Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Xeon vs i7?
- Thread starter Macpropro80
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No they are not. The 3500 may be but NOT the 5500 as Tallest Skill has said, they are different, what, do you think it takes Intel several months to change the name on a chip, enable EEC and multi CPU then sell it?
They perform like the desktop parts. The 3500 series is extremely close to the i7 desktop line, but the 5500 series, the 3500 series, and the desktop i7s are all the same pieces before they're binned.
This board has tons of visitors who don't speak English as their first language. Give him a break.
mostly just around the house, but i did make a trip to the garage to find another keyboard.
sorry, being isolated out here in the mountains plays tricks on your grammar and spelling. i should go into town and visit people once in a while. it's funny, when you have no reason to spell or think, you tend not to, as it appears.
Or maybe they were just doing more tests because... they are destined for servers. Or maybe they were having some trouble with the QPI between processors, which the i7 didn't have to deal with.
i don't think anyone speaks english as their best language.
i didn't even think about it when i typed. pretty funny.
oh well, you know, some people have nothing better to do then look for errors then realize what the train of thought was at the time. Tallest got the question, and answered.
personally, after i saw it i thought it was pretty funny.
IMO, the i7 and the xeon are pretty much the same clock for clock, the only real differences being multiple processor support. with older chips, the difference was usually cache size and multiple processor support. with the cache not being a factor, it comes down to multiple cpu support. i believe when it comes to 2.93, it is 2.93 across the board with the new chips. one on one, i don't think either is superior, you pay more for more sockets.
They're the same. The timing means nothing. That was not development time, that was time to meet die yield goals for consumer platforms, then for Intel to decide whether they needed to roll it out at all given their continuing sales lead over AMD and the poor economy. It was delayed a quarter already for non-engineering reasons.
Core i7, X3500 and X5500 are the same die, period. They're already fast enough, we don't have to fantasize about X5500s being 'special' in some undefined way.
That said, the difference between dual X5500s and dual X5400s will be larger than the difference between a single Core i7 and a single Core 2 Quad, because the dual X5500 configuration benefits from the new QPI architecture allowing the CPUs to talk directly to each other. Again that's nothing 'special' about the X5500s except the expected 2nd QPI link.
Im really confused which is better: Xeon or i7? PC users* and gamers tell me i7 is better** but my friends who are mac users tell me xeon is better. Which one truly is better? Can someone explain it in an easy to understand way.
* PC users: also known as suckers or lacking knowledge
** They also told me mac sucks, instantly making everything they told me untrue.
So PC users are "suckers" and "lacking knowledge"? I think the definition of sucker is buying a 2500 dollar mac pro that costs about 1000 for the actual parts if you wanted to do the same thing on PC. Once the specs and prices came out for the new mac pros there was simply no WAY I could buy one. I simply could not bring myself to flush that much money just to have OSX. I can do my work just as well on Windows, and I have decided to build a PC. Building a Core i7 machine with TWELVE gigs of ddr3, a GeForce 2XX video card, and basically all around great parts is coming in around the 1300 dollar range. This machine will kill the SP Mac Pro once (easily) overclocked. It is also a fraction of the price.
Apple completely blew this round of hardware. The iMacs are STILL dual core. The Mac Pro's are GROSSLY overpriced. The OS is NOT that much better. I use both (macbook and desktop) and Vista 64 is a far snappier OS for me. It blazes in fact, and I am not sure where all the trash talk comes from. Granted I got in to Vista post SP1, but still...I've never had a single problem with it and it's running fantastic on older hardware. I can only imagine what my Core i7 box will be like. I do quite a bit of "high end" work (video editing, programming, music, etc) and Vista has been fantastic for such work. There is simply no need for OSX, unless you are locked in to specific Apple apps.
I am fortunate to have an I7 Pc and a new mac pro coming with 8 Xeon "nehalem" cpus coming.
Remember its more to do with architecture jumps then actual speed.
Course the nehalem based new mac pro will outperform the older xeon due to changes in memory, but raw speed, well, lets see how many manage true multi core programming.
Remember its more to do with architecture jumps then actual speed.
Course the nehalem based new mac pro will outperform the older xeon due to changes in memory, but raw speed, well, lets see how many manage true multi core programming.
The earliest release of Vista was lousy, but it's made a great stride since SP1. No doubt about it. And no, I don't think OS X is so wonderful, it puts everything else to shame. It's a decent OS, but if you consider what MS actually has to do to get it to work on so much different hardware, it's amazing it actually works. If the roles where reversed, OS X would have a hated reputation as well. At least a mountain of complaints.
Given the cost for the machines, it's no wonder people are so upset. OS X might be a good OS, but isn't worth that much of a cost difference.
Right, as you all say you know better. I want explicit documented proof that the cores from the i7 and Nehalem 5500 are EXACTLY the same as your are stating they are. Your saying it, prove it. Bet you can't.
That's pathetic. He only needs to pull up a link to an Intel development release to get you to stop being childish.
From now on, let's all preempt that by not being childish.
Im really confused which is better: Xeon or i7? PC users* and gamers tell me i7 is better** but my friends who are mac users tell me xeon is better. Which one truly is better? Can someone explain it in an easy to understand way.
* PC users: also known as suckers or lacking knowledge
** They also told me mac sucks, instantly making everything they told me untrue.
You only need a xeon if you doing very very CPU intensive tasks where multiple cores rock, so like video/music editing, hence why Mac Pros have them. They offer nothing for gaming. There also lies the issue with the entry Mac pro, it is just an i7 model that is way overpriced.
In relation to PC users being known as suckers or lacking knowledge, barking up the wrong tree here mate, you cannot make this statement when your asking about the difference between i7 and Xeon.
in relation to "** They also told me mac sucks, instantly making everything they told me untrue." If your a gamer....spot on. Sure you can bootcamp, but Apple GPUs suck top of the line 4870 is not exactly earth shattering.
