i7 4770 vs xeon e3 1245v3 for gaming and general pc usage

[oliver max]

so, i'm down to these 2 choices.

the xeon is significantly cheaper than the i7 by the way and has same specs. I realise one should compare apples to apples but the specs are almost similar:
http://ark.intel.com/compare/75462,75122

i read from somewhere that xeons are better binned (better quality?) because I want this PC to last long.

I also do a lot of multitasking so maybe xeon has an advantage? Usually I have many tabs open (200+) while gaming and having a video played on the background. I have 32 gb of ram so perhaps xeon can utilise them better?

So what do you think?

 

[oliver max]

Owh forgot to mention, I am not an overclocker.

 

[nbelote]

They're exactly the same thing. The only difference is that the Xeon, as with all Xeons, is rated for 24/7/365 environments (and the warranty reflects that) while the i7 is not.

You won't notice any difference in functionality or performance whatsoever.

 

[dwatterworth]

You'll get marginally better performance from the 4770 due to the 100mhz higher turbo clock. The only differences other than virtualization and other enterprise level features, which it doesn't sound like you have any need whatsoever for, would be the integrated graphics. The p4600 that the Xeon has is akin to an extremely low powered entry level professional graphics card gpu, being certified for driver compatibility and performance in many professional level applications from makers such as adobe and autodesk while the hd4600 on the 4770 is closer to a desktop part. TDP is the same and in my experience you may see a few watts lower usage on the Xeon compared to the 4770 but that would only add up to pennies a year.

So without overclocking in the picture, it is really down to a cost alternative and which name you would rather see listed in your processor specification in your bios and windows diagnostics apps.

Longevity of either CPU is not a concern if you have a reasonable heatsink on the chip and decent case airflow.

 

[oliver max]

with respect to integrated graphics, is the 4600 better than the p4600?

i have a good heatsink and airflow, but haswell runs hot, so longevity is quite important to me. It needs to at least to hold for at least 5 years. Also, I never switch off my PC.

I'm getting impression that xeons have higher manufacturing standard. Is this true?

You'll get marginally better performance from the 4770 due to the 100mhz higher turbo clock. The only differences other than virtualization and other enterprise level features, which it doesn't sound like you have any need whatsoever for, would be the integrated graphics. The p4600 that the Xeon has is akin to an extremely low powered entry level professional graphics card gpu, being certified for driver compatibility and performance in many professional level applications from makers such as adobe and autodesk while the hd4600 on the 4770 is closer to a desktop part. TDP is the same and in my experience you may see a few watts lower usage on the Xeon compared to the 4770 but that would only add up to pennies a year.

So without overclocking in the picture, it is really down to a cost alternative and which name you would rather see listed in your processor specification in your bios and windows diagnostics apps.

Longevity of either CPU is not a concern if you have a reasonable heatsink on the chip and decent case airflow.

 

[genz]

You won't notice any difference in functionality or performance whatsoever.

Not true. Xeons have locked multipliers and BCLKs, probably so you don't abuse that warranty. That means no over-clocking.

Providing you were buying a 4770, and not a 4770K though, then yes, there is no difference but price, ECC RAM and warranty.

And no, they are not better binned, because building ECC into the chip/enabling it means they are selected before binning.

 

[oliver max]

You won't notice any difference in functionality or performance whatsoever.

Not true. Xeons have locked multipliers and BCLKs, probably so you don't abuse that warranty. That means no over-clocking.

Providing you were buying a 4770, and not a 4770K though, then yes, there is no difference but price, ECC RAM and warranty.

And no, they are not better binned, because building ECC into the chip/enabling it means they are selected before binning.

What about the integrated graphics? Is there any difference?

So you are saying, essentially, there is not difference in quality (or heat, noice etc)? I thought like the user above states they should, because they are expected to run 24/7/365...

 

[Gaidax]

Notice that I7 uses DMI2 bus as opposed to Xeon. This provides a double bandwidth dedicated line between Southbridge devices and the CPU as compared to Xeon there.

While I have absolutely no benchmarks and such to provide to see if there is any difference - in theory since all the USB3/SATA and devices belong to the Southbridge devices category it may mean that in the long run in the future with SSD/USB3 devices becoming more popular - I7 will have more headroom for those in case of major load/usage.

That said, if you intend to leave your PC up and running 24/7 for 5 years, I would take Xeon - they are supposed to do that.

Of course it's not like I7 can't, but I'd just feel safer with Xeon there, since it is meant to do it to begin with.

 

[genz]

You won't notice any difference in functionality or performance whatsoever.

Not true. Xeons have locked multipliers and BCLKs, probably so you don't abuse that warranty. That means no over-clocking.

Providing you were buying a 4770, and not a 4770K though, then yes, there is no difference but price, ECC RAM and warranty.

