Just in case someone happens upon this thread, I'd like to mention that Xeon is sort of a brand name for the server variants of many generations of Intel processors. So if one browses through the active host list for Xeons, one will find many levels of performance.
Thanks archae86,
I have indeed found many levels of performance and therefore I thought an i7 would be better. However when looking at pc’s and workstations, I found gaming pc’s with i7 and workstations with Xeon. As workstations are more expensive (in the Netherlands though) with most of the time smaller hard disks and mid-range graphics cards solutions, I thought a Xeon is better, why are they otherwise more expensive? But that is a wrong assumption of mine.
Just in case someone happens upon this thread, I'd like to mention that Xeon is sort of a brand name for the server variants of many generations of Intel processors. So if one browses through the active host list for Xeons, one will find many levels of performance.
Thanks archae86,
I have indeed found many levels of performance and therefore I thought an i7 would be better. However when looking at pc’s and workstations, I found gaming pc’s with i7 and workstations with Xeon. As workstations are more expensive (in the Netherlands though) with most of the time smaller hard disks and mid-range graphics cards solutions, I thought a Xeon is better, why are they otherwise more expensive? But that is a wrong assumption of mine.
Greetings,
TJ
MOre expensive because they can charge more ... but there is also an implicit increase in performance implicit in the notion that the two CPUs can cooperate and perform better than the single chip of the i7 though the core CPU is the same.
Or to add to the point, they are charging you for the circuitry that allows the two CPU chips to coordinate with each other so they do not step on the others work.
BUT, mostly it is just that they can charge more and get away with it with the notion that the chips are "unique" and the fab runs are smaller so there is a price premium.
Heck, in the early days, and even until now, parts that were "qualified" many times were simply run up in speed until they failed and then marked for a lower reliable speed. Some cases the chips were not even tested at rated speed but all chips were tested at the top speed and those that passed were marked at what ever speed needed to fill the batches. ONe of the reasons OC types are so confident that they can buy the "cheapest" chip and are getting a chip that is the same as the "expensive" chip.
The problem is, of course, that neither AMD nor Intel is open about this qualification process and so it is hard to know if the assumption is correct.
BUT, mostly it is just that they can charge more and get away with it with the notion that the chips are "unique" and the fab runs are smaller so there is a price premium.
Urmmmm.... No.
Throughout the history of the Xeon brand, the Xeon dice have quite generally been provided from the same fab runs as the corresponding mainstream desktop dice.
The personalization happened later--as I mentioned two common aspects of it were fuse-blowing and package pinout.
BUT, mostly it is just that they can charge more and get away with it with the notion that the chips are "unique" and the fab runs are smaller so there is a price premium.
Urmmmm.... No.
Throughout the history of the Xeon brand, the Xeon dice have quite generally been provided from the same fab runs as the corresponding mainstream desktop dice.
The personalization happened later--as I mentioned two common aspects of it were fuse-blowing and package pinout.
Agreed, and that fuse blowing is the biggest thing which differentiates Xeon from Core X desktop derivatives (and Opteron from Athlon/Phenom). It changes operating parameters which directly effect things like I/O performance, memory access, and some other key elements.
The process is exactly analogous to the jumper and/or BIOS settings on motherboards, and OS installation options which tailor the overall system to it's intended application.
IIRC there have been Xeon's in the past with larger caches, but it's mostly a case of charging more where they can and slashing prices really low where they must.
Similar software examples abound. The vast majority of the Windows codebase is unchanged between basic and ultimate versions, never mind the server varients but the latter are priced far higher and serve as cash cows.
It's equally apparent in office. Home and student (word, excel, powerpoint, onenote) can be purchased for $120 for a 3 PC license (non commercial only), the cheapest business version is basic (word, excel, outlook - can't be transfered to a new PC) for $180, and if you need powerpoint it's another $100 more for standard/small business retail boxes ( word, excel, outlook, powerpoint and publisher (small business only)). If you have tablet PC's and need onenote (it does more, but that's it's main use) at work you either need to buy it seperately for $75, or pay $380 for office ultimate.
There's a similar spread with adobe photoshop $110 for elements and almost $600 for the full version. I'm not a photoshop user so I'm not sure how big the spread is. You'll see similar things with antivirus/backup/etc software with free versions for home use, for pay only versions for work use, and very expensive versions if you want to put it on a server.
Yep, planned obsolescence just for the sake of forcing you to have to replace it with something newer and 'better', odious End User terms designed to lock in and gouge a customer to the max, and warranty protection restrictions which are not afforded (and cannot by law in many cases) to almost every other product or service on the planet have been trademarks of the IT industry since right from the beginning.
I mean what other industry do you know of where the product can be totally unsuitable for the very purpose it was designed and marketed for, yet the manufacturer is not responsible for anything other than replacing defective media it was distributed on (or for collecting the licensing fees)? :-D
Amazing what you find when you break your 'Holmesian' magnifying glass and read that boilerplate. ;-)
I wish I still had the EULA I wrote for a tetris clone at the end of my 2nd year HS programming class. I put all sorts of insane stuff into it, but nobody read it.
