple cores (3+ cores), your photo editing + video editing fits into this option, hence im saying go for xeon. core 2 is not designed to run in multiple core mode i.e. 3 cores or more, i think, or i may be wrong, please correct if im wrong.

to achieve high fps i.e.60/70 go for sli graphics, either ati crossfire or nvidia sli and get the most powerful cards u can afford plus get a large psu.

and one more thing, plenty of ram and i mean plenty, yes, editing takes alot of power but u need alot of storage both RAM and hdd, possible consider a backup solution aswell (configure a raid etc), i assuming u are doing work in HD.

but if money is an issue then go for core 2 with powerful graphics card (sli/crossfire) or at least 2gb of ram.

REMEMBER core 2 is also a fantastic product, its very powerful and great overall cpu better than amd (im a AMD, INTEL AND POWER PC FAN)

hope it helps.

Thankyou for the answer. Well I will consider that when it's time for me to upgrade. Right now I'm building a new system from scratch for a friend who mainly a gamer. He doesn't do any editing or so, just gaming. As for me, I'll be upgrading next year probably. Reason: cash. I wan't a good system and why not xeon based it that would run better with all the stuff you need for 2D editing. :-/. But ti will have to wait so I can afford it later.

You are right about the RAM. One get never get enough of RAM for such thing.

Unfortunately, I have never experienced RAID. So I'll be looking forward to trying it.

:-)

[ANova]

The Woodcrest Xeon and Core 2 Duo are identical other than the socket type and bus speed. The Xeon runs at 1333MHz fsb and Core 2 at 1066MHz fsb.

Also, Xeons systems require ECC memory which is much more expensive than consumer grade non ECC and the motherboards are also very expensive. With a system primarily for gaming the Core 2 Duo would save you alot of money and have roughly equal performance.

[Regert]

Well, thats true.

Is it even possible today to use the 1333MHz fully btw? Or is it jsut for show?

[Cloud Geek]

The Woodcrest Xeon and Core 2 Duo are identical other than the socket type and bus speed. The Xeon runs at 1333MHz fsb and Core 2 at 1066MHz fsb.

Also, Xeons systems require ECC memory which is much more expensive than consumer grade non ECC and the motherboards are also very expensive. With a system primarily for gaming the Core 2 Duo would save you alot of money and have roughly equal performance.

ecc was recommended for windows vista :whistle:

A Hardcore Gamer's Look at Windows Vista

http://blogs.technet.com/windowsvista/arch.../10/445958.aspx

[Shane Pitman]

IWILL DPK66S SLI dual Xeon motherboard. Alienware at one time used one of the predecessors to this board in one of its high end rigs and as far as I know still uses IWILL boards in some of their systems.

[ANova]

Well, thats true.

Is it even possible today to use the 1333MHz fully btw? Or is it jsut for show?

What do you mean fully? The processor's fixed multiplier is set so that it must run at a 333MHz bus (1333MHz fsb) to reach advertised operating frequency and a 1:1 ratio with the memory. The Xeons require ECC DDR2 667 while the Core 2s require non ECC DDR2 533.

ecc was recommended for windows vista

A Hardcore Gamer's Look at Windows Vista

http://blogs.technet.com/windowsvista/arch.../10/445958.aspx

A word of advice, don't believe everything you read, especially from a blog. Vista is no different than any other operating system, it doesn't need ECC ram any more than I need a hole in my head. ECC is used in servers because they deal with a large amount of data on a constant basis, ECC ram prevents corruption. It's an extra measure of file protection so yes it is a good thing but it's surely not required, especially for a gamer.

[Regert]

What do you mean fully? The processor's fixed multiplier is set so that it must run at a 333MHz bus (1333MHz fsb) to reach advertised operating frequency and a 1:1 ratio with the memory. The Xeons require ECC DDR2 667 while the Core 2s require non ECC DDR2 533.

A word of advice, don't believe everything you read, especially from a blog. Vista is no different than any other operating system, it doesn't need ECC ram any more than I need a hole in my head. ECC is used in servers because they deal with a large amount of data on a constant basis, ECC ram prevents corruption. It's an extra measure of file protection so yes it is a good thing but it's surely not required, especially for a gamer.

Ah. OK. I see.

I've hard about ECC ram some time ago from a realtive that used to work with building large scale servers.

Well I can agree that if it's too expneive for what you get, it's not really worth it.

I'll take a look at the blog anyway.

What I still would like to do is to build a system that can have the raw force to deliver good speed no matter how the graphics or connection load behaves. Let me explain. As those of my friend that are gamers primarily (they mostly play games whenever they can) they always fear lag. The lag depends on if you run something in the background, or your connection to the internet experiences heavy packet loos due to stupid routing somewhere locally (happens), or that tour graphics load peaks when there are lot of things happening indepently on the screen in your virtual affected area. To prevent as much as possible of that, my frined all tend to set the graphics on a low standard.

That means usually setting all extra things off, lower resolution, all special effects are banned and the game turns rather ugly and with sharp edges everywhere.

All for the matter of getting as much fps from your computer as possible. The fps minimum is 40 Hz in WOw, 48 in Doom 3, 125 in Q3. For quake 4 I have no idea actually, isn't it locked at 60 Hz?

So I need to build a system that can more or less always spare some resources in case of something peaking either in the system or the instruction load.

A burst of players in an area in an MMORPG always follows with at least 20 secs extra lag while textures are loading and every runs around.

Of course for this to work I must tweak the XP/Vista system as far as possible.

I am sure that Vista will be OK. but in the first revision I would stick to XP. Vista should have a higher load than XP? Not sure. At least say that you can run an extra administrator account with a minimum of services running in the background. In most cases what would be about 26 processes. All unnecesarry **** like cute graphics, icons and visual styles are cut of. Old-school tweaking. Since your gaming for gaming, you don't care at the moment how it looks in windows as long as the game is fine.

Well, tell me if I am wrong. This would typically be a tweak setup for an 32-bits system, but with 64 bits systems and dualcores, I have no real idea yet.

/ Regert.

[Regert]

IWILL DPK66S SLI dual Xeon motherboard. Alienware at one time used one of the predecessors to this board in one of its high end rigs and as far as I know still uses IWILL boards in some of their systems.

Only one word: Wow.

Gee, that motherboard is like nothing I've seen. 64 GB RAM? What does it cost?

If I'm not mistaken then Core 2 Duo can't be used on those. Other wise an easier version of that one and an OK dual CPU setup would be nice. But I guess that it's too expensive. Can that board or some other similar run on one cpu. Our budget here is not limitless. :-/

But thanks alot for pointing out this possibility. :-D

Nice to see something different too.

[ANova]

Just get a quality consumer board like the Asus P5B Deluxe or P5W DH Deluxe, a Core 2 Duo E6400 or E6600 and 2 GB of DDR2 533 (or 667 if you want to overclock) ram. It will be more than enough for all current games. Couple that with a good video card like an ATI X1900 XT and you won't have any problems with framerates and it won't cost you an arm and a leg.

[alsheron]

But what is the REAL difference between Xeon and Core 2 Duo? Someone here said that the Xeon spreads the load over it's cores, but the core 2 doesn't. Surely this can't be true.

I'm currently looking at systems for my workstation at work and the ones on offer at dell (i have no choice here) are the "Small business models" with xeon or the consumer models with the core 2 duo.

I do a LOT of photo editing in Photoshop including a lot of RAW work and use dreamweaver and fireworks practically all day.

From the models offered by Dell, the Xeon systems seem to have less hard drive space included and are overall much more expensive.

I've got an inkling that the Core 2 Duo systems would perform just as well as the Xeon systems.

If there is only a 5% increase in performance with the Xeon in Photoshop and Dreamweaver/multitasking performance i'll obviously go for the Core 2 duo.

My predicament is very similar to the original posters and i don't think our questions have yet been clarified.

I've got a feeling the the Xeon is very good in vertain areas to do with server based work that do improve (slightly) the overall performance in Photoshop/gaming slightly but only as a side-effect if you see what i mean.

In reality i have a feeling that for the price difference (quite a bit) there is little incentive to by a xeon based system UNLESS you're doing some unbelievably cutting edge heavy load photo and video editing and need the ABSOLUTE fastest thing out there.

However, if you're doing just heavy load photo and video editing and need a very fast system then the Core 2 Duo will be MORE than enough to blast through it all.

Am i right in the above paragraph?

Does anyone have any links for some real-world comparisons for photo and video editing performance and the like? I know toms hardware has a CPU guide but i've not seen any reviews that directly compare xeon and core 2 duo systems.

[Vice]

But what is the REAL difference between Xeon and Core 2 Duo? Someone here said that the Xeon spreads the load over it's cores, but the core 2 doesn't. Surely this can't be true.

They are the same. The only difference is Woodcrest can be used in a multiprocessor configuration.

Merom & Conroe are the same aswell just Merom is a down-clocked EE version (Energy Efficient).

[alsheron]

They are the same. The only difference is Woodcrest can be used in a multiprocessor configuration.

Merom & Conroe are the same aswell just Merom is a down-clocked EE version (Energy Efficient).

Thank you. That's exactly the info i needed.

If they are the "same" or virtually the same then since i wont be buying a multi-processor configuration, getting a xeon would just be plain silly.

Core 2 Duo it is then....

[Regert]

They are the same. The only difference is Woodcrest can be used in a multiprocessor configuration.

Merom & Conroe are the same aswell just Merom is a down-clocked EE version (Energy Efficient).

Aha.. OK thanks.

Well I'll see about Xeon for myself later on.

But for now I'll stick to the Core 2 Duo setup.

Here in Sweden the Motherboards with the new nForce 5 series chipsets have started to sell. Surprisingly, they are substaintially cheaper so far I've seen then the already on sell P965 chipset based motherboards. Anyone of you who knows if that's just marketing or is nForce 570 from whichever manufacturer not as good as say the Asus P5WB deluxe or so? Still the nForce series are supposed to be better in terms of innovation and stability.

[ANova]

No, the 965 and 975 chipsets are every bit as stable and feature full as the nforce if not more so. Intel's own chipsets tend to work best with their chips. The only downside right now is as you said, for some reason alot of the boards are overpriced which hasn't been the case in the past.

[Regert]

No, the 965 and 975 chipsets are every bit as stable and feature full as the nforce if not more so. Intel's own chipsets tend to work best with their chips. The only downside right now is as you said, for some reason alot of the boards are overpriced which hasn't been the case in the past.

OK. I see.

Well, then it might as well be an Intel chipset. Any recommendation. I think that some space for overclocking is necessary. Not now, but in the future. So therefore an motherboard that has the fastest bus speeds available and that has some good specs is to prefer. About $300 or so is the most I think he can spend on a motherboard, which should be enough.

What do you think?

Which one is the best in term of responsiveness and performance

Intel? 975X Express Chipset,

Intel? Q965 Express Chipset,

Intel? Q963 Express Chipset,

Intel? G965 Express Chipset,

Intel? P965 Express Chipset ?

There is an array of motherboards available, even if they are not cheap and not very many either.

Of the lot there are two form Abit and five or six from Asus.

I'm personally thinking about trying this one:

http://www.intel.com/products/motherboard/d975xbx/index.htm? Any ideas about it.

I am baybe a bit old school. But I am more inclined to believe that larger components might be more stable than smaller.

At least that seems to be the case with GPU (which of course is a different matter) but there the one with larger capacitors and other components have usually been able to take more strain.

[ANova]

Get an Asus, you get more features for the same or less compared to Intel boards. Plus Intel boards do not allow you to overclock.

[benderthefender]

But what is the REAL difference between Xeon and Core 2 Duo? Someone here said that the Xeon spreads the load over it's cores, but the core 2 doesn't. Surely this can't be true.