Generally I find Mac users that lack IT knowledge, that is one big reason why they buy a Mac, cause it just works. And hence the high conversion rate.
If you want to get an idea of how much knowledge PC users have, jump into the forums of something like http://www.overclockers.com.au/ and you will soon realize that some of these guys really know their stuff, its because they build their own systems, they research everything, mac users just have no choice in the guts. Just read the forums here and you will see how many users are happy with the 9400 GPU.... its *****!
Someone also mentioned benchmarks in this thread. When it comes to PC users, generally 3dmark is all that matters. No PC user really gives a crap about CPU only benchmark or how office apps will run faster etc, they care about how many FPS they get on crysis. You could get the top of the range mac pro with the 4870 GPU and it will get creamed by a PC running a i7 system..... why you ask? Cause the PC will be Overclocked and will run 2x (or 3x) SLI or Xfire with 4870x2 or GTX285, it will truly humiliate a pro in terms of gaming.
Now if you going to do video editing / music editing the Xeon Mac pro will cream the gaming PC. You average user does not need a xeon, its a waste of money. Cores mean ***** in gaming, not until they write games that take advantage of more then 2 cores.
So to summarize, you could argue that a Xeon is a better CPU if you Need one! It comes at a cost, so if you get one and never do very intensive CPU tasks, you have thrown money away. For 90% of users i7 is a much better alternative, cost v processing power needs. Not a single mac that apple makes can beat a top of the range Gaming PC in games (that includes a $14 000 top of the line mac pro - infact this machine has lackluster gaming performance). You need to buy a $2500 mac pro to compete with a i7 PC, and then only on CPU tasks, the iMac range will get whipped by an i7, that is why PC users might be telling u that macs suck at gaming or suck..... cause $2500 is heaps to spend on a i7 with a crap GPU.
Sure they could have done it quicker, but it was a marketing decision... over supply of the old generation so why rush?! Oh and when they do release them they are somewhat overpriced thereby continuing to clear out the old generation.
Perhaps it's worth posing the question the other way. Why would intel bother to redesign a chips core which was specifically design for multi processing? Just why would they go to that effort? All the 5500 series is, is the 3500 series with an extra QPI. They might even be exactly the same, the 3500/i7 have one QPI disabled. That last bit is speculation, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were true (it probably depends on how much die space is taken up by the extra QPI)
Dude, I built my own pcs for years, Im a former gamer. I played in Cal. -i (Cyber-athlete amateur league invitational ) I researched my mac for months before I bought it, I understood that I was making a sacrifice regarding GPU power but I expected the high powered CPU to compensate for it. Also these guys usually don't research anything, trust me If you ask any of them about there computer on vent they will tell you they bought whatever was the latest and greatest for the money. Also I am yet to find an 8-core pc gamer.
I think that you are confusing gamers with your average PC user, most of whom don't game.
While I do think that most gamers actually choose to use PC's I think the majority use PC's because that is what is used in their workplaces, and most if not everybody they know use PC's.
Also as for your argument that mac users are less IT literate than PC users, in general this is just not true. If anyone in my family has a problem with their PC I'm the one the ask to fix it.
Plus mac users are the ones to know enough about IT to know that there is another way.
I don't agree at all. I guess if you presented it in that way to every customer Apple would sell about 2 machines a year.
I'm serious.Think about it. Here's the sales line:
Buy the new Mac. It's the same speed and sometimes slower than last years model. It does however do that architecture jump thing and we put a new number on the chips.
You want one? It's only $1000 more than last years.
-(Y/N)->____
I don't agree at all. I guess if you presented it in that way to every customer Apple would sell about 2 machines a year.
Think about it. Here's the sales line:
Buy the new Mac. It's the same speed and sometimes slower than last years model. It does however do that architecture jump thing and we put a new number on the chips.
You want one? It's only $1000 more than last years.
-(Y/N)->____
Y....
If i was rich (which im not)
While I understand the general intention of you post I think it's wildly inaccurate.
Almost all personal computer users game. Everyone, raise your hand if you haven't played any games at all on a personal computer in the last 12 months...
Waits...
See? No one!
That makes very little sense. (Notice I didn't say no sense). I have been heavily involved in the game industry as a developer and it's about which platform can cull the largest percentage of developers. The gamers will always follow the games. If Mac suddenly became the most common target platform among developers then "all" the gammers would be spending their time and money on Mac. Every vendor knows this simple and accepted principal.
Actually it is true. But WinTel users are miserable because of it. Their OS is so complex and convoluted they have to learn volumes of useless information just to configure the dang thing. It's even a badge of respect and status to know more useless information than anyone else in the room. Mac users don't have to learn all that to use their systems and so the user types are allowed to diversify a little more. As a result mac users are less IT literate... thank gawd!
Almost all personal computer users game. Everyone, raise your hand if you haven't played any games at all on a personal computer in the last 12 months...
Waits...
See? No one!
That makes very little sense. (Notice I didn't say no sense). I have been heavily involved in the game industry as a developer and it's about which platform can cull the largest percentage of developers. The gamers will always follow the games. If Mac suddenly became the most common target platform among developers then "all" the gammers would be spending their time and money on Mac. Every vendor knows this simple and accepted principal.
Actually it is true. But WinTel users are miserable because of it. Their OS is so complex and convoluted they have to learn volumes of useless information just to configure the dang thing. It's even a badge of respect and status to know more useless information than anyone else in the room. Mac users don't have to learn all that to use their systems and so the user types are allowed to diversify a little more. As a result mac users are less IT literate... thank gawd!