Core i7 or Xeon

[scambler]

I am building a home server to run Hyper-v, but am not sure which processor to get.
The choice is either Intel Core i7 Ten Core Processor Extreme i7-6950x (3.0Ghz) 25MB Cache
or Intel Xeon 12 Core E5-26703V3 (2.3 GHz, 9.60 GT/s 30M L3 Cache).
There is not much difference in the price. I have no interest in graphics or overclocking.
The i7 is faster but the Xeon has more cores. I will just be running some VMs for testing.
Any help much appreciated.

Thanks

 

[xXCrossfireXx]

I will say, I'm glad to see a post with a good question today.

Anyway scrambler, here's what you need to know about the two:

• An i7 is a processor made for doing tasks like video editing, rendering, photo editing, heavy programming, and all those multi threaded tasks. But the nice thing though is that an i7 is also a CPU that can game, overclock, and do all the other basic things on, so it's a huge win win, because it can pretty much do everything well . Basically think of this as the consumer chip.

• The Xeon is a CPU that's made strictly for servers, though it also functions very well in video editing, rendering, photo editing, etc. The nice thing about Xeons is that they're cheaper than i7s for all that multi threaded performance, because they remove features you don't need, like overclocking. Another cool thing is that since they remove a lot of features, especially on the motherboards, that'll save the server guys who don't need them lots of cash, they also add in a lot more features. For example, you can't get an 18 core, 36 thread i7, but you can get a Xeon that good.

Now Hyper-v is some pretty serious shit, so I think you should go for the Xeon, since the Xeon has more cores, and a cheaper price (there's where Xeon's benefits show). However, if you plan to do things like gaming, the Xeon might not be the best choice.

 

[k1114]

What you described is you being confused about market segmentation and not actually a difference in the cpus themselves. You are too caught up in a difference of a simple name. There is no difference in performance of a xeon and i7 with all the same specs. Xeons are not always cheaper. In this case they are similar price but the i7 is actually better since it's a newer gen and higher clocks make up for 2 less cores. Xeons are not just server cpus either. They can actually oc and removing features does not lower cost.

The price might not be much different for the cpus themselves but check what the other components' cost are.

 

[SoNic67]

Both CPU's can run Hyper-V, the only issues is what do you need on that virtual session and how many of them will be simultaneous.
At some point the actual number of cores will become a limitation.

 

[xXCrossfireXx]

What you described is you being confused about market segmentation and not actually a difference in the cpus themselves. You are too caught up in a difference of a simple name. There is no difference in performance of a xeon and i7 with all the same specs. Xeons are not always cheaper. In this case they are similar price but the i7 is actually better since it's a newer gen and higher clocks make up for 2 less cores. Xeons are not just server cpus either. They can actually oc and removing features does not lower cost.

The price might not be much different for the cpus themselves but check what the other components' cost are.

I even specified in my post that the removed features are mostly on the Xeon motherboards. For example, it will always be cheaper to get a motherboard without built in audio, less PCIe slots, no SLI support, and for the processor, it's gonna be cheaper to get a processor that's locked versus unlocked. Now obviously the Xeon platform also has some features of it's own that'll drive up the cost, like how the motherboards may have more CPU sockets, ECC memory support, and more RAM slots, which will help in servers.

Take a look at these two:

Xeon: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117316&cm_re=Xeon-_-19-117-316-_-Product

i7: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116987&cm_re=4790-_-19-116-987-_-Product

Both are LGA 1150, both are quad core, both have 8 threads, and both are locked. The only difference in those basic specs is a .2 GHz clockspeed change. And there's really no arguing here, the Xeon is about 50 dollars cheaper than the i7

Anyway, the platform itself server grade hardware without a lot of consumer features that will drive up the cost

 

[k1114]

You contradict yourself by giving an i7 that can't oc yet costs more and completely fail to take account for the reason you are even talking about. The xeon has features the i7 doesn't. The i7 has features the xeon doesn't. So saying features lower price on the cpus themselves isn't the reason. They even use the same die and the xeon just has the igpu disabled (it's still there). That would mean the only reason for the $50 price different is .2ghz or one of those features the i7 has, is costing a lot more than it should. It's not the features, it's market segmentation. Let's look at other cpus and see how your one instance doesn't hold for a blanket statement.

Xeon E5-1650 v3 and Core i7-5930K, same price not cheaper
Xeon E5-2643 v3, wait this is similar specs but triple the price and if you want to bring up dual cpu capabilities, well what about the features you want to bring up that the i7 has that "raises" the price.

But wait, there's more, Xeon E5-2640 v3 can dual but is cheaper than a similar i7. I guess that feature isn't the cause for that price to be triple. Price seems about right to the speed decrease it has but what happened to Xeon E5-2667 v3. Similar speed increase but double the cost. Do I need to give more examples?

You see prices are made for the market they are intended for. Many of these cpus share the same die as many other cpu models yet are priced differently from binning even if they aren't defective. That means lots of cpus have the same manufacturing cost but are being sold at different prices regardless if they are given an i7 or xeon label. In conclusion, features aren't the main cause for price differences.

But we seem to have gone off topic. The real issue was not the price difference as the cpus he has are similar price, just lower speed vs more cores or higher speed and less cores. The big issue I wanted to point out was the nonsense about how the label on the cpu somehow made the cpu better at gaming or being used for a workstation. As you wanted to point out an e3 and i7 4790; these will get the same performance in gaming or rendering or any task for that matter. Look up the benchmarks and even see many people suggesting xeons for gaming because of price. Now if you want to take specs into account and not a marketing label, then that's a different story.

 

[xXCrossfireXx]

Look, most of what you just said went right past my head, but the i7 has it's share of features, and the Xeon has it's features. The i7's features are usually more expensive than the Xeon's features, especially on the motherboard. But you can see it on the processor itself, the two I compared have the same clock speed, and the same core and thread count, but there's a 50 dollar price difference. That's it. We're talking about prices on Newegg, consistent prices, on a normal computer buying site.

Now, if you have anything else to say, I suggest you keep it on topic, because im unsubscribing since I don't want a permanent ban.

 

[k1114]

2 cpus don't count for all cpus and there are i7 cheaper than xeon with the same/better specs. I see you didn't read at all so there is no point in trying to convince how wrong you are. Please refrain from trying to help others. We don't need misinformation here.

 

[Albionm00n]

Greetings!

To get back on topic, looking at your needs, I would not actually recommend either of those processor choices, for the price/performance is not great. You could set yourself up with a dual xeon system using two E5-2620 v4 processors, that would be very reliable, offer 16c/32t for a total cost of ~$800.oo for both processors. This would be a more capable and reliable setup than your two considerations, cost less, and in the future you can pop in two used 12-22 core procs and really advance your system if need requires. There is no upgrade path for the 6950X as it is a new chip, so the future will tell, but for a virtual server, a dual proc setup will be a better friend in my opinion. I think you would benefit from cores over clock speed for your usage, especially depending on how many VMs you plan to have going.

There are also some ATX format mobos that can keep the build with two procs to a manageable desktop size without having to consider a huge space requirement or rack capability. Supermicro offers an interesting option here:https://pcpartpicker.com/product/8m8H99/supermicro-motherboard-mbdx10dalio

In my opinion, unless you are gaming or desiring to overclock, the 6950X is wasted money, and there are better capable and cheaper options than the E5-2670 v3 as I mentioned above for what it seems you are planning on using the system for. As far as "features" are concerned, the Xeon is better suited for your use scenario seeing as you are not needing to overclock...That is really the only consideration for this topic line.

As an example, here is the build I am planning for myself just to give you an idea on size/cost potential: https://pcpartpicker.com/user/AlbionMoon/saved/#view=rVhRsY

I hope this helps!