Ah yes, the hard maximum on remote terminal connections for Win XP come to mind. We fiddled for a while with the registry, but finally went and got a proper OS. So we now run a Linux variant to manage access to our business database over the network. Don't get me started on 'Windows Server For Small Business Server' licensing & costs, that was FleeceMe City.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
RE: Just in case someone
)
Thanks archae86,
I have indeed found many levels of performance and therefore I thought an i7 would be better. However when looking at pc’s and workstations, I found gaming pc’s with i7 and workstations with Xeon. As workstations are more expensive (in the Netherlands though) with most of the time smaller hard disks and mid-range graphics cards solutions, I thought a Xeon is better, why are they otherwise more expensive? But that is a wrong assumption of mine.
Greetings,
TJ
Greetings from
TJ
RE: RE: Just in case
)
MOre expensive because they can charge more ... but there is also an implicit increase in performance implicit in the notion that the two CPUs can cooperate and perform better than the single chip of the i7 though the core CPU is the same.
Or to add to the point, they are charging you for the circuitry that allows the two CPU chips to coordinate with each other so they do not step on the others work.
BUT, mostly it is just that they can charge more and get away with it with the notion that the chips are "unique" and the fab runs are smaller so there is a price premium.
Heck, in the early days, and even until now, parts that were "qualified" many times were simply run up in speed until they failed and then marked for a lower reliable speed. Some cases the chips were not even tested at rated speed but all chips were tested at the top speed and those that passed were marked at what ever speed needed to fill the batches. ONe of the reasons OC types are so confident that they can buy the "cheapest" chip and are getting a chip that is the same as the "expensive" chip.
The problem is, of course, that neither AMD nor Intel is open about this qualification process and so it is hard to know if the assumption is correct.
RE: BUT, mostly it is just
)
Urmmmm.... No.
Throughout the history of the Xeon brand, the Xeon dice have quite generally been provided from the same fab runs as the corresponding mainstream desktop dice.
The personalization happened later--as I mentioned two common aspects of it were fuse-blowing and package pinout.
RE: RE: BUT, mostly it is
)
Agreed, and that fuse blowing is the biggest thing which differentiates Xeon from Core X desktop derivatives (and Opteron from Athlon/Phenom). It changes operating parameters which directly effect things like I/O performance, memory access, and some other key elements.
The process is exactly analogous to the jumper and/or BIOS settings on motherboards, and OS installation options which tailor the overall system to it's intended application.
Alinator
IIRC there have been Xeon's
)
IIRC there have been Xeon's in the past with larger caches, but it's mostly a case of charging more where they can and slashing prices really low where they must.
Similar software examples abound. The vast majority of the Windows codebase is unchanged between basic and ultimate versions, never mind the server varients but the latter are priced far higher and serve as cash cows.
It's equally apparent in office. Home and student (word, excel, powerpoint, onenote) can be purchased for $120 for a 3 PC license (non commercial only), the cheapest business version is basic (word, excel, outlook - can't be transfered to a new PC) for $180, and if you need powerpoint it's another $100 more for standard/small business retail boxes ( word, excel, outlook, powerpoint and publisher (small business only)). If you have tablet PC's and need onenote (it does more, but that's it's main use) at work you either need to buy it seperately for $75, or pay $380 for office ultimate.
There's a similar spread with adobe photoshop $110 for elements and almost $600 for the full version. I'm not a photoshop user so I'm not sure how big the spread is. You'll see similar things with antivirus/backup/etc software with free versions for home use, for pay only versions for work use, and very expensive versions if you want to put it on a server.
LOL... Yep, planned
)
LOL...
Yep, planned obsolescence just for the sake of forcing you to have to replace it with something newer and 'better', odious End User terms designed to lock in and gouge a customer to the max, and warranty protection restrictions which are not afforded (and cannot by law in many cases) to almost every other product or service on the planet have been trademarks of the IT industry since right from the beginning.
I mean what other industry do you know of where the product can be totally unsuitable for the very purpose it was designed and marketed for, yet the manufacturer is not responsible for anything other than replacing defective media it was distributed on (or for collecting the licensing fees)? :-D
Amazing what you find when you break your 'Holmesian' magnifying glass and read that boilerplate. ;-)
Alinator
I wish I still had the EULA I
)
I wish I still had the EULA I wrote for a tetris clone at the end of my 2nd year HS programming class. I put all sorts of insane stuff into it, but nobody read it.
Ah yes, the hard maximum on
)
Ah yes, the hard maximum on remote terminal connections for Win XP come to mind. We fiddled for a while with the registry, but finally went and got a proper OS. So we now run a Linux variant to manage access to our business database over the network. Don't get me started on 'Windows Server For Small Business Server' licensing & costs, that was FleeceMe City.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal