The intel Xeon processors are used more for servers, NAS, search engines and stuff. have yet to come across a home pc using a Xeon processor yet. price wise i'm not really sure.. :dunno:
Self-Assembled PC
- Thread starter raptor1988
- Start date
- Status
I prefer to buy bundled PC as it leaves me the trouble of researching whether the components are compatible with each other. Some prefer to tinker onto something coz' it gives them joy once the outcome comes out. Don't get me wrong, I used to DIY PC but later I found myself studying softwares and spend more time making the most out of my camera.
lol... NAS... u mean those home one uses Xeon?
technically, just generally... Xeon = for Servers or Workstation... done...
but Xeon not as expensive as you think... only thing is, when you get Xeon Processors, you need to buy special mobo, which is not cheap and not really good for home usage due to its purpose. And like using Workstation graphics card, you don't really get much additional perk or rather it might even be slower using these for gaming.
saw from the intel website. :sticktong
don't really think its suitable for gaming. for eg a Xeon processor with a 3.2Ghz core speed has only 1Mb of L2 Cache and 800Mhz of external bus speed (FSB)?
don't really think its suitable for gaming. for eg a Xeon processor with a 3.2Ghz core speed has only 1Mb of L2 Cache and 800Mhz of external bus speed (FSB)?
tmw going to get some parts.. 2X2GB 800Mhz Ram, 320 WD 7,200 RPM HDD and Internal sata DVD writer. :lovegrin:
i'm back.. 2X2GB 800Mhz Kingston ram $70, LG Sata DVD Writer $37, WD 320GB 3.5" Int SATA $77. looking forward to next week.. :bsmilie:
y? buy this week, next week install?
price increased for rams, last week is 30-32, checked this week prices, all up to 35 liao...
bought some parts today to reduce the amt we have to buy next week ma. but looks like my buddy cant join me. :cry: so may delay getting the rest. My left arm is in a cast after i broke my wrist 1 mth ago. Next wed then removing. so in the meantime cannot carry heavy stuff.
Hmm... Not sure what you are trying to implicate here. :dunno:
In my tech forum, we have successfully run OSX even on an AMD system. The only problem is some driver issue. I will not pry into what's what but do bear in mind that Intel is already driving MAC desktops now. :angel:
sort of decided on remaining components. Coolermaster ATX chasis , $66, Gigabyte Superb 550W, $98 Asus P5Q and Intel Q9550 (ard $606). Left ard $346 for a ATI 4870 card. ok?:dunno:
Still sticking to quad core? Why not dual core? What are the chances of you making used of all 4 cores?
I think the difference in pricing is a good $200 plus which you can use for other better hardware.
I think the difference in pricing is a good $200 plus which you can use for other better hardware.
When you buy a Mac, you don't have much room to 'upgrade' which is good. Less money spent and more time making the best out of your Mac. Resale value is also higher. LOL! :bsmilie: :bsmilie:
that may use up all the cores, but the question is, os there enough RAM for it to do all the processing? is the hard disk fast enough with the read/write of those swap files etc?
I still think a fast dual core beat a quad for things like gaming, processing etc. The saving might go to say better hardware. After all the fastest CPU is still limited by how much the hard disk can pump it with data. and the hard disk being the slowest.. well unless you do a 4xHDD in RAID 0 etc. *well SSD sound good dun they...*
In alot of cases, all 4 cores will be used but under-utilised. For example, you see activity in a 4 cores, however, you will noticed that some are running 40% and some are running 5%.
If you are doing photoediting + video rendering + graphics design all at the same time, then you should go for quad but what are the chances that all rendering process will start at the same time thus utilising all 4 cores? :dunno:
I'm not against Quads and would like to have one if I have the $$$ to spare but for me, I can have better price vs performance with a Dual Core.
In my previous company, only servers which are doing clustering, multi-thread data mining 24/7, handling data transfers over 2TB per day are using Quads or Xeons.
thanks finally testing on old board, just for fun. :lovegrin: :devil:
Hardware Overview:
Model Name: Mac
Model Identifier: EP45-DS3P
Processor Speed: 3.00 GHz
Number Of Processors: 1
Total Number Of Cores: 4
L2 Cache: 12 MB
Memory: 8 GB
Bus Speed: 1.33 GHz
Sorry for OT.
its about utilisation... in theory all should run... but problem still lies with the OS and the software you are using. Even for dual cores, not all programs utilise both. like for eg, u run a spreadsheet or word processor, u expect it to run the 2 cores? and even for the OS, most likely they'll max out 1 core and the other one is idle.
rendering are software which makes full use of every core, hence it will have each and every cores running at max. even for games, only some really utilise 2 cores, even how much 'intel' advertise its running quad and say 1 processor for physx, 1 for algo, 1 for sound, 1 for the game engine... etc... when you run a monitor on the cores, you can sometimes see only 1 core doing 100% and the rest idle.
- Status