AxlFone :
The Gigabyte GA-Z77M-D3H-MVP motherboard does appear to have good features at a reasonable price. However, it's listed as supporting i3, i5, and i7's using the LGA 1155 socket, but does not mention compatibility with any Xeon. Doing a search > "Xeon E3" on Newegg in "motherboards" yields>
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...
Read here:
http://www.gigabyte.com/support-downloads/cpu-support-popup.aspx?pid=4192
All xeon CPU is supported.
While I am a Xeon enthusiast, I have to partially second comments by g-unit1111 to the degree that Xeons should be selected according to the type and degree of use. You can go a long way in certain workstation uses with an i7 and a GTX, but for certain intensive uses that require very high precision > 3D CAD, CAD simulations like fluidic, structural, thermal, image processing, GCI animation, video processing, and etc., I would always steer in a Xeon > ECC RAM > Quadro direction. However, all those words are more expensive and may not have benefits in your uses. Because Xeons and Quadros are quality, precision, and reliability oriented instead of speed oriented, they are generally not as good at gaming.
Why need ECC RAM with this build? Is xeon e3 going to work only with ECC memory? Kind of wondering my own build with xeon issue. I was thinking mITX or mATX build with xeon.
i wouldnt see why you wouldnt recommend a xeon for wrokstation usage. they are the same chips. only until you throw them on a server board that they start making a difference
can you give a more precise answer to why not xeon for a gaming machine? I have seen multiple treads that do recommend that xeon for a gaming pc. Is there something they do not know? That you do?
You're better off not buying a Xeon for gaming or multimedia applications (Adobe CS5/6, Autodesk Suite, etc). Only very rare circumstances would I recommend a Xeon.
And this? Why I'm better off not buying xeon for gaming or multimedia apps? Some other forums will tell the exact opposite information. They tell you to buy the xeon. Why is this? I have been reading couple months treads of this xeon cpu and this is really confused too read other things in other forums and other things in other place.
So please tell more of this xeon. Why it is not a good buy?
AxlFone,
Regarding Xeons > 1> I only looked at the Newegg listing for the Gigabyte board which did not mention Xeon compatibility.
2> My comment was not to suggest that Xeons are inherently slower. To the contrary, if you look at the Passmark CPU Benchmark chart in order of ranking >
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php
> 8 of the top 10 and 15 of the top 20 CPU's in terms of sheer computational power are Xeons.
The emphasis on accuracy and reliability means a Xeon / ECC/ Quadro in combination is specialized for precision and reliability for workstation applications will be more costly and not create high frame rates in most games. Oftentimes, Xeons are identical to the same level i3, i5, i7 but are locked for overclocking, delete the integrated graphics, and have double precision enabled, 10-bit color, and ECC RAM support. One of the main advantages of Xeons is that some can be used in multiples- there are boards that support 8X Xeon E7 (10-core / 20 thread) CPU's (these can cost $4,500 each), 1,024GB of RAM and with each CPU comes more PCIe slots for which items like several Tesla K20 co-processors may be plugged.
ECC RAM is slowed a bit by correcting errors and Quadros have special drivers that support very high anti-aliasing (up to 128x) which takes a lot of calculations and means each frame is rendered more fully- and is slower. For contrast, Sketchup runs at a standard of 4X. Quadro cards are also often running slightly lower clock rates -and at less power to keep them reliable. In fact a Xeon, because of the computational power in combination with a GTX would be pairing a powerful CPU with a frame rate-oriented GPU with a lot of CUDA cores- probably a very good combination. As mentioned, the ECC RAM is not conducive to gaming, but Xeons will run on non-ECC.
In summary, Xeons can be faster than consumer / gaming CPU's, but even quite a ways from the top end they can be very expensive (the 8-core, 3.2GHz 2687W is $1,900) and their use with other components like ECC and Quadros mean that they will not seem like "good buys"
if their qualities are not utilized. I would say that Adobe CS, Autodesk, most 3D modelling, rendering and so on can greatly benefit from the Xeon / ECC / Quadro combination. But as mentioned earlier, whether a user has expectations of quality that require these components is a question of degree. Using a Xeon/ ECC machine, I tried to get away with a GTX 285, and it worked up to a point, after which I had to change it for a Quadro FX 4800. Stated another way, I thought I could use a $350 card (new) that read as a great buy- 512-bit and 240 CUDA cores and high 3D benchmarks, but to avoid bizarre shadows, artifacts, limited anti-aliasing, rendering crashes, and missing viewports, I ended up with a $1,200 card (new) that is 384-bit, 192 cores, and 3D scores 30% lower- but runs quite a bit cooler- 150W as compared to the GTX 205W- and produces fantastic-looking results and works perfectly on 16 hour CAD slogs.
As compters become more capable, they are also becoming more specialized and the difference between content makers and content consumer systems becomes a more difficult equation for the buyer / builder.
Cheers,
BambiBoom
[Dell Precision T5400 > 2X Xeon 4-core X5460 @ 3.16GHz, 16GB DDR2-667, Quadro FX 4800, WD RE4 / Segt Brcda > Windows 7 Ultimate 64 > AutoCad, Revit, Solidworks, Adobe CS MC, Corel Technical Designer, Sketchup Pro, WP Office, MS Office]
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram