Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 21,104
- Location
- Officially least sunny location -Ronskistats
Its total raw performance only matches an overclocked 3770K, which cost 3 times less (Not to mention the board price)
Why would you choose the same performance at triple the price?
If I was looking at it from an enterprise POV I'd buy two of the 4c/8t Haswell Xeon's at 200 a pop and build two systems at the same price and about 66% higher performance output.
Or, when Haswell-E comes, you'd just pick one of those Octo Cores while probably coming in at nigh on the same price.
Yes, there are things that can benefit from lots of cores and threads, but unless you get a stellar deal second hand, you'd be far better off with a 4930K than one of these Xeons, and have 300 quid spare.
The end performance of this Xeon at stock is that of a 4.6GHZ 3770K, that's performance available at 230 quid, whereas this CPU generally costs 3 times that.
I imagine you'd take two of these Xeon's and chuck them in ; Asus Z9PE-D8 WS Dual Socket C602
But then you're basically spending a crap ton of money to get the same end performance you're going to get from a single overclocked 8 core Haswell-E.
If anyone remembers on socket 1366, you could get some overclocking Xeon's, that was basically i7 920's? I remember someone basically selling 2 of those xeon's with the board for about 200-300 quid.
The way I see this is pretty hypocritical. For months some of us argued on the low tier CPU ground that the FX was slightly cheaper and offered similar performance (or some cases slightly worse) than it's i5 equivalent.
Your point stressing that as it was intel, you would pay the extra. This is one of the reasons martin why I find you as someone that likes to argue and act clever rather than dismounting off ones high horse and taking it like a man. As the saying goes: If the cap fits...