Yorkfields!... get your Yorkfields!

[darth_nevus]

I think it's in anticipation of what will be coming, rather than what is out now. You're right Darth, unless a program is explicitly going to use more than 2 cores (or even more than 1 for that matter ), the E8400 is a better value for similar performance (and usually better overclocking). But as more programs become multi-threaded to take advantage of these extra cores, the quads will increasingly become the better choice.

And we'll see more test like these:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3127&p=7

the E8400 is just a lower binned X3110. the nice part is that while its hard to obtain the E8400, the X3110 is compatible with most boards, is binned higher, and runs cooler for the most part than the E8400, is actually cheaper(E8400 is 259@ newegg, where as the x3110 was 229), all on the same chip. downside is that its not a "supported" cpu according to intel on enthusiast class motherboards. that hasn't stopped folks from testing it on everything from a G33 to the Ibit P35Pro. i am really intrigued to see how the upcoming sextocore processors do, since intel dumped the octo core idea for at least the time being on the ut3 engine. the idea currently has been to build engines based on the # of cores forth coming. the Ut3 engine however seems to have been built more on using ALL the cores available, regardless of count. but no one is running ut3 on a server mobo.

[CarbonFire]

Darth, doesn't the X3110 need ECC memory? Or is there a way around that? If so, there are so fine looking Xeon chips out there worth considering as well.

[darth_nevus]

X3110 needing ECC? or are you referring to FB-Dimm's instead? since until Nehleham's architecture, the the memory controller is on the northbridge the northbridge would determine the type of memory used, not the chip. the server chipsets require FB-dimms. but desktop ECC memory is cheap anyway, i i try to recommend ECC ram whenever possible, since its just more stable in the long run. every pc's i've heard about it running on doesn't seem to matter exactly which way. i'll have to do more research. one guy claims he has Mushkin 4GB HP2-6400 running on his. thats unbuffered DDR2-800 ram to boot. not even ECC. so my guess would be, its not. again, server CPU's aren't supported on desktop boards, but if your going to overclock the cpu, it doesn't matter, as you've already voided the warrenty.boards noted as working are the IP35-E, Abit P35 Pro, & GA-EP35-DS3P that i've seen. some boards won't take it though.

My bad on the chip names too its an E3110, not X3110. its an E3110 that has the same CPUID string as the E8400. the chips are EXACTLY identical. Intel's whitepaper *tries* to make them look different, by tossing in other terms for one or the other, but the fact is, they are things only usable by the northbridge chipset on the mobo which the chip is installed on. so, since the ram is determined by the northbridge, the only limiting factor ram wise is the mobo itself.

the X3350 and the Q9450 chips appear to be mostly interchangeable as well. i've seen reports of the X3350 being used on 790i boards. again, its just a differently binned chip.

[CarbonFire]

Well, the benefit of running a server-class CPU has to outweigh the headache of trying to get it to run on an unsupported board. Sure, you could get a server-class board and ECC memory as well, but then overclocking becomes even more difficult (partly due to lack of BIOS options, and partly to slower ECC memory). I'm guessing there are more steps to get the chip working than just plug it in and go. Will it work 100% even after you get it to boot?

Sure, you probably COULD do it, but why not just spend a little bit more and get a lot more potential without the headaches? Or are the C2Qs and Xeons truly interchangeable?

Oh, and the Q9450s are starting to show up

http://microcenter.com/single_produc...uct_id=0286543

[Hawkeye426]

Mines ordered QX9550 W00T!! My buddy's got one Overclocked to 4.1Ghz on stock cooling so im looking forward to mine.

[CarbonFire]

Mines ordered QX9550 W00T!! My buddy's got one Overclocked to 4.1Ghz on stock cooling so im looking forward to mine.

QX9550
or
Q9550?

I thought only the QX9650 was the extreme chip?

In which case, the overclocking will be VASTLY different between the two. The QX9650 is unlocked, which means you can choose whatever multiplier (and FSB) you'd like. The Q9550 multiplier is locked at 8.5, which means you can only use the FSB in order to achieve an overclock (times 8.5 of course )

[darth_nevus]

Well, the benefit of running a server-class CPU has to outweigh the headache of trying to get it to run on an unsupported board. Sure, you could get a server-class board and ECC memory as well, but then overclocking becomes even more difficult (partly due to lack of BIOS options, and partly to slower ECC memory). I'm guessing there are more steps to get the chip working than just plug it in and go. Will it work 100% even after you get it to boot?

Sure, you probably COULD do it, but why not just spend a little bit more and get a lot more potential without the headaches? Or are the C2Qs and Xeons truly interchangeable?

Oh, and the Q9450s are starting to show up

http://microcenter.com/single_produc...uct_id=0286543

There are no additional steps. because the CPUID string is exactly the same as the the desktop variant, the bios sees it for what its programmed to, as an E8400 for al bios intensive purposes. the cpu is listed different, as a Xeon, but the bios assumes its options based off the CPUID strings. all the overclocking options are there because of this. Intel just won't support the use of the chip in the pc. and if your going to overclock it, they don't anyway. lol.

In truth, you save yourself the headaches by spend the tad bit more. in reality, for our common oc'ing purposes, there isn't a difference. so far, as i mentioned above, the Land array for at least the E8400 and the Xeon variant, are identical. the chips are just binned differently for lower power server applications, and sold & marketed as such.