# Comparing Core 2 Duo vs. xeon quad core e5310 1.6ghz



## remember (Dec 14, 2006)

*Comparing Core 2 Duo 2.4Ghz vs. xeon quad core e5310 1.6ghz*

I was pretty much set on getting the Core 2 duo 2.4Ghz for the price of low $300, but then saw that a Xeon "quad" core is $365. http://www.pricewatch.com/cpu/xeon_quad_core_e5310_1.6ghz.htm

I was told that Xeon is "mainly" for servers, but was never told that it definitely could not be used for a "normal" computer, or given any reason why.

My question is, if Im trying to build this first computer of mine, would it be stupid or unworthy to use the quad core?

I wanted to compare the speeds of these processors at the http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=433&model2=604&chart=189, but couldn't find the quad core CPU.

I know the Core 2 duo is 2.4Ghz and this xeon quad is only 1.6Ghz, but I also read in many places that the Ghz speeds can not be compared with 2 different types of CPU's, like I have here.

It seems that 4 processors in this xeon would be much better than only 2 in the Core 2, but hopefully someone can shed some more info on this? Perhaps the differences in price for the MOBO, RAM, PSU etc. for the xeon make this idea more expensive than its worth, but again for the price of $365 for 4 processors vs. $306 for Core 2, I can only think that xeon may be better? Please let me know as much as you can.

P.S. I dont play any games, but just want to have the best computer I can get, obviously for the money and to last as long as possible. And if being a server means a micro version of a search engine, Id like to also say that one day, eventually I would like to have my own website or server/search engine that specializes in certain subjects like agriculture products. If a server is a stepping stone to being a search engine and if this xeon CPU is fast, still usable for a "normal" computer but a good way fo me to one day practice for becoming a server/search engine, then please just let me know everything you can.


----------



## Jet (Dec 14, 2006)

That Xeon is based off of the Core architecture, so you can directly compare Ghz. Could you provide a link to the quad core Xeon? I would suppose that it is just a dual core model that is advertised that you can put two dual cores together to equal a quad core?


----------



## remember (Dec 14, 2006)

*Link to xeon made in 1st thread*

http://www.pricewatch.com/cpu/xeon_quad_core_e5310_1.6ghz.htm
As you can see they all say quad core, and I cant determine if its like you say 2 2 cores or 1 4 core. I see that some say passive and some say active. If you know what it is please tell me.


----------



## Jet (Dec 14, 2006)

I looked into it, and it is a Quad core processor! However, finding a server motherboard for it might be a hassle, as well as worse gaming performance probably. (It's Socket 771, not Socket 775, so you'd have to look for server motherboards, etc.)


----------



## lovely? (Dec 14, 2006)

it would be a hassle, and i dont believe that it would be in your best interests to try it either. prices are bad for it right now, and you wont find anything that can even run the four cores simultaneously for at least a year. plus, that processor is'nt made for home computing, so it would run quite differently than you may or may not be used to, meaning performance may be worse than say, an e6600... games, i would suspect, would suffer with the zeon


----------



## remember (Dec 15, 2006)

To Jet,
Yes, that is just one Quad core of many I have glanced and have no idea what all their differences are. Thanks for telling me its a 771 socket MOBO. I have no idea what that means, and dont really know why it should be so difficult to find one, since anyone with that CPU would also have to use that MOBO?

To lovely?:
I dont play any video games, and dont really understand why this xeon should not work sufficiently with games or anything I would consider requiring gaming components, like TV, Movies etc.? 

I really dont understand what you mean by,. . "you wont find anything that can even run the four cores simultaneously for at least a year" What exactly are you talking about that has to run the CPU? The MOBO? or what exactly?

As long as games are the only thing that will not "perform" as well with the xeon as they would with the Core 2, then I'm perfectly alright with that. Its just my simple belief that, if 2 cores are better 1, than 4 cores should be better than 2, but obviously if say that I wont be able to find anything that can run the 4 cores for at least a year, then sadly I'll have to forget my intention, But I do have to know what part it is that you're talking about that has to "run" the CPU. Please let me know. Thanks.


