Printable View
I'm at www.tankguys.com , I see that ETA for OEM E8400 is the 28th and ETA for xeon E3110 is 21st ... if C2D E8400 and Xeon E3110 are supposed to be the same ... how come is the Xeon 3110 going for $199.99 and the E8400 for $229.99 ?
Shall I just go with the Xeon 3110 ?
I mean if they're the same, why not just go with the cheaper Xeon ?
btw, the mobo i'm planning on using with this cpu is the DFI LP LT X38-T2R .
Thats really strange..in newegg...230 vs 260
Some people just don't realize that they're the same CPU.
So if buying from tankguys, I'd definitely jump on the X3110.
Eller
Newegg is turning in to a giant :banana::banana::banana:gotQuote:
Originally Posted by okorn
alright, thanksQuote:
Originally Posted by karl_eller
the xeons are a more tested version of the 8400 and they are all c1 so i would go xeon, it might also be oem v in box and oem chips are cheaper since they have no hs or box
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by zanzabar
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=333114
They are the same chip but which one has better name recognition and which one will people be looking for?? Lots of people want = price gets jacked up.
199.99=Actual price it probably should be selling for
229.99=Inflated price due to popularity caused by name recognition
It's good to see tankguys is cheaper then newegg. Thats where i got my quad and probably all future processors cause they normally carry the cream of the crop.
sorry they are all c0, but the 8400 could be a c1Quote:
Originally Posted by Mykou
Quote:
Originally Posted by GripS
so, if im buying from tankguys.com , i should definately go with the xeon OEM and get like the TRue hsf , or the tuniq or the ninja one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mykou
wow mykou, are those on air ?
i suppose not?
check his sig ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by vcp-cur
i'm really thinking about selling my e8400 and buying one of those 3110
i just ordered another one from here
http://www.moogr.com/INTEL_CPU_XEON_...id-349879.html
use "marchmadness" code for $203.20 shipped
maybe 3 reasons
1. E3110 has more supply in the channel as intel might have prioritized it's production over E8400 ?
2. E3110 won't interfere much with older xeon sales compared to the effect of E8400 etc on older E6xxx 65nm inventory still needing clearing from warehouses ?
3. Intel want's to claim back market share in server market from AMD. Desktop market dominance for Intel already exists heh
hehe, yeah .. the Boxed E3110 at tankguys is $239.99 .. and the OEM = $199.99Quote:
Originally Posted by mcoffey
The chips are similar but the Xeons are server chips. They are optimized for server oriented tasks as opposed to desktop applications. Also they may not overclock quite as far. Having said that you'd be pushed to notice the diference in everyday use.
Completely wrong. They generally OC better.
not to start a debate, but do either of you (xeons ocs better/ocs worse) have any facts to back it up? isnt it the same chip with diff silk screening and box?
At the moment, as far as Xeon's are concerned, not enough of them around to know for sure. But going back to 939's, we all knew that Opty's clocked better than desktop's. As server chips are known by Intel themselves to be better than desktop's, it would be a good assumption that they clock better than desktop's.
A lot of us at overclockers.com.au are running Xeons E3110's actually, and while you get the odd E8400 that needs higher volts to run the same OC, the Xeon's generally all clock very well on very low volts. More consistently than the E8400's.
http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/3...thosew9.th.png
There's mine at 24/7 clocks.
what kind of cooling are you using jammer.. i've been looking for an e8400/e3110... i found some e8400's 199.99 sooo..
e8400 retail for 199.99
or x3110 for 199.99 oem???
http://www.microcenter.com/search/se...?keyword=e8400
I'd definitely go the Xeon. Cooling is a Zalman 9700NT not the best cooler but it does OK.
here's a bit more...
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/9...i32mxd2.th.png
Volts can go lower, it was just a quick 500fsb run.
fact1-I had an E8400 (Q743A) that would run 4.3GHz with 1.344vcore. P95 stable for 9+ hours and passed all 3D benchies.Quote:
Originally Posted by politenessman
fact2- I had an E3110 (Q746A534) that wouldn't run 4.3GHz stable no matter how much vcore you put to it and I tried up to 1.6vcore.
fact3- I currently have another E3110 (same batch as the first one-Q746A534) that requires 1.456vcore to be 4.3GHz P95 stable.
So far, any mention of the Xeons being better as far as lower vcore required is untrue. Do they last longer? Dunno as I ran mine for a couple of years and sold them. Do they run hotter/cooler? Nope. In my water loop all of these recent CPUs have topped out at the same temps (+/- 2degC) when running P95 for 9+ hours. There is a lot of conjecture on all forums as to what makes the xeon different than the standard intel desktop chips. I have used xeons for my gaming and desktop rigs for years. Frankly I can't say that any xeon OCs better than its desktop counterpart. I had Xeon3060s with batch codes L629B and L631B that did not perform any differently than desktop cpus with the same batch codes. All would do 3.71GHz with 1.41vcore. Under phase/dice/ln2 that may be a different story but under good air or water it is the same.
Right now it doesn't matter which one you buy. It does matter what batch/FPO# CPU you buy. That has always been true. And if you are lucky enough to find a Q743A I suggest buying it.