I'm currently looking at systems for my workstation at work and the ones on offer at dell (i have no choice here) are the "Small business models" with xeon or the consumer models with the core 2 duo.

I do a LOT of photo editing in Photoshop including a lot of RAW work and use dreamweaver and fireworks practically all day.

From the models offered by Dell, the Xeon systems seem to have less hard drive space included and are overall much more expensive.

I've got an inkling that the Core 2 Duo systems would perform just as well as the Xeon systems.

If there is only a 5% increase in performance with the Xeon in Photoshop and Dreamweaver/multitasking performance i'll obviously go for the Core 2 duo.

My predicament is very similar to the original posters and i don't think our questions have yet been clarified.

I've got a feeling the the Xeon is very good in vertain areas to do with server based work that do improve (slightly) the overall performance in Photoshop/gaming slightly but only as a side-effect if you see what i mean.

In reality i have a feeling that for the price difference (quite a bit) there is little incentive to by a xeon based system UNLESS you're doing some unbelievably cutting edge heavy load photo and video editing and need the ABSOLUTE fastest thing out there.

However, if you're doing just heavy load photo and video editing and need a very fast system then the Core 2 Duo will be MORE than enough to blast through it all.

Am i right in the above paragraph?

Does anyone have any links for some real-world comparisons for photo and video editing performance and the like? I know toms hardware has a CPU guide but i've not seen any reviews that directly compare xeon and core 2 duo systems.

sorry for the confusion, i meant to say xeons will be better suited to distributed computing, example. at work we have recieved some sample of xeon processors (a motherboard with supports 4 xeon processors, each xeon has two cores with a total of 8 cores). we rans some java based cluster code to it and photoshop render tests to it and it was able to produce the results much faster than core duo setup (multi-processor setup).

[donaliscool]

Its only 35 euro more expensive for me to buy a Quad core XEON @2.13 Ghz with 8 MB cachethan it is for me to buy a core 2 duo @ 2.67 Ghz with 4MB cache.Is the Xeon any good for gaming.(Crysis, Alan wake, Halo 2 etc...) I know I need more RAM and a better GPU too but I need a processor too, and want to know whether the Xeon is worth it for 35 quid more.

[Master^IT]

Its only 35 euro more expensive for me to buy a Quad core XEON @2.13 Ghz with 8 MB cachethan it is for me to buy a core 2 duo @ 2.67 Ghz with 4MB cache.Is the Xeon any good for gaming.(Crysis, Alan wake, Halo 2 etc...) I know I need more RAM and a better GPU too but I need a processor too, and want to know whether the Xeon is worth it for 35 quid more.

I am using an X3220 l2 8MB for everything (That is a XEON there is just similair to the Quad 6600).

It is awsome at gaming even with my "old" Ati X1950 Pro 512Gddr3 1.4GHZ GPU.

Just remember that it is better with a 64Bit version of Windows instead of a 32Bit - Even at the moment it do not matter so much but it is kind of cooler :)

I am off to play some HL2E2 while I am ripping a movie and having 40 Internet explores open, playing music, talking on skype and etc etc etc (rofl) - Kind of forgot to tell that if you like to use "live wallpapers" with DeskScapes it is awsome to.

[Leddy]

You really should stick to the consumer Core 2 Duo/Quad lineup because that will save you (a lot of) money on the motherboard and RAM.

As you well know Xeons require ECC RAM and sets of those are a good chunk more expensive than normal DDR2; which is dirt cheap these days.

Using a Xeon in a home system which doesn't really have a need for 24/7 uptime is a bit silly and definitely a waste of money.

[Master^IT]

Worth mentioning that I am running this X3220 on a low budget Asrock 4CoreDual-Sata2 and that the price tag from the Q6600 to mine was like 350-400DDK. - As far as I am informed the X3220 cannot be used in Dual CPU configs... you will need the Xeon 5140 or the Xeon L5320 for that purpose.... Witch is wayyy more expansive.