XEON 450 512K or PIII 500?

[tuando]

Does anyone own a XEON MB? Is it really fast (50% faster) compare to PIII with the same clock speed? If it were you whould you buy a XEON or a PIII MB? The main application will be 3D modeling for electrical and mechanical parts. Your insight thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Tuan Do

[Dominus]

I'd definately go for the Xeon for those applications. The one you described has the exact same cache size as a P2 or P3, but it's cache is _full speed_ compared to the half speed of the P2 & P3 cache. The cache also supports ECC i believe.

If you get a Xeon, I suggest ECC Sdram as well.

Not sure about the "50%" faster part, i'll have to look up some benchmarks for that.

[Bleeding Edge]

I agree with Dominus. Go for the Zeons.

I assembled a system with dual 450Mhz PII Zeons earlier this year for someone. Couple of U2 drives and registered C2 ECC modules.

"Snappy. Absolutely responsive."

The lucky guy's running similar apps. CAD, graphics and 3D-Modeling. I'll upgrade it with a raid drive sub-system later this fall using the built in RaidPortIII slot on the motherboard. Throw in one of those Wildcat vidcards...

I've been fooling around with a NT system this week. Assembled it from spare parts. PII 400Mhz clocked at 450...

...Sadly, it doesn't compare.

[tuando]

Thanks for your explanation. Do you have any recommendation regarding wich motherboard will be best suited for the XEON?

[BBA]

BE
You do know that it will be faster if you adjust the registry setting for the amount of L2 cache the CPU has, it wont make a P2 act like a Xeon but it helps.

NT normally defaults to utilizing 256K L2 cache, because it was built around low cache motherboards/cpu's ( most had 256K at the time, even those with P-Pro's ).

It gets substantially faster with the adjustment. To do it, launch 'REGEDIT' and do a search for 'SecondLevelData' It will show up 3 times, under current control set keys. I also set the large system cache entry to "1" under the same key.

And,if you wan't it really 'snappy' search for 'MenuShowDelay' and set its value to 100 or so ( default is 400). This decreases the timed delay for menus to pop up.

If you run a cpu with a lot of cache, setting the cache key is a must!

tuando, A motherboard for the Xeon is a slot 2 design, not interchangeable with a P2/3. They also use the GX chipset. Most reputable server manufacturers will produce the boards for Xeons, but they are not typically found in the overclockers arena.


BBA

[This message has been edited by BBA (edited 07-31-99).]

[Bleeding Edge]

I forgot. Thanks for the reminder, BBA. I did set the NT's L2 value for the Zeon machine. It was awhile back so I forgot about it this time around.

The MenuShowDelay I always do because I use it in 98. I set it to 15. Can't tell the difference from 50 but...

There's the MinAnimate "0" setting in HKCU\Control Panel\Desktop\WindowMetrics key.

I selected the SuperMicro S2DGU www.supermicro.com/ (http://www.supermicro.com/) with the built-in U2 controller. They have a newer one with dual U2 controllers. It may be better to buy the controller separate. Easier migration to another board later. But I thought with dual Zeons, a fast disk and video sub-system, we'd pretty much use it as is.

I'd consider the Tyan Slot2 ThunderBolt boards next time around. www.tyan.com/ (http://www.tyan.com/)

Thanks again BBA.



[This message has been edited by Bleeding Edge (edited 07-31-99).]

[Bleeding Edge]

BBA.

I recall modifying only one entry for the L2. Are you saying that it should be done for the three that show up?

I should have looked at the entry before asking but, at the chance of you being here now...

[tuando]

Many thanks, you guys are superb.
I learn new trick in NT regarding setting the Cache.
A new topic that I would like to submit to you. I currently own a TYAN DUAL PROCESSOR MB W/ ONE PII 266. I just went to a local computer fair and look for a 2nd CPU. But no luck, everybody now sells at least PII 450. Is it worth to buy a 2nd CPU while waiting to get a XEON next year (I will have more cash and the Xeon price may drop between now and then)? Your comments and insight thoughts is greatly appreciated.

Tuan

[Bleeding Edge]

Moving from a 260 to a 450 is worth the cost of the performance gain over a six month period. Considering you'll be waiting that long before you buy the Zeon; the $220 for the 450 P2/P3, at $37 per month sounds justifiable. It is an odd way to look at it but definitely easier to justify buying the 450 now.

I hope BBA drops buy to clear up that L2 question posted above...

[Joel Kleppinger]

Here's an idea: See if you can clock the P2 up to 300 MHz (4.5x66), then get a Celeron 300A PPGA and get a slotket for dual operation... It should run you less than $70 total for dual action @ 300 MHz.

And if anyone wonders, you CAN mix and match P3s, P2s, and Celerons (fixed for dual, of course) as long as they have the same multiplier and can handle the equal MHz.

Joel

[Dominus]

Is this registry cache fix also an issue for Win 95? or is it just NT?

Just wondering if this applied to other OSes.

[This message has been edited by Dominus (edited 07-31-99).]

[Bleeding Edge]

Far as I know, the reference is made only to NT. I haven't delved into 98's registry. But the entry's not the same, upon a quick glance. The NT key is: HKLM\system\currentcontrolset\control\SessionManag er\memory. Value name: SecondLevelDataCache. A decimal notation in kilobytes (512).

I didn't realize we could use different processors. Joel. I never even thought to wonder. Erringly, I always thought it had to be exactly the same. To the extent that it would be better if they came from the same production batch.


It sounds like you know from experience... http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

Anyhow, I did a find in the NT registry, and the value does come up more than once but it looks like it is in the exact same Key. Should I enter a value for them both?

[This message has been edited by Bleeding Edge (edited 07-31-99).]

[tuando]

I did take a look at NT registry but I only find one Value name SecondLevelData and LargeSystemCache. I modify those value one after the other, reboot to see if there is any differences. Either I set up the wrong thing or my computer hasn't been setup correctly, anyway it has a reverse effect i.e. it slows down at boot up process rather than speed up.
Note: I didn't find the same Value name for WIN95 and didn't try for WIN98 yet.

Thanks to all of you providing with such valuable suggestions and helps.