ummm, I just saw a commercial for this, I have never heard of it before. Is it like the Pentium 5?
no, Intel Xeon are mainly used for medium and large servers, ive seen them from 1.7ghz up to dual 3.6ghz (7.2ghz total). Apparently, Intel Xeon, well dual intel xeon are very poor for gaming, i dont see how but thats what ive heard
The original Xeon platform is actually for server use of all sorts. Now, Xeon DPs are intended for light- to medium-duty server application. Xeon MPs are aimed at heavy-duty server applications, and the Itanium line is targeted at enterprise/mission critical servers. Or something like that.
The first Xeons were based on the same cores as Pentium IIIs. Currently, they're available in speeds up to 3.6GHz.
However, they're quite fine for gaming. Intel's entire Pentium 4 line of CPU cores are based on Xeon cores (you could look at it the other way around, but whereas Intel can make a Prescott out of a Nocona, they cannot make a Nocona out of a Prescott). Where you'd have problems gaming with Xeons with with a motherboard not supporting AGP, or using Registered/ECC/Buffered memory (which is bad for gaming.
ohhh, well would a P4 prescott, say 3.6Ghz be better for gaming than a Xeon 3.6Ghz?
Eagle Oneohhh, well would a P4 prescott, say 3.6Ghz be better for gaming than a Xeon 3.6Ghz?
That really depends on the motherboard. Xeon-based workstation boards based on the Canterwood chipset probably will. Xeon-based workstation/server boards based on other chipsets (such as Tumwater or Lindenhurst) probably won't, from the gaming standpoint. However, these will typically be more stable and reliable, and run faster in their intended environment (as a server, not a gaming rig). The catch though, is that most (all?) Canterwood-based Xeon boards are designed for Xeon DP processors, which means you need two CPUs. And 2x3.6GHz Noconas will in fact waste a single 3.6GHz Prescott, all else being equal.
arent xeon a less powerful cpu so they generate less heat for the fact they are for servers and are running all the time, thats what i think, but i dont know much lol:confused:
C38368 The first Xeons were based on the same cores as Pentium IIIs. Currently, they're available in speeds up to 3.6GHz.
Pentium IIIs P3? So the P3 was based off the Xeon? I have a CPU, that I'm sure is a Pentium II Xeon processor. I don't have it near me, and it may take quite some time to locate it again, but I know what I saw, it was twice as tall as a Slot Pentium II/III.
Monster_userPentium IIIs P3? So the P3 was based off the Xeon? I have a CPU, that I'm sure is a Pentium II Xeon processor. I don't have it near me, and it may take quite some time to locate it again, but I know what I saw, it was twice as tall as a Slot Pentium II/III.[/QUOTE] Y'know, I just checked on that and you're right. The first Xeons were in fact from the PII generation. Back then, I'm not sure if there was a common relation between the two or not. Same goes for the PIII-era Xeons. They may or may not have shared a base core with the desktop PIII processors. I do know that Northwood shared silicon with Prestonia (the previous generation Xeon core), but I can't say that the same is true for Willamette. Prescott shares silicon with Nocona. [QUOTE=yellowhampster]arent xeon a less powerful cpu so they generate less heat for the fact they are for servers and are running all the time
Nope. That's a pretty common misconception. If you've ever been into a server room, then you'll understand why. Those places have some pretty serious air conditioning (ambient is usually well below 70°F), even in rooms with literally thousands of CPUs. Even then, for a computer to crash due to heat problems when there's no overclocking or superhigh (>100°F) ambient temps involved is very rare. Itaniums are a notable exception (I'm not sure they've broken 2GHz on them yet), but they also execute 24 instructions per cycle (AMDs only do nine, I believe, Intel desktops six) and have a unique architecture all their own. In any event, Xeons are no less powerful than a Pentium-series chip of the same generation. What makes them more powerful is the fact that they can be used singly, in pairs, or in sets of four (that is, there are three kinds of Xeons--associativity can't be changed after the die is etched) and now their inclusion of EM64T (64-bit extensions). Caveat: I've said this at least once in this thread, but I'll repeat: those Xeon systems that suck at things like gaming are using chipsets designed and optimised for server duty, not high performance gaming. Those same systems will lay waste to a Pentium-series system running server applications.
I got a 2.4 Xeon running on a multi purpose server. So far I havnt got any complaints, except the stock fan.
I think Quake engine games support the Xeon processor.
SOFII detected my Dual system as a Xeon.