Posted: 2/7/2014 12:59:04 PM EDT
|
Right now I'm running a quad core Phenom II on a socket AM3 board. Its been a good system but is getting a little long in the tooth. If it was available at the time I built it, I would have gone with an AM3+ board, and now I could use an 8-core FX CPU (my BIOS doesn't support it even though some would physically fit).
I've got a few older Socket 775 boards for general use by the family, and the ability to buy formerly-super-expensive Core2Quads has been great in keeping up with the family's needs. I'm looking at building a new system for me; generally I upgrade every 4-5 years. I'm looking at socket 2011, as I can get a fast quad core i7 now, and potentially upgrade to up to an 8-core Xeon down the road when they can be had on Ebay for a song. I am also looking at dual-Xeon workstation class boards, although all of the ones I have seen seem to be somewhat finicky in configuration, and this Phenom II has been balls-dead reliable, having needed no maintenance from me other than blowing out dust... I am not looking to build a system I would need to spend days tweaking, or periodically mess with. I've read that 1155/6 is dead, with no further development on CPUs for those sockets. Not sure about 1150. I would be building the system sometime this summer, and I'm not sure if anything world-shattering will be released before then, or shortly thereafter, that would affect my choices. I am not a gamer but I run A LOT of apps simultaneously. Any advice welcome. |
|
The biggest (only?) difference between 2011 and 1150 is the 2011 supports quad channel memory. I think both sockets will be supported for the next few years at least. I'm sure someone else knows better than I do since I never looked into the differences until about 20 minutes ago.
http://avadirect.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3614 |
|
Quoted:
The biggest (only?) difference between 2011 and 1150 is the 2011 supports quad channel memory. I think both sockets will be supported for the next few years at least. I'm sure someone else knows better than I do since I never looked into the differences until about 20 minutes ago. http://avadirect.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3614 Very helpful, thank you!!! |
|
Alright my arf tech geniuses, one more question.
I can get an off-lease Dell Precision for $500; dual quad core Xeon (55xx series, one gen ago), 24-48GB RAM, etc. If I tried to build an i7 for $500 with the same amount of RAM, I'd be sunk. Plus I get an LSI controller, up to 192GB RAM, ability to upgrade to dual hex cores... Even though its 3gbps SATA, an SSD would do me fine along with a fast spinner for programs. Many of the off lease systems come with Velociraptors or 15krpm SAS disks. I think that a system like this could last me many years, as I could get faster CPUs and a ton more RAM three years from now when I can get matched Xeons for $150 on ebay etc. I run a few multithreaded apps, but mostly just run so much stuff that my desktop bogs all the time. A few very large google earth data sets once in a while, some bluray converting once in a while, some Handbrake stuff... But mostly a million apps open at any given time, 7-8GB RAM in use (I would use more but I only have 8GB so I have to manage it), my quad AMD CPU sits at 50-60% 99% of the time. This all results in the overall "feel" of the system, interactivity with the GUI, etc,. being less than stellar. Looking at the dual Xeon, especially for the price, I'm thinking it would be a better option than a new(er) i5/7. Comments? For aggressive multitasking, will a 4Ghz latest gen i7 destroy a pair of 3Ghz one-gen-old Xeons? I'm liking the larger cache on the Xeons, and the ECC memory. And again, bang-for-buck, $500 wouldn't go a hell of a long way with modern tech, lower end motherboard, midrange CPU, not a whole lot of RAM... But I'm just not sure what the better option is here. |
|
The 5500 Xeons are more than one generation old, and are definitely not as snappy as current-gen CPUs. But, it would probably perform decently. Keep in mind that straight CPU power may not be your only (or even biggest) bottleneck.
Depending on what's in them, $500 sounds a bit expensive. I have a dual 5600-series Xeon server with only about a hundred hours on it, I've tried to sell it for $150 and had only two nibbles, but no bites. Still, if it would fit your needs, it's cheaper than buying new. And you may be on to something with the SSD. If you go to socket 1150, you get the newest CPU architecture, and $500 would buy you a pretty decent quad-core setup with 16GB, and it may perform as good (or better) at your tasks than the 5600s. So, I don't know that there's a really clear, easy decision. |
|
Quoted:
Looks like it. The X99 chipset will come out some time this year, so obviously they intend to keep it around for a bit. 1150 is their newest, so probably has at least as long of legs. While the x99 will have a socket with 2011 pins, it is in a different configuration. Haswell-E is going to be DDR4 and is not compatible with LGA 2011 used for Sandy-E and Ivy-E. This LGA 2011-3 business has many people confused. |
|
Quoted:
While the x99 will have a socket with 2011 pins, it is in a different configuration. Haswell-E is going to be DDR4 and is not compatible with LGA 2011 used for Sandy-E and Ivy-E. This LGA 2011-3 business has many people confused. Quoted:
Quoted:
Looks like it. The X99 chipset will come out some time this year, so obviously they intend to keep it around for a bit. 1150 is their newest, so probably has at least as long of legs. While the x99 will have a socket with 2011 pins, it is in a different configuration. Haswell-E is going to be DDR4 and is not compatible with LGA 2011 used for Sandy-E and Ivy-E. This LGA 2011-3 business has many people confused. Interesting... maybe 2011 doesn't have a lot of legs. |