Soo...Intel has been lying to us? What?

Actually, the Maximus Formula may be the one board that supports it.. I did find some benchmarks with that config.. So yeah, maybe there's an alternative to waiting for the Q9000. Coolio.

For the differences in the chip? I'm sure there's a comparison chart somewhere.
 
SirKenin said:
For the differences in the chip? I'm sure there's a comparison chart somewhere.
Click to expand...

I've seen the specs of the chips and they're identical to the 45nm Dual/Quad chips. Architecturally, electrically, well, everything seems to be the same. I'm assuming any board that supports 45nm chips will support these strange "Xeon" chips. :P
 
Last edited:
I have two dual Xeon servers.. One with dual RAID 5 and 128MB cache on a PERC controller, the other with a single RAID 5. Even though they're 10,000 RPM SCSI drives (the Dell server is hot swap, the Intel isn't) they're not "mind blowing" or anything performance-wise. One has Server 2000, the other Server 2003 SBS. I bought the SBS for the Exchange. Reliable, most certainly. Speed demons? Not really. Just ok. You really don't notice it until you start piling on the users, then you can appreciate a pair of dual core processors and SCSI bandwidth.

Now if I could just get my goddamn VPN working.. DAMN YOU BELL Business!!!!!!! Damn you all to hell. Why pay $100 a month for a static IP when all my ports are blocked??? GRRRRRRRRRRRRR.
 
SirKenin said:
Actually, the Maximus Formula may be the one board that supports it.. I did find some benchmarks with that config.. So yeah, maybe there's an alternative to waiting for the Q9000. Coolio.

For the differences in the chip? I'm sure there's a comparison chart somewhere.
Click to expand...

Well I will be using the Maximus Formula....oh well I'll probably just wait for the Q9450 just to be SURE that it'll work.
 
mep916 said:
The fact that Intel has labeled these chips as server procs has led to some confusion, I think.
Click to expand...

I figured the Xeons were just like the Opterons. All of them. I mean it doesn't make sense for Intel or AMD to design differences around no difference. Server and workstations are more sensitive, of course, but not fundamentally different.

Not telling it like it is? No ones asked. :D We all just assume server procs are different.
 
hermeslyre said:
I figured the Xeons were just like the Opterons. All of them. I mean it doesn't make sense for Intel or AMD to design differences around no difference. Server and workstations are more sensitive, of course, but not fundamentally different.

Not telling it like it is? No ones asked. :D We all just assume server procs are different.
Click to expand...

I see your point, I think. Server processors have always, as far as I know, worked with different sockets. These Xeon 3000 series chips, however, use the same socket as the Core 2 Duo/Quad and appear to have identical specs.

Bah... :confused:
 
Yeah, but different sockets don't necessarily mean differences in the chip. It could just be Intel's way of differentiating differences. :cool:

I dunno. :confused:
 
mep916 said:
I see your point, I think. Server processors have always, as far as I know, worked with different sockets. These Xeon 3000 series chips, however, use the same socket as the Core 2 Duo/Quad and appear to have identical specs.

Bah... :confused:
Click to expand...

Here's something quirky for you.

The typical Xeon was S604 at the time the Poweredge 2600 came out. Well wouldn't you know it, Dell, in their infinite wisdom, used the S603. Hah! Go Dell!! I was hoping to upgrade the processors in it. In the end I had to settle with dual 2GHz Xeons. AND.. the VRM modules. You have to have one for each processor.. And wouldn't you know it they made two different ones that fit.. but if you mismatch them the computer won't even boot. lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top