Why xeon

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by mordeeb, Jun 13, 2009.

  1. mordeeb macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    #1
    Why has mac never just put in lets say a core i7 extreme instead of always server cpu's. Also do the xeon cpus really differ that much from a core i7 you would find in a pc?
     
  2. brentsg macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    #2
    The Pros are used as professional workstations, not meant to be desktop PCs so much.

    Apple doesn't make a headless box aimed at the high end desktop space.
     
  3. surflordca macrumors 6502a

    surflordca

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2007
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    #3
    Mac's are the best. Why not have the best CPU available. :)
     
  4. lixuelai macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2008
    #4
    There is not much difference between Xeon and i7. Xeon supports multi-socket. The 4-core Xeon MacPro is basically an i7 and the chip costs about the same.
     
  5. Dr.Pants macrumors 65816

    Dr.Pants

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    #5
    The Xeon 3xxx Nehalems support ECC memory, and are cheap. The 5xxx support ECC memory and dual-socket configuations, and are expensive. The i7 does not support ECC memory.
     
  6. Infrared macrumors 68000

    Infrared

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    #6
    Indeed they are (errant apostrophes notwithstanding).

    Could you advise me on which Mac will accept 192GB of RAM, please? ;)
     
  7. t0mat0 macrumors 603

    t0mat0

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Location:
    Home
    #7
    Late 09 Xserve ? :p
     
  8. snouter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    #8
    The duals need to be Xeon, so, ok...

    as for the singles, well, that's just Apple being Apple...

    [​IMG]
     
  9. contoursvt macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    #9
    By sticking with xeon,they probably buy in larger quantities and get a price break. Its possible they get lower prices on Xeons than even an i7 because they buy in large numbers.
     
  10. snouter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    #10
    $2500 for a single CPU? Thanks for passing on the savings!
     
  11. Umbongo macrumors 601

    Umbongo

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #11
    This isn't the case with the processors. The processors in the quad core Mac Pro aren't the same as those in the eight core. However it does let them have to use only one type of memory.
     
  12. mordeeb thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    #12
    So xeon would not hinder gaming other then the ECC ram?
     
  13. contoursvt macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    #13
    Oh ok if its not the same in the single socket version vs the dual socket...then my theory wouldnt apply.

     
  14. Tesselator macrumors 601

    Tesselator

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #14
    Right. Games at this stage are about clocks and overclocking. This is what makes Apple not so great for games. Some Corei7 chips can be overclocked to around 4GHz with air cooling, nearly 5GHz with water cooling, and around 5.5GHz with a commercially available sub-zero cooler (typically around $500).

    I haven't checked to see if anyone is building Xeon workstations that can be overclocked. There's a ZDNet utility that overclocks some Macs but it doesn't work on my 2006 machine so I dunno too much about it.

    Then there's GPU overclocking which also doesn't seem to exist on Macs without very elaborate tweaks.
     
  15. mordeeb thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    #15
    but since the xeon is the core i7 architecture pretty much liek its the same cpu socket type as a core i7 it doesn't really matter about clocks
     
  16. Cynicalone macrumors 68040

    Cynicalone

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Location:
    Okie land
    #16
    Well using Apple RAM prices. On the low end where they charge $50/GB that would only cost $9600, but on the high end where they charge $800 for a 4GB module then $200/GB would cost you $38,400. :D
     
  17. Tesselator macrumors 601

    Tesselator

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #17
    I'm not sure what you mean. People who want the best game performance want to overclock their systems. The BIOS in some desktop machines is specifically designed to facilitate that.
     
  18. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #18
    Correct, assuming all other aspects are identical. Particularly since the Core i7 and SP Xeon (W35xx) are identical with the exception of the ECC functionality in the SP Xeon variant.

    ECC adds latency to DDR3, so it's a bit slower, even if at the same clock. But a CAS Latency of 7 (stock UDIMM on the '09) isn't bad for any DDR3. Standard DDR3 is available in slightly lower CAS values, and is further improved for throughput with OC'ing. But at the sacrifice of error correction. As the system is sold as a workstation, this consideration was retained, rather than going with the performance desktop version (Core i7). Quantity costs (Q = 1000) is the same for both the Core i7 and W35xx parts respective of clock speed as published by Intel.
    As for OC'able DP boards, I've not seen any yet. :( I'm thinking soon though, provided board makers haven't dumped their plans as Intel did on the Skulltrail II. :confused: :rolleyes:
     
  19. ZaoPetra macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    #19
    Do what?

    I really am interested in this and it sounds important and relevant, but I don't understand what the heck you just said. Could you put it into layman's terms.
     
  20. Tesselator macrumors 601

    Tesselator

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #20
    RAM has wait-states of sorts in-between the refreshing clock signals (kinda) so the more slash more often it has to wait the longer it will take for the other components (like the CPU) to get the information it's asking the RAM for - err, kinda. This timing ("slowness factor" :D) or waiting is CL or CAS Latency (CAS stands for Column Addressing Strobe). The lower the number the faster - and more expensive - the RAM is. CL2 to CL4 are pretty typical up to about a command rate of 333 MHz. CL7 to CL9 is typical for 800 or so. There is indeed a noticeable performance difference between CL7 and CL9. There's also RAS Latency (RL) where R is Row instead of C for columns but the impact on application performance is less so we don't see that discussed as often.

    here's how that works: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_latency

    RAM using ECC has more information per access to process so it's also slower. ECC is really only meaningful for systems which require very high stability. ECC can save you from something like sun-spot radiation or other kinds of external interference. In a server this should be a consideration. For desktops.. mm... not so much. :)


     

Share This Page