If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
1.8 gHz Xeon vs. 2.8 gHz P4
I am trying to decide between a 1.8 gHz Xeon and a 2.8 gHz P4 for a
single CPU file/print/database server for a small office. So far I have not found any clear explanation of the differences in or advantages of on over the other. Can anyone provide any information or references? -- _Bill_ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
That should be "one over the other".
-- _Bill_ Bill wrote: I am trying to decide between a 1.8 gHz Xeon and a 2.8 gHz P4 for a single CPU file/print/database server for a small office. So far I have not found any clear explanation of the differences in or advantages of on over the other. Can anyone provide any information or references? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Bill wrote:
That should be "one over the other". I'd go with the cheaper one and instead spend your money on some extra ram and faster hard drives. That will provide you more performance for this kind of thing (file/print/database server) Eric -- I am Locutus of Borg. Your life as it has been is over. From this moment on you will service... us! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks. That is the consensus of some others I have asked as well.
-- _Bill_ Eric wrote: Bill wrote: That should be "one over the other". I'd go with the cheaper one and instead spend your money on some extra ram and faster hard drives. That will provide you more performance for this kind of thing (file/print/database server) Eric |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Bill wrote:
I am trying to decide between a 1.8 gHz Xeon and a 2.8 gHz P4 for a single CPU file/print/database server for a small office. So far I have not found any clear explanation of the differences in or advantages of on over the other. Can anyone provide any information or references? The Xeon fits in a server mobo which supports ECC memory. It is therefore more reliable, both in terms of MTTF and undetected data errors. That may justify the small extra cost depending on the cost of errors, particularly undetected ones. The P4 is probably less expensive and slightly faster. -- bill davidsen ) SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center Project Leader, USENET news http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Bill wrote: I am trying to decide between a 1.8 gHz Xeon and a 2.8 gHz P4 for a single CPU file/print/database server for a small office. So far I have not found any clear explanation of the differences in or advantages of on over the other. Can anyone provide any information or references? The Xeon fits in a server mobo which supports ECC memory. It is therefore more reliable, both in terms of MTTF and undetected data errors. That may justify the small extra cost depending on the cost of errors, particularly undetected ones. The P4 is probably less expensive and slightly faster. The P4 will be more than slightly faster, I expect. Faster bus, larger cache, some of the performance bottlenecks inside were fixed (it is Northwood or Prescott compared to the Willamette-based Xeon). The Xeon probably supports two processors, so you can put a second 1.8GHz Xeon in it. It is possible, but unlikely, that the Xeon allows up to four processors. The memory types probably differ a great deal. The Xeon probably uses expensive Rambus RIMMs while the P4 uses inexpensive, commodity DDR SDRAM DIMMs. It is more likely that the Xeon memory will be protected from errors, as Bill said. Alex -- My words are my own. They represent no other; they belong to no other. Don't read anything into them or you may be required to compensate me for violation of copyright. (I do not speak for my employer.) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 08:16:00 -0500, Alex Johnson wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote: Bill wrote: I am trying to decide between a 1.8 gHz Xeon and a 2.8 gHz P4 for a single CPU file/print/database server for a small office. So far I have not found any clear explanation of the differences in or advantages of on over the other. Can anyone provide any information or references? The Xeon fits in a server mobo which supports ECC memory. It is therefore more reliable, both in terms of MTTF and undetected data errors. That may justify the small extra cost depending on the cost of errors, particularly undetected ones. The P4 is probably less expensive and slightly faster. The P4 will be more than slightly faster, I expect. Faster bus, larger cache, some of the performance bottlenecks inside were fixed (it is Northwood or Prescott compared to the Willamette-based Xeon). The Xeon probably supports two processors, so you can put a second 1.8GHz Xeon in it. It is possible, but unlikely, that the Xeon allows up to four processors. The memory types probably differ a great deal. The Xeon probably uses expensive Rambus RIMMs while the P4 uses inexpensive, commodity DDR SDRAM DIMMs. It is more likely that the Xeon memory will be protected from errors, as Bill said. I might have missed one, but I don't believe there were any commercially available P4 Xeon chipsets that used RDRAM... /daytripper |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
