# Please help me decide between Core i7 and Xeon E3



## classic35mm (Jun 28, 2015)

I'm considering a Lenovo ThinkStation P300 Tower Workstation (Windows 7 Pro), which I will use for normal office use, HD video streaming, and some (parallel) scientific simulations using Matlab, Mathematica, Fortran, and C/C++.  I _don't_ need ECC memory, and I _don't _plan to ever use more than 32 GB of memory in the system.  I will be getting a discrete graphics card with my system, so I _don't _need a processor with integrated graphics.

I want a processor with 4 cores / 8 threads.  I'm very much on the fence as to whether to go with Core i7 or Xeon.  Here are three particular such processors I'm considering (one Core i7, two different Xeons): 

*(1) Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3*
8 MB cache
4 cores / 8 threads
3.5 GHz base frequency
3.9 GHz max frequency
80 W TDP
32 GB max memory
Includes Turbo Boost and Hyperthreading

*(2) Intel Core i7-4790 [add $70 USD to (1)]*
8 MB cache
4 cores / 8 threads
3.6 GHz base frequency
4.0 GHz max frequency
84 W TDP
32 GB max memory
Includes Turbo Boost and Hyperthreading
Includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 4600)

*(3) Intel Xeon E3-1271 v3 [add $80 USD to (1)]*
8 MB cache
4 cores / 8 threads
3.6 GHz base frequency
4.0 GHz max frequency
80 W TDP
32 GB max memory
Includes Turbo Boost and Hyperthreading

_Please help me decide between Core i7 and Xeon.  _

Here is a detailed side-by-side comparison.

If I go with the Core i7-4790, will I be missing anything that a Xeon provides (assuming that I don't need ECC memory)?

Does the Xeon (3) with the same clock speed as the Core i7 (2) offer me anything more (except support for ECC memory, which I will never use)?  

Can I expect the Core i7 (2) to offer better single thread performance?  Can I expect the Xeon (3) to offer better multi-thread performance?  Can I expect the Xeon to be more reliable or have a longer lifespan?

I don't have the time or know-how to build my own system, even though that would give me more options and would probably be cheaper.  So I am stuck with the processor options that Lenovo is offering me (listed here).  Lenovo is offering several Xeon E3 processors, whereas i7-4790 is the only Core i7 they are offering with this particular system.

Thanks so much for your time.


----------



## bonehead123 (Jun 28, 2015)

Well, as you may already know, the Xeon E3's & the i7's are essentially the same processor, save for the ECC memory support and the integrated graphics.

Therefore, they are very similar performance-wise. 2 of the biggest differences I have found from using both of these cpu's are that the Xeon's run approx 6-10 degrees cooler and draw 5-10 watts less power than the i7's (given 2 otherwise identical system set-ups), due to the absence of the integrated graphics chip.

If lenovo will make that i7 a "k" model, then you will gain the ability to overclock it and add some sppppeed.  The Xeon's are basically locked down speed-wise.  Yes you can tweak certain setting in the BIOS to add a few 100 mhz or so, but thats about it.

Also, those math & scientific apps you listed do make use of the ECC ram and run better with it than without it, so this may be something you want to check into.....

As for single threaded/multi-threaded performance, I have noticed little if any difference at all between them, whether I am running 6-10 apps at once or only 1 or 2, even when running 3D modeling and database apps for work along with my browser, email, excel, photoshop and acrobat pro.....

Reliability...well thats anyone's guess, but my bet would be on the Xeon's, simply due to the lower temps & less power draw, but thats just IMHO  vmmv


----------



## dorsetknob (Jun 29, 2015)

Server cpu's ( Xeon ) are designed to run in far harsher envioments than retail Cpu
they generaly come from the best part of the silicon wafer


----------



## khanman125 (Jun 29, 2015)

I have a Xeon E3-1230 v2. The overclocking is very very small. Only able to get 103 BCLK. The only reason i bought it was becuase it was $100 cheaper than the i7-3770 but had similar performance and no iGPU.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 29, 2015)

Dude, this is like the 3rd thread you've made about buying this system.  I'm going to give the same advice I said before, don't buy it.