----------



## fade2green514 (Dec 15, 2006)

if it were an opteron, i'd say go for it... but you'd need a pretty damn good board to overclock that thing very far, since its an intel and you cant just implement a lower multiplier on the fsb (like you can with AMD's Hypertransport)
if you do a lot of video conversion and you multi-task constantly, then by all means get the quad core. personally i dont think its worth the money and an e6300 at stock speeds even would do fine.
the e6600 theoretically gives a total of 4.8ghz when the apps are dual-threaded or more and the xeon gives 6.4ghz of performance when the apps are quad-threaded or more. of course, most apps arent so the more practical thing for todays use would be the e6600 especially since you'll probably be able to just get it to 3.2ghz giving you the 6.4ghz that the xeon would.


----------



## Archangel (Dec 15, 2006)

you cant just add up the frequenties of each core tough..


----------



## remember (Dec 15, 2006)

*I dont know what overclocking means.*

To: fade2green514:
It seems that you are making your decision based on the "overclocking" factor.
Since I have no idea what overclocking is, I cant say anything, so hopefully when I read overclocking 101, I will at least understand what you're saying.


----------



## tlarkin (Dec 15, 2006)

Xeons are made to be a work horse processor.  We have a few intel based macs (mac pro) at my work that run dual xeon 2 gig processors, and there is a lot more in their architecture over a consumer level processor, however both are based on the same core technology.

In all honesty, if you were actually going to spend the money to buy a xeon processor I would say don't do it, and just build two seperate C2D machines

also make sure you are comparing the right xeon with the right core 2 duo, the xeons with the 1033 bus last I checked were around 1,000 dollars each, but that was back during the summer time.


----------



## remember (Dec 15, 2006)

To tlarkin:

A work horse sounds pretty good to me, as opposed to what exactly, I dont know.

As for your recommendation of not using the xeon processor itself vs the C2duo because of the price, the C2duo is is $310 and the Xeon is $360, so to me it seems like getting 4 cores for $50 more is pretty good. Despite the 1.6Ghz vs. 2.4 Ghz difference, I like doing a lot of multitasking Internet exploring, so I am just trying to figure out what are the technical differences between all of this. Ideally Id like to find a place where I can compare the speeds of the xeon processors with the C2d, like tomshardware site, but dont know where that is.

Lastly all the Core 2 duo are 1066FSB, and so is the xeon model in discussion. I think when the Xeon model goes above either 1.83 or 2.0 Ghz, the FSB becomes 1366, but those are way more than I can spend. So the FSB's are the same for these 2 models, but where can I see what the actual speed differences are between the Core 2duo's and this Xeon quad 1.6Ghz?


----------



## tlarkin (Dec 15, 2006)

no you are right they finally dropped in price, however, the cheapest 771 mobo I found on the net was 350 plus shipping here is an example i found from pricewatch.com

http://www.serversdirect.com/productdetail?product=107844

We run HP Proliant servers at my work, and there is a reason they cost 3000 dollars, because the hardware is expensive.  I don't think any one user can really put that hardware to its fullest unless you do massive 3D rendering or massive digital vide/audio.

If you are actually referring to the woodcrest xeon chip, then yes they are expensive.

In all honesty, why don't you just go buy a Mac Pro?  It comes standard with Dual Xeons, can run windows natively, and better than a lot of PCs, and you get to use all the mac only apps like apeture, dvd studio, final cut studio, etc.


----------



## remember (Dec 17, 2006)

*I dont know what am I doing*

To tlarkin:
My first computer was a Mac about 15 years ago, but I dont know why I dont buy a mac. Considering that I know very little about computers, and 90% of computers being non-mac, I just feel more secure that its generally better or preferred to have a non-mac/PC?

Also, you mentioned Dual Xeons; the one(s) Im considering are Xeon quad.

From what Ive read, "the internet is basically just made up of millions of servers" and I would like to get involved with many things related to the internet, like establishing my own forum for specific agriculture discussion, as well as setting up camera systems and being able to watch them from where I want as well as having my own websites for various products/initiatives I have always wanted to promote. I just hope that I can get some good intros and learn this subject fast and easy.


----------