daytripper wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 08:16:00 -0500, Alex Johnson wrote: Bill Davidsen wrote: Bill wrote: I am trying to decide between a 1.8 gHz Xeon and a 2.8 gHz P4 for a single CPU file/print/database server for a small office. So far I have not found any clear explanation of the differences in or advantages of on over the other. Can anyone provide any information or references? The Xeon fits in a server mobo which supports ECC memory. It is therefore more reliable, both in terms of MTTF and undetected data errors. That may justify the small extra cost depending on the cost of errors, particularly undetected ones. The P4 is probably less expensive and slightly faster. The P4 will be more than slightly faster, I expect. Faster bus, larger cache, some of the performance bottlenecks inside were fixed (it is Northwood or Prescott compared to the Willamette-based Xeon). The Xeon probably supports two processors, so you can put a second 1.8GHz Xeon in it. It is possible, but unlikely, that the Xeon allows up to four processors. The memory types probably differ a great deal. The Xeon probably uses expensive Rambus RIMMs while the P4 uses inexpensive, commodity DDR SDRAM DIMMs. It is more likely that the Xeon memory will be protected from errors, as Bill said. I might have missed one, but I don't believe there were any commercially available P4 Xeon chipsets that used RDRAM... /daytripper Really? I thought intel went 100% RDRAM for Pentium 4 and didn't fix that gaff until the second generation P4s came out (Northwood). It seems most unusual that they would go 100% RDRAM on the desktop claiming it gave faster memory access (at the penalty of greater price most consumers weren't willing to accept) but not offer RDRAM on the server (where all that matters is performance and reliability, price be damned). Was there no ECC version of RDRAM? That would be a logical reason to skip it on server platforms. I only remember that intel in the Willamette days was all RDRAM, so I assumed the Willamette-based Xeons also were tied to this memory. Alex -- My words are my own. They represent no other; they belong to no other. Don't read anything into them or you may be required to compensate me for violation of copyright. (I do not speak for my employer.) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Alex Johnson" wrote in message ... Really? I thought intel went 100% RDRAM for Pentium 4 and didn't fix that gaff until the second generation P4s came out (Northwood). It seems most unusual that they would go 100% RDRAM on the desktop claiming it gave faster memory access (at the penalty of greater price most consumers weren't willing to accept) but not offer RDRAM on the server (where all that matters is performance and reliability, price be damned). The detail you missed is that RDRAM provides faster memory (although at higher latency) at a higher price only for fairly small amounts of memory (256Mb or less). So it was quite sensible on desktops at the time. With SDRAM, you get your speed by having lots of chips/banks. That isn't very practical when you're building a video game that only needs 32MB or a desktop that only gets 256Mb. DS |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 13:52:31 -0500, Alex Johnson wrote:
daytripper wrote: On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 08:16:00 -0500, Alex Johnson wrote: Bill Davidsen wrote: Bill wrote: I am trying to decide between a 1.8 gHz Xeon and a 2.8 gHz P4 for a single CPU file/print/database server for a small office. So far I have not found any clear explanation of the differences in or advantages of on over the other. Can anyone provide any information or references? The Xeon fits in a server mobo which supports ECC memory. It is therefore more reliable, both in terms of MTTF and undetected data errors. That may justify the small extra cost depending on the cost of errors, particularly undetected ones. The P4 is probably less expensive and slightly faster. The P4 will be more than slightly faster, I expect. Faster bus, larger cache, some of the performance bottlenecks inside were fixed (it is Northwood or Prescott compared to the Willamette-based Xeon). The Xeon probably supports two processors, so you can put a second 1.8GHz Xeon in it. It is possible, but unlikely, that the Xeon allows up to four processors. The memory types probably differ a great deal. The Xeon probably uses expensive Rambus RIMMs while the P4 uses inexpensive, commodity DDR SDRAM DIMMs. It is more likely that the Xeon memory will be protected from errors, as Bill said. I might have missed one, but I don't believe there were any commercially available P4 Xeon chipsets that used RDRAM... /daytripper Really? I thought intel went 100% RDRAM for Pentium 4 and didn't fix that gaff until the second generation P4s came out (Northwood). "P4" /= "P4 Xeon" seems most unusual that they would go 100% RDRAM on the desktop claiming it gave faster memory access (at the penalty of greater price most consumers weren't willing to accept) but not offer RDRAM on the server (where all that matters is performance and reliability, price be damned). Sure it makes sense: RDRAM was too expensive for what it offered, and the Xeon server market is price sensitive - 1u pizza boxen need to be cheap to sell. Was there no ECC version of RDRAM? Yes, there were ECC versions of RDRAM. That would be a logical reason to skip it on server platforms. I only remember that intel in the Willamette days was all RDRAM, so I assumed the Willamette-based Xeons also were tied to this memory. As I indicated, I'm not 100% positive there were no P4 Xeon chipsets with RDRAM, but I'm pretty sure. The pertinent information would be on the Intel Developer pages, should you like to check further... /daytripper |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
< |
Alexander Gorban | Packard Bell Computers | 0 | October 24th 03 07:05 AM |
< |
Alexander Gorban | Dell Computers | 0 | October 24th 03 07:04 AM |
< |
Alexander Gorban | Compaq Servers | 0 | October 24th 03 07:04 AM |
< |
Alexander Gorban | Compaq Computers | 0 | October 24th 03 07:03 AM |
< |
Alexander Gorban | Acer Computers | 0 | October 24th 03 07:03 AM |