And no, they are not better binned, because building ECC into the chip/enabling it means they are selected before binning.

What about the integrated graphics? Is there any difference?

So you are saying, essentially, there is not difference in quality (or heat, noice etc)? I thought like the user above states they should, because they are expected to run 24/7/365...

The difference is in the line processes. I would assume there are certain techniques they have developed in the fab that conserve silicon (thus $$$) but result in a slightly less reliable chip that they would not use on the Xeons. Also there are slight differences internally to do with the bus controllers and the RAM repeaters, but these were integrated into all socket 2011 extreme machines, hence i7 3930k and 3960X's being able to use ECC RAM. I have also heard that it takes a lot less to throw away a Xeon than it takes to throw an i7. I at least know that they themselves test them at much higher clocks that they will run at to simulate wear and tear,

In short, there are no performance differences but there will be on the reliability front.

 

[dwatterworth]

To add to what Genz stated at the end about reliability, given proper cooling of a stock frequency and voltage CPU, it should last well past the point where it will be outdated. To enhance the overall reliability of your electronics, devices such as quality PSU's that act as power filters, reducing the amount of noise in the electrical supply. Starting from the outside in, your power supply will be under less strain by not needing to compensate for voltage fluctuation nearly as much, then in turn your motherboard and gpu power supply circuitry will also see less noise/fluctuation and by receiving a more consistent cleaner electrical supply, can operate at lower temperatures and undergo less wear as compared to components on unfiltered power.

The E3 Xeons are probably on the lower end of a quality differentiation of server parts vs desktop. The E5 and E7 chips would be at the upper echelon of the reliability scales for Intel if there was a major difference in measurable lifespans under identical situations/loading.

 

[Narcissistic_Martyr]

What about the integrated graphics? Is there any difference?

I do not believe the Xenon e3 series has an iGPU. I believe that space is given over to ECC RAM compatability and some other server specific functions.

 

[dwatterworth]

The integrated graphics for your purposes will be the same. The iGPU clock rates and allowable shared system memory are the same. The difference being as I mentioned before, the P vs the HD intel 4600. The P just has further software certifications but on regular usage along with light gaming, should perform identically.

 

[logainofhades]

What about the integrated graphics? Is there any difference?

I do not believe the Xenon e3 series has an iGPU. I believe that space is given over to ECC RAM compatability and some other server specific functions.

1230 and 1240 lack igp. The 1245 does have igp.

 

[Narcissistic_Martyr]

What about the integrated graphics? Is there any difference?

I do not believe the Xenon e3 series has an iGPU. I believe that space is given over to ECC RAM compatability and some other server specific functions.

1230 and 1240 lack igp. The 1245 does have igp.

Good to know.

Thanks

 

[blade of grass]

Hey,

The two processors that you are comparing are basically the same. The biggest difference are that the Xeons are higher binned, and the i7s are unlocked.
Although you said that you won't overclock, I'd say you should try it. If you're worried about killing it, you can buy an Intel Tuning Plan so if any thing happens while its operating outside of spec, you can have a warranty replacement.
The i7 performs abit better than the Xeon, and you can also overclock it to achieve higher performance. So unless you're planning to run it 24/7, at full load (in a scenario where you might benefit from the higher bin), I would go with the i7 as you'll be able to overclock it and get that little extra performance.
Though if you're looking to save money, by all means buy the xeon, it's a great CPU.

 

[oliver max]

To add to what Genz stated at the end about reliability, given proper cooling of a stock frequency and voltage CPU, it should last well past the point where it will be outdated. To enhance the overall reliability of your electronics, devices such as quality PSU's that act as power filters, reducing the amount of noise in the electrical supply. Starting from the outside in, your power supply will be under less strain by not needing to compensate for voltage fluctuation nearly as much, then in turn your motherboard and gpu power supply circuitry will also see less noise/fluctuation and by receiving a more consistent cleaner electrical supply, can operate at lower temperatures and undergo less wear as compared to components on unfiltered power.

The E3 Xeons are probably on the lower end of a quality differentiation of server parts vs desktop. The E5 and E7 chips would be at the upper echelon of the reliability scales for Intel if there was a major difference in measurable lifespans under identical situations/loading.

The thing is i can't afford e5 and e7s. my budget right now allows either e3 1245v3 or i7 4770. But I also have to mention, I'm planning to leave my pc running 24/7/365. Where I live, electricity is provided free of charge.

Given this circumstances, would you recommend the xeon over the i7? I don't actually mind the price difference, it's small to begin with - but if I pay a higher price for a chip, i expect it to perform better and last longer.

What you were explaning in the first paragraph, referring to reliability, with proper cooling etc, are you referring to xeon or i7? If it helps, I have a CM hyper 212 evo and my case has full fans installed.

