Server grade hardware vs consumer

[olson]

There are a lot of differences and nuances but the primary difference is scale. For example a typical consumer motherboard has one processor socket, two to four memory slots, one or two PCI-Express x16 slots, etc. A typical server or workstation has two or four processor sockets, 16 to 32 memory slots, as many as seven PCI-Express x16 slots, you get the idea.

Some of the other differences are in the efficiency and longevity/reliability of components. For example "80+ Gold" and "80+ Platinum" power supplies are not uncommon in servers and workstation but very rare in consumer machines unless the buyer specifically sought out a high efficiency power supply. Fans with sleeve bearings are common in consumer hardware and they have a much shorter lifespan the ball bearing (and other equivalent) fans. Down to the component level there are differences in the capacitors, chokes, voltage regulators, and even the board itself (four layer versus six layer PCB). Support is another big difference but that's a whole other discussion.

Consumer hardware these days is much better than it was ten years ago and is "good enough" for most users assuming the extra scale offered by workstation and server hardware is not needed (like hundreds of gigabytes of memory or dozens of processor cores). Hopefully that answers some questions? :thumbsup:

[nitro912gr]

Thanks that's useful.

So if I got it right, there are not real benefits if the workload you and the system will face is not big, like for example creating some complicated animation with a lot of details.

Which will require more resources and the workstation grade motherboard's can take (like extra RAM and another CPU) or external cards which require PCI-e slots.


I got this part, but I wonder something more as well.

A Xeon CPU, is better at something from the equivalent i7 CPU?

[olson]

A Xeon CPU, is better at something from the equivalent i7 CPU?

No. A Xeon with the same specifications as a Core and from the same generation will perform equivalently. The difference is the Core processors lack the QuickPath Interconnect (QPI) which allows processors to access memory attached to other processors since modern processors have the memory controller on-die instead of on the motherboard. In other words the Core processors only work in single socket configuration, and Xeon processors can work in dual socket configurations (or quad sockets for Xeon 7000 series).

All of the above applies to AMD as well with the Opteron series and FX series processors but they call it HyperTransport (HT) instead of QPI and have been doing it for a half decade prior to Intel.

[nitro912gr]

ok thanks again.

Now I hope that apple will make a computer at the near future that will be either an iMac with mate display or a mac without monitor :P

Because now I realize that I don't need a workstation.

[LoydB]

Because now I realize that I don't need a workstation.

I just built a new machine around an i7-3960X processor. Using the 3d Studio Max scanline renderer on the 3dspeedmachine.com test, it slightly outperforms (1m9s vs. 1m15s) a dual-Xeon 5600 board. So the currently top-end consumer chips can certainly give you the raw performance of a last-generation (well, the new Xeons aren't shipping yet, so it's not technically last-gen yet) dual Xeon setup.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.