1.) It uses a proprietary power supply.
2.) You can go to NCIX and have them custom build you a better system for a very similar price.



classic35mm said:


> If I go with the Core i7-4790, will I be missing anything that a Xeon provides (assuming that I don't need ECC memory)?



No. The only thing the Xeons have(besides ECC memory) is TSX, which is used by nothing, AFAIK.



classic35mm said:


> Does the Xeon (3) with the same clock speed as the Core i7 (2) offer me anything more (except support for ECC memory, which I will never use)?



TSX and ECC, that is it.



classic35mm said:


> Can I expect the Core i7 (2) to offer better single thread performance?



The i7(2) and the Xeon(3) will have identical single threaded performance.  The Xeon(1) will have slightly worse.



classic35mm said:


> Can I expect the Xeon (3) to offer better multi-thread performance?



No.  Because of the way boosting works on the i7 vs. the Xeons, for 1 and 2 threads in use the i7 will run at 4.0GHz, for 3 threads it will run at 3.9GHz, and for 4 threads it will run at 3.8GHz.  The Xeon(3) on the other hand will run at 4.0GHz for 1 thread, and 3.8GHz for any more than that.  So in 2 or 3 threaded applications the i7 will be faster than the Xeon(3).



classic35mm said:


> Can I expect the Xeon to be more reliable or have a longer lifespan?



Note in any amount that matters.  By the time the lifespan makes a difference the processors will be long obsolete(I'm talking decades from now).  And the only thing that makes the Xeon more reliable would be ECC RAM, and you aren't planning on using that.


----------



## n-ster (Jul 1, 2015)

I don't really know you're applications, so make sure ECC ram is not needed

If it's not needed then you're better off with a custom built PC from NCIX or if you prefer physical locations, a MicroCenter or something similar

An i7 4790k is quite a bit faster than an i7 4790 and you only lose features you aren't planning to use anyways. Plus you get to customize everything, you can make it silent if you want, if your workload requires crazy amounts of I/O you can get a motherboard with sata express and m.2 and get much better performance, it might benefit from RAM output so you can get 2133-2400 RAM and maybe even switch to lga2011 for quad channel


----------



## HWTactics (Jul 1, 2015)

All three processors are nearly completely identical save a couple features (iGPU and ECC) you won't be using, as you can see from the comparison you linked.


----------



## Aquinus (Jul 1, 2015)

classic35mm said:


> I _don't_ need ECC memory


Don't get any Xeon because in all seriousness, ECC memory on the E3s is the only perk for what you're looking at.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 1, 2015)

I run a Xeon and use corsair vengence memory   you dont need ECC mem with All xeons and not with the one's you list
* Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3*
http://ark.intel.com/products/80909/
Memory Types DDR3 and DDR3L 1333/1600 at 1.5V

* Intel Xeon E3-1271 v3 
http://ark.intel.com/products/80908/
Memory Types DDR3 and DDR3L 1333/1600 at 1.5V*


----------



## Aquinus (Jul 1, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> I run a Xeon and use corsair vengence memory   you dont need ECC mem with All xeons and not with the one's you list
> * Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3*
> http://ark.intel.com/products/80909/
> Memory Types DDR3 and DDR3L 1333/1600 at 1.5V
> ...


Right, but my point is that there is no reason to get a Xeon over a i7 as ECC memory is really the only tangible difference between the two.


----------



## n-ster (Jul 2, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> Right, but my point is that there is no reason to get a Xeon over a i7 as ECC memory is really the only tangible difference between the two.



Just so that there is no confusion... Xeon are generally more expensive, hence Aquinus comment, but in this case,  between the 3 the Xeon will save him 70$ for basically the same performance (100mhz is not worth anything close to 70$)


----------



## classic35mm (Jul 2, 2015)

n-ster said:


> Just so that there is no confusion... Xeon are generally more expensive, hence Aquinus comment, but in this case, between the 3 the Xeon will save him 70$ for basically the same performance (100mhz is not worth anything close to 70$)



That's what I find rather confusing; the Xeon (1) is $70 cheaper than the Core i7 (2) for only 100 MHz lower performance.


----------



## HWTactics (Jul 2, 2015)

Again, all three are almost completely identical, so buy whatever is cheapest.  There is really nothing here that you're not seeing; all three are Haswell architecture, all three have four cores with HT and turbo about the same frequency.  The Xeons get the better silicon and have a 4W lower TDP because of it.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Jul 2, 2015)

So to sum up this thread since everyone keeps repeating the same damn thing. Just go the i7 and call it a day and stop making multiple threads on the same thing. If you dont like what you are being told, buy what you want as you probably will anyway and stop wasting everyone's, including yours, time. If you dont want the feedback of the community, there is no need to post.


----------



## HWTactics (Jul 2, 2015)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> So to sum up this thread since everyone keeps repeating the same damn thing. Just go the i7 and call it a day and stop making multiple threads on the same thing. If you dont like what you are being told, buy what you want as you probably will anyway and stop wasting everyone's, including yours, time. If you dont want the feedback of the community, there is no need to post.



I like this guy.


----------



## BiggieShady (Jul 2, 2015)

I think buying locked non K version is rather silly.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 2, 2015)

BiggieShady said:


> I think buying locked non K version is rather silly.



It is going in a system that has no overclocking ability, so why is it silly?


----------



## qu4k3r (Jul 2, 2015)

classic35mm said:


> ...I will use for normal office use, HD video streaming, and some (parallel) scientific simulations using Matlab, Mathematica, Fortran, and C/C++.  I _don't_ need ECC memory, and I _don't _plan to ever use more than 32 GB of memory in the system.  I will be getting a discrete graphics card with my system, so I _don't _need a processor with integrated graphics...



A) i7-4970 - iGpu + ECC support = E3-1271v3

B) E3-1271v3 - 100MHz core clock = E3-1241v3

C) E3-1271v3 - 200MHz core clock = E3-1231v3

D) i7-4770 - iGpu + EEC support = E3-1231v3

If you get an i7-4790, then you'll pay for an iGpu that you don't need and won't use.

If you get a Xeon, then you won't pay for an iGpu that you don't need, will get ECC support for free, and will use ECC ram only if you want.

My advice is get a Xeon E3-1231v3, save some money, and join the Xeon Owners Club.


----------



## n-ster (Jul 2, 2015)

classic35mm said:


> That's what I find rather confusing; the Xeon (1) is $70 cheaper than the Core i7 (2) for only 100 MHz lower performance.



Have you thought about having NCIX or another party build a PC for you? You'll get better quality and even better performance for the same price most likely, while lso having lots of options to customize it to your liking


----------



## BiggieShady (Jul 3, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> It is going in a system that has no overclocking ability, so why is it silly?


More like system with overclocking ability that is locked out of that ability.
Why is it silly? OP is buying/building a workstation with CPU performance as primary concern, and unlocked processors are out of the question?
If average gamer has a reason to overclock a CPU for extra couple of frames per second, then IMO artist/researcher has much more reasons to do the same (for perfect scaling of time needed for the rendering/simulations).
In my experience people don't buy cpu, mobo and ram as often as other hardware - I say when buying those, splurge a little and have unlocked parts with a bit oc headroom - higher initial costs are well worth it in a long run.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jul 3, 2015)

I would say go Xeon,   i am slowly turning into a Xeon slut and i love it.







wallpaper courtesy of @Rezasam1


----------



## Dethroy (Jul 3, 2015)

Performance wise all 3 of these processors are almost identical. Just go for the cheapest one -> the Xeon E3-1241 v3 that is.

i7s only make sense if you plan to overclock your cpu by a pretty big margin. Otherwise Xeons provide a much better performance/price ratio (not just the processor itself, but also mobo wise). In addition the Xeon runs cooler and uses less energy (disabled iGPU circuits).


