Intel Xeon X3210 2.13GHz Quad-Core B3-Revision

[PAGETITLE=Introduction] [Top Ad] With last months launch of Intel's 6x50 series of processors also came price drops that everyone had been anticipating for months. Rumors were that you would be able to purchase a Quad-Core for close to $300, and to everyone's relief, it proved absolutely true. However, while most will run towards the Q6600, many will overlook the Xeon alternatives. While not normally clocked the same, they had price drops as well, and should not be ignored. One of the more popular Xeon's that were noticed was the X3210, a Quad-Core clocked at 2.13GHz. While the clock speed leaves a bit to be desired for desktop users, it was hard to ignore the $250 price tag. This was at a time when Q6600s retailed for $280 - $300, so a small frequency drop could save you upwards of $30. But, to say 'less expensive' almost seems silly. Just last year, an E6600 cost close to $400, while a Q6600 today retails for $300 or lower. It's a great time to be building a new computer, there's no doubt about that. After last months price drops though, prices have fluctuated constantly. One day, the Q6600 might retail for $280 from your favorite e-tailer and then the next, you'll find it for $350. So needless to say, if you spot the CPU on the cheap, it's probably not the best idea to sit back and wait, if you want to secure it for the lowest price possible. At the time of writing, US e-tailers are selling the Q6600 2.4GHz Quad-Core for an average price of $280.00, while the X3210 sits at closer to $260. At that point, if big overclocking is in the cards, then the Q6600 is well worth the extra $20, unless you happen to find a X3210 G0 revision. Ahh, revision hunting. When Intel released G0 revision processors, it was a good day for enthusiasts. Every model seemed to overclock far beyond what was possible with previous revisions, so it's important to keep an eye out if overclocking is important to you. This is where things get tricky, however. If you are purchasing a processor from a random e-tailer, chances are good that it's a luck of the draw. However, you might be lucky enough to visit an e-tailer that will list the entire spec number. If the X3210 spec ends with SLACU, you know that it's a G0 revision. If it's SL9UQ, it's a B3, which is what we have on the test-bench today. On the Q6600 side of things, G0 revisions will end with SLACR, while B3 ends with SL9UM. So, if you can manage to snag a G0 revision, you will not be disappointed. If you don't have a choice and end up with a B3, hope should not be lost, as they are still amazing performers. For those wondering if Xeon processors are better in other ways over standard desktop chips, the answer is yes, but it might not mean much to you in the long run. Xeon processors are the cream of Intel's crop, so they go through a more stringent testing process to make sure they are perfect for server use. Aside from that, you could overclock a Xeon and Core 2 Quad to the same clock speeds and performance would be equaled. That all said, the processor we are taking a look at today, once again, is the Xeon X3210, clocked at 2.13GHz with a TDP of 105W and will run stable at 1.100v - 1.372v, depending on your motherboard and luck. Like it's desktop counter-parts, this CPU also features a 1066FSB with 8MB total L2 cache. This review will not be as full-featured as our usual offerings, since this product has been out for quite a while, and there aren't any surprises since it's mainly a speed change from the normal Core 2 Quads. Also, a lot of text is borrowed from our previous CPU reviews since it applies here as well. With that said, let's jump straight into our testing methodology. [PAGEBREAK] [PAGETITLE=Testing Methodology] Regardless of the OS we are running or product being reviewed, there are a few conditions that need to be met: Desktop and scrap files are cleaned up, including emptying of recycle bin/trash. No virus scanner or firewall is installed in our stand-alone installations. Internet is completely disabled prior to any testing. Computer has proper airflow and room temperature is 80°F or less. Here is the machine used for testing, followed by our operating systems configurations. Processor: Intel Xeon X3210 2.13GHz Quad-Core. Compared Processors Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.40GHz. Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.40GHz Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 3.0GHz Motherboard: ASUS P5K3 Deluxe WiFi-AP Memory: OCZ 2GB Platinum DDR3-1333 (7-7-7-20, 1.7v) Video: ASUS 8800GTX 768MB (NVIDIA 158.22) Sound: Onboard HD Audio. Storage: Seagate 7200.10 320GB Etcetera: Windows XP Professional SP2, Windows Vista Ultimate, Fedora 7 x86. Cooling: Corsair Nautilus 500 * 1066FSB processors are run with DDR3-1066 6-6-6-15 1.6v. Operating Systems For our CPU reviews, we use two different versions of Windows and one version of Linux. Even though Vista has been out for half a year now, we focus on XP because it has a much wider user base, and is preferred for the best performance and compatibility. Vista is used only for our SYSmark 2007 Preview suite. Windows XP Professional SP2 Screensaver and all power-related options are disabled. All chipset/motherboard drivers are installed, in addition to GPU. Windows Update is called in if a specific update is needed. Internet is disabled. Windows Vista Ultimate Screensaver and all power-related options are disabled. Welcome Center is disabled. UAC is disabled. Critical Windows Updates are downloaded, including a fix for the GPU. Security Center is altered to never nag about the settings. Internet is disabled, and Aero theme is enabled. Fedora 7 x86 During installation, Firewall and SELinux are disabled. GCC 4.1.2, Flex and Bison are installed. Internet is disabled. Game Benchmarking Game benchmarking is an important part of testing the capabilities of a CPU, and for this review we've included four popular titles: Half-Life 2, Prey, STALKER and Supreme Commander. Average FPS is captured using FRAPS 2.8.2, except for Prey, which is our only non-manual game. Half-Life, Prey and Stalker are played at 1600x1200 with 4xAA, Half-Life being the only one with bumped AF. Supreme Commander is the only game run at 1920x1200 with all options maxed alongside an 8xAA. This is because the game is multi-core compatible, and we wanted to see if the game would benefit from a quad-core in a realistic scenario. Each game play through lasts between 3 and 5 minutes, except Supreme Commander which lasts closer to 8. All run-throughs are manually played, except for Prey which uses a time demo, in order to break through the 60FPS hard-limit. Results are captured using FRAPS 2.82. Half-Life 2: Episode 1ep1_c17_02a STALKERThumb Drive Mission PreyKeepers Fortress Supreme CommanderFinn's Revenge All other non-game benchmarks will be explained along the way. Without further ado, let's proceed. [PAGEBREAK] [PAGETITLE=SYSmark 2007, GCC Compiler] SYSmark is an industry leading system benchmarking tool, which is completely automated but utilizes real-world tests. It installs common applications such as Microsoft Word and Excel, Photoshop CS2, 3DS Max, SketchUp! among others. SYSmark grades the performance of the system by how well it could handle different operations. Systems with more than one core will benefit in the tests, since there is a lot of multi-tasking throughout. Once the test is completed, it will provide you with an overall score, in addition to showing areas where the computer excelled. Running the entire suite shows us that this benchmark is totally capable of handing out appropriate scores for very fast CPUs. There are a few interesting points here. First is the fact that the extra CPU power helped the QX6850 storm past the others in the 3D tests, scoring a full 40 points higher than the 2.4GHz Q6600 and 53 points higher than our X3210. This is one benchmark where it seems faster Dual-Cores could outperform slower Quad-Cores. According to SYSmark, an E6750 is essentially on par with our X3210. If the suite put a greater push on using all of the available cores, we would have seen different results. However, it's at that point when the scenario would no longer be realistic. This does show us that Quad-Cores are not necessarily required for multi-tasking in an everyday environment though. GCC Compile When thinking about faster processors or processors with more cores, multi-media projects immediately come to mind as being the prime suspects for having the greatest benefit. However, anyone who regularly uses Linux knows that a faster processor can greatly improve application compiling, with the GCC compiler. Programmers themselves would see the greatest benefit, especially those who find themselves recompiling their application every few hours. Even if you don't use Linux, the results found here can benefit programmers in general, or those who simply wish to know what faster frequencies and additional cores are capable of. GCC is completely multithreaded friendly, so the results found here should represent the average increase you would see with similar multithreaded applications. For testing, we use Fedora 7 x86, as it's an easy distro to install and maintain. It's not bloated, which is important as well. Our target is a copy of Wine 0.9.30. The distro is based on the 2.6.21 Linux kernel and we are using GCC 4.1.2 as our compiler. For single core testing, "time make" was used while dual and quad core compilations used "time make -j 3" and "time make -j 5", respectively. As a single-core application, the X3210 was outpaced by everything, given the lower clockspeed, but when put into full gear (all four cores) it surpassed the Dual-Core processors on hand. If you have the need to compile, a Quad-Core of any speed is going to be amazing. [PAGEBREAK] [PAGETITLE=Multi-Media Benches] Any type of multi-media encoding/re-encoding/conversion will greatly benefit from multi-core processors and those with faster frequencies. Nero Recode is a tool we enjoy using...

Intel Xeon X3210 2.13GHz Quad-Core B3-Revision

Page 228 –

Rob Williams