13 Replies Latest reply on Mar 25, 2008 3:48 PM by Michael Cudnik

    Quad core Xeon vs. Core 2 extreme

    Michael Cudnik
      I have read many posts about this, but no one answers it specifically.

      Looking at new workstations. I just purchased a Dell T7400 with X5482 3.2Ghz quad core, 15K SAS drives, FX1700, 4GB ram. Performance is pretty good just not mindblowing.

      My question is this....is there ANY difference at all between the Xeon line and Core line when it comes to Solidworks performance. Comparable clock speeds, etc. Are the Xeons more for server side and Cores more for Solidworks type stuff, or does it matter at all?? I thought the guts were the same.

      I am comparing Dell T3400 w/ Core 2 Extreme QX9650 3.00Ghz vs. T5400 w/ X5460 3.16GHz.
        • Quad core Xeon vs. Core 2 extreme
          Michael Cudnik

          Will the Quad 2 Extreme work better with Solidworks than the Xeon Quad core?? Same clock speed??
            • Quad core Xeon vs. Core 2 extreme
              Martin Wrann

              Exactly the same core = exactly the same speeds.
              • Quad core Xeon vs. Core 2 extreme
                Michael Cudnik
                Why are the Core 2 line processors mentioned everywhere and the Xeons very rarely in these forums??

                Like here: https://forum.solidworks.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=14&threadid=9584&enterthread=y
                  • Quad core Xeon vs. Core 2 extreme
                    Mike Wilson
                    The core2 line is generally for gamers or regular business pc users, and so they are less costly due to corners being cut in quality/features.

                    Pro: Less expensive
                    Con: Not as stable/Less features

                    The Xeons are for servers and workstations, and so they are more expensive due to the higher quality/features like ECC RAM and multiple CPUs.

                    Pro: More stable/More features
                    Con: More expensive

                    I'm guessing more people are looking for bang-per-buck, which is why core two is talked about more often.

                    I personally use only OPTERON (AMD) or XEON (Intel), because I grew tired of random crashes and flaky behaviors.

                    As far as performance, it's going to be very expensive to go the server class route to match speed, however for models and assemblies I work on, it's worth it not to have the downtime.

                    I just ran a rendering that took 24hrs on 8 Xeons, and it was nice to know that it would be there waiting for me in the morning.

                    This reminds me of x32 vs x64. Is x64 faster?

                    Answer: Yes!

                    When your model fails on x32, but finishes on x64... x64 is infinitely faster. It's all how you look at it.

                      • Quad core Xeon vs. Core 2 extreme
                        I would have to disagree on your reasoning for going with an xeon instead of a core to. It is true that xeons are built to be more stable but your not going to notic that many less crashes useing it with solid works. Most crashes are do to software os an cheap power supplies. The only benifit you gain you will notic with the xeons are the fact that you can get mother boards that support dual socket. That only comes in handy with photoworks or Cosmos.
                        • Quad core Xeon vs. Core 2 extreme
                          Martin Wrann
                          Sorry, but this is just not true. In this case, Xeons and Core 2 CPUs are from the same wafer, they are exactly the same.

                          When the wafer is cut, they do some selection and quality testing. If the L2-Cache is partly damaged, the chip will be downlabeled. They also test the clock rates, this determines the internal multi which is responsible for the clock rates.

                          This is the only difference.

                          Oh yeah, and the price ;-)

                            • Quad core Xeon vs. Core 2 extreme
                              Michael Cudnik
                              So to summarize - if looking to spec out a new workstation, clock speed for clock speed, you will see no significant difference in speed with regards to Solidworks between a Xeon and a Core 2 type CPU. Correct?
                                • Quad core Xeon vs. Core 2 extreme
                                  If your specing out a workstation performance between the Xeon and Core 2 CPU's is the same. And if your comparing Xeon's and Core 2 Extreme's the price of the CPU is pretty much the same. The difference is going to be in the motherboard, Xeon's are aimed at the server/workstation market so the motherboards are likely to support 2-CPU's, more RAM, ECC RAM and SCSI drives. It is hard to find a Socket 775 motherboard that supports 2-CPU's or more then 8GB of RAM.

                                  In answer to your question about reading more about Core 2 Extreme's then Xeon's, I would guess very few people build their own computers using a Xeon processor, there is no speed advantage, the motherboards are more expensive with less picking choice and few people need ECC or SCSI. The Core 2 Extreme's fit in the same socket as the regular Core 2 CPU's so they are an easy upgrade for someone that builds their own computer using a Core 2 CPU today and upgrades later.
                        • Quad core Xeon vs. Core 2 extreme
                          Jim Zink
                          The Xeons are actually slightly slower that Core2s running at the same clock speed due to the increased latency of Fully Buffered memory used on the Xeon platform. This has been shown in many benchmarks - SPECapc for SolidWorks 2007, Anna's placeholder benchmark, and gaming sites testing the new Skulltrail motherboards from Intel.

                          As a rule of thumb, if you need MORE THAN 8GB RAM or MORE THAN 4 cores, go with the Xeon, otherwise, stick with a fast Core2 system.

                          As an example, compare the performance of the two Fujitzu systems running the e6850 and x5260 at http://www.spec.org/gwpg/apc.d..._sw2007_summary.html.. The two system have the same graphics card with the same driver and were tested on the same day. Comparing clock speeds, the 5260 should be 11% faster, but it is only 7% faster overall. The e8400 should just about eliminate even that delta.