 

[genz]

The biggest difference are that the Xeons are higher binned

Be careful not to mistake the terminology. Binning is not the process throwing away bad chips and chips with defects, it's the process of downgrading the chips with small defects that don't meet temperature/feature standards to a lower clocked model. Granted the standards are much higher for Xeons, but the vast majority of Xeon product lines don't actually scale enough to carry out any vertical binning.

Take the Haswell Xeon mentioned here... the only other product it could be binned to if it was a bad chip is the 1225 as all the other products have lesser GPUs, but the 1225 is only 200mhz slower (3.2Ghz) so more often than not a bad chip will just have to be scrapped when the equivalent chip from the consumer line will be downgraded to a 2Ghz model etc.

 

[oliver max]

The biggest difference are that the Xeons are higher binned

Be careful not to mistake the terminology. Binning is not the process throwing away bad chips and chips with defects, it's the process of downgrading the chips with small defects that don't meet temperature/feature standards to a lower clocked model. Granted the standards are much higher for Xeons, but the vast majority of Xeon product lines don't actually scale enough to carry out any vertical binning.

Take the Haswell Xeon mentioned here... the only other product it could be binned to if it was a bad chip is the 1225 as all the other products have lesser GPUs, but the 1225 is only 200mhz slower (3.2Ghz) so more often than not a bad chip will just have to be scrapped when the equivalent chip from the consumer line will be downgraded to a 2Ghz model etc.

So would you recommend me the xeon over the i7?

 

[genz]

I'm not a fan of Haswell in general, as I feel it's a step back in terms of desktop performance (putting the IMC on chip was an obvious performance limiting move)

 

[genz]

I'm not a fan of Haswell in general, as I feel it's a step back in terms of desktop performance (putting the IMC on chip was an obvious performance limiting move)... I am inclined to recommend the Xeon here.

 

[oliver max]

I'm not a fan of Haswell in general, as I feel it's a step back in terms of desktop performance (putting the IMC on chip was an obvious performance limiting move)... I am inclined to recommend the Xeon here.

thank you very much, but on what basis do you recommend the xeon, barring you're not being a fan of desktop haswell?

I really really appreciate your wealth of information.

 

[logainofhades]

Xeon costs less and will give performance of a similar level to an i7. Xeons are made fo 24/7 use. If you don't plan on using the IGP, you could get the 1230 or 1240 that uses less power and will generate less heat.

 

[genz]

Performance within 5% of each other, lower price, and generally more reliable manufacturing... and in the event of failure, longer warranty.

 

[dwatterworth]

When I was explaining the difference in reliability between the E3 and i7 would be negligible if these were cooled well, I refer to the use of an adequate aftermarket cooler such as the Hyper 212 you mentioned.

I mentioned the E5 and E7 processors as more reliable as those are the segments that Intel makes huge mark-up on and can afford to toss some processors or down-grade defective units to lower clocked/lower core count units.

The E3 and i7 chips will see exactly the same lifespan if operated under the same conditions. The 100 mhz clock rate difference as I said before, you will not notice it in the slightest. The processor unless being overclocked at a silly voltage is often the most reliable part of the system. I have 386 chips in systems that I can't part with due to nostalgia that still boot up. A 5 year old processor when run in default configuration with decent cooling will perform exactly the same as the first day your posted with it.

I've been building heavy duty workstations for years now. Many dual processor xeon systems still in play at my architecture firm, operating as render farm nodes. These things see 100% load for nearly 100% of their lives rendering animations, stills or acting as hosts to remote desktops. I've also got many core2 duo's and even older opteron/AMD FX workstations that are left on 24/7/365 that are essentially choked with dust (not enough time in the year to keep every station clean) and continue to perform admirably.

Buy whatever is cheaper. You won't regret either purchase and if you put quality parts in to support the CPU's along with adequate cooling, your system will be outdated long before anything dies.

 

[blade of grass]

The biggest difference are that the Xeons are higher binned

Be careful not to mistake the terminology. Binning is not the process throwing away bad chips and chips with defects, it's the process of downgrading the chips with small defects that don't meet temperature/feature standards to a lower clocked model. Granted the standards are much higher for Xeons, but the vast majority of Xeon product lines don't actually scale enough to carry out any vertical binning.

Take the Haswell Xeon mentioned here... the only other product it could be binned to if it was a bad chip is the 1225 as all the other products have lesser GPUs, but the 1225 is only 200mhz slower (3.2Ghz) so more often than not a bad chip will just have to be scrapped when the equivalent chip from the consumer line will be downgraded to a 2Ghz model etc.

Binning is also finding and picking out the better chips (cherry picking could possibly be more fitting), and using those chips in the more expensive products.