The slower Xeons didn't have it. I think the cut off is 2.0 GHz and below don't have ht. I may be slightly off on that 2.0 though.Originally posted by: Wolfsraider
the new 3.06 p-4 processor has ht enabled,the p-4xeons are all ht enabled i believe
Actually the change occured mid November.up untill recently the xeons only supported fsb of 400 but that is soon to change to 533
Xeon's had Hyperthreading enabled before the P4 did, thus any Xeon above 2.0 GHz has it, for a P4 you can only currently get hyperthreading at 3.06 GHz (but Intel will later release it on slower chips).
Xeon=more pins from the start, so it didn't need a pin change as speeds increased, thus you can upgrade from the slowest chip to the full 2.8 GHz chip
Actually the change occured mid November.
Ok thanks, I wasn't sure if Prestonia was released at 1.8 GHz. I did know the old core went up to 2.0 GHz without HT. (I have 1.7 GHz Xeons so my machine doesn't have HT)
I was thinking of the 603 pin Xeons on 400 MHz fsb which cover the full range all the way up to 2.8 GHz. There are 533 MHz fsb Xeons with one extra pin - made to prevent them from being placed on a 400 MHz fsb motherboard. But assuming you had an old motherboard you can get any speed 400 MHz fsb Xeon and it will work (and with Xeons, Intel so far has every speed covered by with 400 MHz chips). A new motherboard will work with any Xeon if that thread you linked is correct.The pin change ? as the site points out ? means that Xeons with 603 pins can slot into new 604 pin sockets.
So I guess the new mobo's can still run the old CPUs. Though it still sucks for those who have bought old mobo's that now have no upgrade path
Me too, my 1.7 GHz could definately be replaced.cool next year i'll get me a duallie wooot thanks dullard
As far as I know all P3 based Xeons were for servers and had lots of cache like you mentioned, and of course cost quite a lot. The P4 based Xeons have split into two lines. There is a server Xeon (Xeon MP) line and a workstation Xeon line (Xeon DP). The server line has lots of cache and costs thousands of dollars per chip (Exact price unknown since Intel took down their pricing page). The workstation line has averaged around $25 more since it is basically the same chip as a P4 (mostly just different packaging and validation). Since they have the same core, they have the same FPU.Originally posted by: BatmanNate
I thought what differed Xeons the most in the past was the amount of cache. For instance, Xeons would come in 2mb flavors, which increased the cost deficit but more than $25, obviously. Do they only make a single cache version of the P4 Xeon? If so, that seems like a marketing ploy on Intel's part to extort money from SMP platform users. AFAIK the FPU is the same on both chips.
Originally posted by: dullard
As far as I know all P3 based Xeons were for servers and had lots of cache like you mentioned, and of course cost quite a lot. The P4 based Xeons have split into two lines. There is a server Xeon (Xeon MP) line and a workstation Xeon line (Xeon DP). The server line has lots of cache and costs thousands of dollars per chip (Exact price unknown since Intel took down their pricing page). The workstation line has averaged around $25 more since it is basically the same chip as a P4 (mostly just different packaging and validation). Since they have the same core, they have the same FPU.Originally posted by: BatmanNate
I thought what differed Xeons the most in the past was the amount of cache. For instance, Xeons would come in 2mb flavors, which increased the cost deficit but more than $25, obviously. Do they only make a single cache version of the P4 Xeon? If so, that seems like a marketing ploy on Intel's part to extort money from SMP platform users. AFAIK the FPU is the same on both chips.
Is this work station version SMP scalable to the same number of CPU's as the server one? (probably 4 or 8) I like how AMD swung this deal a little better. The MP's were in essence the DP Xeon, however the regular old XP (essentially the plain P4) would work in SMP. I guess Intel is still bitter over the celeron. I still have a pair of 366a's cranking along at 550 each.
Originally posted by: dullard
Is this work station version SMP scalable to the same number of CPU's as the server one? (probably 4 or 8) I like how AMD swung this deal a little better. The MP's were in essence the DP Xeon, however the regular old XP (essentially the plain P4) would work in SMP. I guess Intel is still bitter over the celeron. I still have a pair of 366a's cranking along at 550 each.
P4: 1 processor max
Xeon DP: 2 processors max
Xeon MP: 32 processors max, but 4 or 8 is by far the dominantly seen combination
Itanium 2: Is there a maximum?
Intel was angry from the P3 days. The P3 would cost a few hundred dollars and the equivalent dual capable P3 Xeon would be well over $1000. But they made a mistake and the P3 ran just fine in dual mode. Thus almost everyone just used the P3 instead of the P3 Xeons for a dual machine (or even a Celeron worked I think). Intel learned from their mistake. Now there isn't a major price difference to get people to attempt a dual P4 instead of a dual Xeon DP (even if it was possible). But of course to keep their profits, the Xeon DP cannot go above 2 processors and only the expensive processors can handle more.
Now why would you think that?I also believe that the Xeon has a stronger FPU.