XEON versus PENTIUM 4

[new2pc]

Any one out there can tell me how it differs?

 

[Wolfsraider]

simple version:

the xeons are able to run more than one processor from one motherboard(provided you get a dual processor motherboard)
p-4's run 1 processor per motherboard

the new 3.06 p-4 processor has ht enabled,the p-4xeons are all ht enabled i believe

up untill recently the xeons only supported fsb of 400 but that is soon to change to 533
the p-4 are both 400 fsb and 533 depending on which processor you buy ie...2.4a is 400 mhz fsb 2.4b is 533 mhz fsb

hth

mike

 

[dullard]

Same core on both - meaning a Xeon is the same speed as an equivalent P4. But there are many differences:

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
P4=fewer pins, more pins were added later, will possibly need more in the future. Thus upgrading is less easy since a motherboard cannot handle all speeds of the P4.

Xeons are dual processor capable, P4s aren't.

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).

Xeons cost often about $25 more than the equivalent P4.

Xeons undergo more validations by Intel, thus the P4 is at 3.06 GHz but the Xeon is only at 2.8 GHz.

There is a 400 MHz and 533 MHz fsb Xeon version at 2.8 GHz (the P4 only has a 533 MHz fsb version at that speed).

Xeon motherboards currently are much more expensive than P4 motherboards.

Those are the major differences, there are probably tons of minor things too.

Edit: Then there are Xeon MP chips. These are currently at slower GHz speeds, much more expensive, have more cache (added an L3 cache), and run up to 32 processors (but typically you'll see it in 4-8 processor servers). I just added this in to be more complete.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I also believe that the Xeon has a stronger FPU.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Wolfsraider
the new 3.06 p-4 processor has ht enabled,the p-4xeons are all ht enabled i believe

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.

up untill recently the xeons only supported fsb of 400 but that is soon to change to 533

Actually the change occured mid November.

 

[Wolfsraider]

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).

All Prestonia core Xeons.

1.8Ghz, 2.0Ghz, 2.2Ghz, 2.4Ghz, 2.6Ghz, 2.8Ghz

this thread here

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

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

so if you have an older mobo this may not be true just a heads up

taken from posts at www.2cpu.com forum

this thread here

 

[Wolfsraider]

Actually the change occured mid November.

cool next year i'll get me a duallie wooot thanks dullard

 

[dullard]

1.8Ghz, 2.0Ghz, 2.2Ghz, 2.4Ghz, 2.6Ghz, 2.8Ghz

this thread here

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)

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

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.

cool next year i'll get me a duallie wooot thanks dullard

Me too, my 1.7 GHz could definately be replaced.

 

[new2pc]

Thanks, dullard.
You wrote "There is a 400 MHz and 533 MHz fsb Xeon version at 2.8 GHz"
I was looking at the DELL PRECISION 450 TECH specs. This is what it indicates:

Intel® XeonTM processors featuring Hyper-Threading Technology and 533MHz front side bus 2.0, 2.40, 2.66 and 2.80GHz with 512KB Advanced Transfer L2 Cache

Chipset Intel E7505 chipset with 533MHz front side bus
According to this it does not have to be 2.8ghz to have 533mhz FSB: Anything above 2.0ghz has it.

 

[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.

 

[dullard]

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.

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.

 

[BatmanNate]

Originally posted by: dullard

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.

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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[LH]

How much are the MPs going to be? They have what 1MB or 2MB cache?

 

[dullard]

The current Xeon MPs go up to 2.0 GHz. They come with the same amount of L2 cache as a typical P4 or Xeon DP, but have an additional L3 cache (which may be 1MB or 2MB - the 512kB was discontinued I think). I can no longer find Intel's pricelist, but if I remember right the prices ranged from ~$1000 to ~$3000 depending on speed and L3 cache.

 

[BatmanNate]

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.

The celeron was the better example, because it was by far cheaper than the P2 or P2 XEON and could be run in dual relatively cheaply, yeilding some amazing performance. The P3's were designed to be SMP capable, and intel even made dual P3 motherboards as I recall. The P3 XEONs could be had in 1mb and 2mb cache flavors.

 

[tart666]

I also believe that the Xeon has a stronger FPU.

Now why would you think that?