Hi, I just saw:

Intel Xeon 1.5GHz Heatsink and fan, 256K cache, FCPGA, 3-Year Intel Warranty: $ 228.00

and

Intel Pentium III 1.26GHz FCPGA processor, 512K cache, 133MHz FSB, supports dual processing: $ 382.00

Is a Xeon slower than a "normal" Pentium III?! OK I recognized that the PIII has 256k more cache, but the xeon was designed for professional use, wasn´t it? And it is more 240 Mhz faster but still more than $120 cheaper? So what is faster for server using (database, dynamic content ...)?

For Servers.... A Xeon would be better....

I believe that a 1.5Ghz Xeon would be based on a Pentium 4, while as you know the Tulatin is a P III. I have no idea which is faster (haven't seen any benchmarks of the new Xeons yet, though I'm sure they're out there), but it's not just the same chip running faster, it's a completely different design.


-joe

They'll be roughly the same performance... remember, clock for clock the p3 is faster than the p4.

Also, the P3 boards are cheaper than the Xeon ones, so I would go P3.

Current Xeon processors are running on 1.4, 1.5, 1,7 and 2 GHz and have 256K L2 cache.

Current Tulatin (Pentium III) processors are running on up to 1.26 GHz and have 512K L2 cache.

Bigger cache is essential for server tasks, especially for a database. According to this URL:

http://www.intel.com/intel/product/processors.htm?iid=ww42intelhome+prodproc&

Intel positions Xeon processor as a processor for workstations, and Pentium III Xeon, Pentium III and Itanium processors as processors for servers.

This should change as Xeon processors with bigger cache are introduced.

just found some tests with a 1.7 xeon, PIII 933 and Athlon 1.2
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1472


how much does a xeon (dual xeon) board cost?