No emperical evidence I'm afraid, my theories are very general and based on 3rd party experience. ( good thats the legal stuff out of the way lol )
There was an article on this very subject in Custom PC a few months ago and several posts in various forums re the same subject show no conclusive meaningful pattern yet. I Shall write to Intel asap. Prefetcher optimization is the definitive difference thus far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vcp-cur
as mk-ultra noticed my baby is on air , definitively true :p:
valid was made with sigmatek HDT 1284
http://images3.hiboox.com/vignettes/1108/1rrubyld.jpg
actually using U120X
;)
yes those chips are really insane
LOL i have a Q746A534 sitting here on the floor. I always though each cpu had a different number. I am corrently running a E8400 and to get it to 4650 i have to put 1.68 vcore to it. i be tryin the E3110 very soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by sofarfrome
My E3110 is at 3.78 Ghz at 1.3V. I have no clue how hot it's running though, every temperature program I use is stuck at 42*C.
I also can't push it past 419 FSB because my Commando put up a wall with bios 1605 that allows me to use 45NM chips at 420FSB. It's not the Xeon either, because it did it with my E6300 when I had it at 475FSB before the 1605 bios.
I have seen some Q746A534 Xeons and E8400s that will clock better than my "good one". But I did get to 4.8GHz 1M-SPi benchable with 1.6vcore and that would be great if I wanted to bench under phase/dice/ln2.Quote:
Originally Posted by GFDuke
i think the first runs of the e8400's were the best clocking chips on low volts. latley most e8400's seem to be turds. If i was ordering now i would go e3110
My first one does 500x8 1:1 on 1.3125v and 475x8.5 for 4037mhz with mem at 1170 on 1.3125 and 4158 on 1.3625 at 462x9 and mem at 1155 all on air and prime stable all mobo volts stock values.
I just ordered another one :)
Sofarfrome, your results are the exact same opposite to what I've been seeing. So your statements are not any true-er than mine. And by looking at the reponses in this thread so far would indicate that the Xeon's in general are better than their C2D counterparts.
I think the issue is that nobody has really done a large enough test on Core2's and their Xeon equivalents to give a conclusive result either way. You can't really judge the performance based on a comparison between a half-dozen CPUs, especially considering the difference that the batch can make. There's just too much variation from one CPU to another for someone to say which one is superior.
Eller
Word!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by karl_eller
These people testing a few chips and giving out facts that do NOT support an empirical data evaluation do NOT extend to the propositions that the Xeon or the Workstation CPU has any real difference in terms of overclocking. Some workstation 45nm's have lower VIDs than some Xeon 45nm's. Some workstation 45nm's will overclock better than some Xeon 45nm's. AND VICE VERSA.
Those who attempt to state anything else have not the statistical data to prove what they say.
It always amazes me how many people take their own personal projects and few pieces of hardware AND EXTEND blanket proposals/statements.
I have another name for these people but I will leave that up to imaginations. :down:
Well, so far I have yet to see an E3110 run 4.3GHz P95 9+ hours stable on 1.344vcore. Most of the Xeons so far are from Q746A534 batch (yes there are others) that people have been posting results from and perhaps that batch is OK but so far there are also several batches of E8400 that seem to OC very well, not just the Q743A that I had. And I had a dud from that same batch of Q746A534. If you look around the web you will find that others have had the same duds on occasion. My point is that to date there is no data that says the Xeon is a better overclocker than its E8400 couterpart.Quote:
Originally Posted by J@mmer
So lets just agree to disagree
I have tested 3 CPUs (one of which is the best OCing chip I have seen to date) and been searching for and reading tons of test data relative to the 45nm C2Ds so I think I can safely and confidently make some assumptions as to how the server chips compare to the desktop chips as far as overclocking on good water and air. It is a different story when it comes to dice/phase/ln2 and I can't speak for that personally. But there is enough information out there from people that have put these chips under exotic cooling to still draw a conclusion that the Xeons do not OC any better than their desktop counterparts.Quote:
Originally Posted by karl_eller
Is the :down: directed at me? If so then you certainly didn't get my original point which was there is no supporting data to say that the Xeon OCs better than its desktop counterpart. The info I included from my experiences was just that, info. I wasn't drawing any real conclusions from it but I believe some assumptions can be made that can be proven with more data.Quote:
Originally Posted by DerekT
I've got the E3110 and it definately clocks better than my E8400, which was not stable at 450 x 9 (with 1.3625v in the bios), but was fine at 445MHz. My new E3100 is stable at 460 x 9 with the same voltage. It is also stable at 500 x 8 with 1.28v, which my E8400 was not. Basically the E3110 allows about 150MHz extra at the same voltage.
Although the e3110 runs about 5C hotter than the E8400 at idle and about 10C hotter at load...perhaps attributable to heatsink installation? At least the core diodes aren't stuck like they were on my two E8400's. I did cutback on the MX-2 paste as it was gooping out the edges on previous installs.
I have to agree with sofarfrome on this one. I've been watching both cpu's since they've come out and I have yet to see any difference in clocking and the only way to determine anything would be some sort of data base. So and so having one cpu doing poorly and then getting the other that did better proves nothing. If you had a poor clocking e8400 that wont do 4G then by average you're going to get one if you try the 3110. Most of either of these cpu will oc to that level. With a Q743 e8400, I've primed 4.3 at 1.36v and 4.4 at 1.39v, on air. Does that prove anything, no. You have to collect multiple cpus from each type and then take the average. I'll bet it's very close.
The way i'd look at it is this....if the Xeon is a good bit cheaper $30-50 you should go for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dower
Richard, thank you !
best answer i've read on this 2nd page :)
It's not always about you. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by sofarfrome