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 3, 2015)

Dethroy said:


> Performance wise all 3 of these processors are almost identical. Just go for the cheapest one -> the Xeon E3-1241 v3 that is.
> 
> i7s only make sense if you plan to overclock your cpu by a pretty big margin. Otherwise Xeons provide a much better performance/price ratio (not just the processor itself, but also mobo wise). In addition the Xeon runs cooler and uses less energy (disabled iGPU circuits).



Xeons overclock quite well if you have right motherboard ask @CAPSLOCKSTUCK

ASK him Nicely and he will provide ScreenShots


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jul 3, 2015)

your wish is my demand


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jul 3, 2015)

apologies for the double post.

here is a better o/c but not for 24/7 crunching with 12 threads.

  4.235 ghz is not to be sniffed at, stock is 2.66. I game at 4.2ghz with 6 cores a touch more actually, i knocked it back a bit because it is so warm here at the moment .  (not bad for £ 72.00)


----------



## Dethroy (Jul 3, 2015)

One can only overclock the BCLK so much ... (since Sandy Bridge got introduced, Westmere was known for its oc-abilities)
Would be nice if one could adjust the multiplier. But nobody with a sane mind would buy K-processors then.


----------



## n-ster (Jul 3, 2015)

Guys guys



> I don't have the time or know-how to build my own system, even though that would give me more options and would probably be cheaper. So I am stuck with the processor options that Lenovo is offering me



Does this statement make you think he will be overclocking? and personally I would not be overclocking without an aftermarket cooler, which he doesn't seem interested in installing anyways.

This is not your target audience for overclocking, no matter how great it has been for you

That said I'd still suggest an i7 4790K to him for the 4Ghz to 4.4Ghz base clock speeds


----------



## Caring1 (Jul 3, 2015)

classic35mm said:


> _Please help me decide between Core i7 and Xeon.  _
> 
> I am stuck with the processor options that Lenovo is offering me (listed here).  Lenovo is offering several Xeon E3 processors, whereas *i7-4790 is the only Core i7 they are offering* with this particular system.


@n-ster You conveniently missed this part that makes your suggestion irrelevant too.
The base Xeon is the one to choose as they are all basically the same, so it comes down to which is cheapest.


----------



## n-ster (Jul 3, 2015)

I already mentioned that out of those 3 the cheapest Xeon was obviously the best value . However even better would be to have it built by NCIX or even a local shop like MicroCenter. The i7 4790k would give a good performance boost and everything will be customizable to get quality and performance needed, for the same price as this or better


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 3, 2015)

Caring1 said:


> @n-ster You conveniently missed this part that makes your suggestion irrelevant too.
> The base Xeon is the one to choose as they are all basically the same, so it comes down to which is cheapest.



Actually, I'd still go with the i7.  As I mentioned, thanks to the higher TDP of the i7, it has a slightly different boost algorithm than the Xeon.  So while it is only 100MHz faster when 1 and 4 cores are loaded, when 2 cores are loaded it is actually 300MHz faster and when 3 cores are loaded it is 200MHz faster.  IMO, $70 is not all that much more, and if you never plan on upgrading the CPU, you might as well go with the best you can afford.



n-ster said:


> I already mentioned that out of those 3 the cheapest Xeon was obviously the best value . However even better would be to have it built by NCIX or even a local shop like MicroCenter. The i7 4790k would give a good performance boost and everything will be customizable to get quality and performance needed, for the same price as this or better



I've already suggested this in all 3 of his threads, he totally ignores it.  I've told him the Lenovo is a bad deal.  He could get an NCIX system with more memory, the same processor, and an actually decent graphics card(GTX960) for pretty close to the same price he plans to pay for the Lenovo.

The Lenovo he's looking to buy with a 4790, and a K420 he says he needs for CUDA is $1,160.  And it only has a proprietary 250w power supply, 500GB Hard Drive, and 4GB of single-channel RAM.

The NCIX Impact R2 Tier 3 with a 4790, a GTX960, a 500w power supply, a 1TB Hard Drive, and 8GB of dual-channel RAM. It comes out to $1,130.  It is $30 cheaper, and every spec except the processor is better, the processor is the same as the lenovo.

Both systems were with Windows 8.1 Pro x64 too.


----------



## n-ster (Jul 3, 2015)

Yea I saw that, I figure if I keep asking he'll at least acknowledge it, even if it is to say that he doesn't want to do that. So far I can't even tell if he understands what we mean or anything


----------



## Caring1 (Jul 4, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> Actually, I'd still go with the i7.  As I mentioned, thanks to the higher TDP of the i7, it has a slightly different boost algorithm than the Xeon.  So while it is only 100MHz faster when 1 and 4 cores are loaded, when 2 cores are loaded it is actually 300MHz faster and when 3 cores are loaded it is 200MHz faster.  IMO, $70 is not all that much more, and if you never plan on upgrading the CPU, you might as well go with the best you can afford


True, and if he is doing a lot of calculations, crunching etc then a XEON Processor is the way to go, regardless of who builds the system.
With the right Motherboard he can take advantage of the increased cache and Ram capabilities as well as use ECC Memory.
For compute purposes the small increase in Mhz speed won't make much difference.
In the OP's original post he mentions using it for scientific research, although he states he does not need ECC ram.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 4, 2015)

Caring1 said:


> True, and if he is doing a lot of calculations, crunching etc then a XEON Processor is the way to go, regardless of who builds the system.



Why? The Xeon offers no performance improvement.



Caring1 said:


> With the right Motherboard he can take advantage of the increased cache and Ram capabilities as well as use ECC Memory.



The Xeon has the same amount of Cache and supports the same amount of RAM as the i7.


----------



## classic35mm (Jul 4, 2015)

Hi everyone, thanks for all your time and help.  It's much appreciated!

The main reason I am hesitant to have a rig built by NCIX is that it only comes with a 1 year limited warranty, whereas Lenovo has a 3-5 year warranty with onsite service.  Yes, I know that many of the components in an NCIX would have their own manufacturer warranty for longer than 1 year, but I'd rather have the whole system warrantied so that I don't have to prove that a particular component is broken.  (You know, in the world of computer warranties, there is a lot of finger pointing.   )  And, yes, I know that a Lenovo warranty may have several downsides, and I wish they gave me more options in terms of parts, but for right now it seems like the best option for me.  I don't have my own IT department, unfortunately.

Thanks again for all your help!


----------



## n-ster (Jul 4, 2015)

classic35mm said:


> Hi everyone, thanks for all your time and help.  It's much appreciated!
> 
> The main reason I am hesitant to have a rig built by NCIX is that it only comes with a 1 year limited warranty, whereas Lenovo has a 3-5 year warranty with onsite service.  Yes, I know that many of the components in an NCIX would have their own manufacturer warranty for longer than 1 year, but I'd rather have the whole system warrantied so that I don't have to prove that a particular component is broken.  (You know, in the world of computer warranties, there is a lot of finger pointing.   )  And, yes, I know that a Lenovo warranty may have several downsides, and I wish they gave me more options in terms of parts, but for right now it seems like the best option for me.  I don't have my own IT department, unfortunately.
> 
> Thanks again for all your help!



Thank you for that explanation! I'll just see if there are other options, let me know what you think of them:

http://www.ncix.com/article/Entra-PC-Pro-S-Series.htm#start

Does come with 3 years Next Business Day on-site warranty, though the value isn't great, I'll see if I can find something else. FYI, I've had more problems warranty-wise with whole system warranties than individual component warranties, and by a very big margin, YMMV

CyberPowerPC https://www.cyberpowerpc.com/system/Mega_Special_II







PSU is 550W Enermax 80+ Gold
Win 7 Pro (Which was 100 something)
5 Year service 3 year parts warranty (which was 350$)


----------

