I don't know how popular these are you you folk, but for non-gamers the Xeon Family of sever chips are worth consideration. Although my favorite the E3-1230 is currently available, Intel will be releasing (this week) an Ivy version of it, dubbed E3-1230 V2. It is a 22nm part running at 3.3 Core, 3.7 Max Clock (vs 3.2/3.6 for the E3-1230 V1). TDP has also decreased from 80 to 68 watts.

Compared to a 2600K ( 3.5GHz running at Load, 1.188v), the Xeon (at 3.5GHZ, 1.032v) uses 111 watt vs the 2600K 137 watt.

Using the original E3-1230 as a guide, V2 should do nicely on the recently released 7 series motherboards with my preference going to the H77 (non-overclockable) chipset- and the boards based on the H77 are quite reasonable.

Preliminary comparison review here:

http://en.expreview.com/2012/04/16/intel-xeon-e3-1230-v2-processor-review/22470.html

I'm not sure why you would want to look at an Ivy Bridge-based Xeon and then pair it with a consumer motherboard. You'll lose the features that differentiate the Xeon series from the regular Core i series, namely ECC memory support. You might as well go for the equivalent consumer version.

Of course, by getting a Xeon E3 you do have the option of getting one with graphics disabled (ending on '0') or not (ending on '5'), but I like the idea of being able to fall back to integrated graphics if my dedicated graphics card should suddenly give up the ghost.

Personally, I'm waiting for a refresh of the ASUS P8B WS (whatever that'll be called) based on the C216 PCH paired with something like a Xeon E3-1245 v2. The C216 is the (high-end) Xeon-oriented version of Panther Point. It's the same chipset as Z77, Z75, H77 etc. but with a sligtly different set of features enabled/fused off.

That particular Xeon is unsually cheap which makes it unusally competitive.

There are a number of advantages to running a Xeon on a non-server board. My goal in building a computer is getting a computer powerful enough for my needs while also keeping both heat and costs low.

There is sufficient data comparing the original Xeon to the I7 showing that the Xeon is non-inferior at savings of about 30%. The Xeon can be viewed as inferior only in the area of overclocking: Xeon's don't overclock, but neither do I (a perfect match so far). Preliminary data from Hong Kong shows V2 having the same advantages. The server CPU's are of course binned for higher quality by Intel.

As for making use of ECC via a server board, this would be a very expensive foolish choice for me. As my computer is for home use and not some mission critical application I have absolutely no need for ECC which is very expensive. The majority of server boards include features that I don't need, are expensive, and few have a sound chip included. I would also prefer a dedicated Video card instead of having one on the CPU (increased heat) or on the Motherboard. Aside from the increased voltage and heat thrown off, I would rather replace a $50 video card than a $200 motherboard ( I use a Radeon 6450- fanless- which in my use runs cool and is perfect).

Finally what choice consumer motherboard? As I said above, I don't overclock so the Z series boards are useless for me. The H77 boards seem ideal, and the most expensive solution is $139.

So in short I have a system that fits my needs: an Ivy CPU (non-inferior to the I7) that will run cooler combined with an Ivy board at a total price that just about matches the cost of the I7 ivy CPU by itself. The only downside is that I have to wait for it to show up in the USA.

I didn't in any way claim that Xeons are inferior to consumer Core i CPUs. In fact I believe it's quite the contrary. I was merely questioning the prudence in pairing a workstation/server CPU with a consumer motherboard since you (to a certain extent) lose out on the strengths of the Xeon CPU, namely ECC capability. Also, the Xeon variants usually cost somewhat more than their Core i counterparts.

And you really shouldn't brush off ECC as non-important. As memory sizes grow so does the potential for memory errors and running a 24h "torture test" doesn't mean the memory will be errorfree or that it will not develop bit errors along the way.

I for one would never again build a computer without ECC memory after having lost important data to memory corruption. It's not even that much more expensive than regular memory. Newegg lists 8GB at prices around $50 for normal and at around $60 for ECC Unbuffered (which is what you usually need).

As I said previously, choosing a Xeon because they come with the IGP disabled for power reasons is a valid reason, but in my opinion that's about the only reason you'd want one instead of a regular Core i in a consumer setup.

And like I also said, personally I'm waiting for the follow-up to ASUS' P8B WS motherboard and then I'm going to pair it with something like the E3-1245 v2 and either 8GB or 16GB of ECC memory. And a potent graphics card, but that's another story altogether. I also do not overclock.

Personally i would go with server board with xeon cpu, but that just me, supermicro and tyan would be my top pics for it.

If you want a none server board that has on board audio and that supports xeon, that will also allow to use the built in GPU (like P3000 on the Xeon e3-1235) is the ASUS P8B WS LGA 1155 Intel C206 ATX Intel Xeon E3 Server/Workstation Motherboard, i used one briefly but return it out of thinking that it was defective (turn out was my hdd that was causing random reboots), its a nice mobo, kinda has a lot of what a consumer board has, but with some of the server features, i manage to use the iGPU of the i3 2125, i was so frustrated building it not finding the issues with the reboots, that i just bought all stuff again and then reuse some stuff on the htpc, The mobo comes with on board audio and should support a dedicated GPU (never tried it), also has support to ECC memory but you can also use standard.

We probably will see a new iteration once the ivy bridge server chipsets are released, like sandy bridge was c202, c204 and c206.

That's pretty much what I meant when I referred to the follow-up of the P8B WS. I know it's coming but I've no idea what it'll be called. The server/workstation variants of Panther Point are supposedly called C21x, so the high-end version would probably be the C216. Unlike the C206, which is pretty much a relabled version of the H67, I'm hoping for the C216 to be more like the Z77, just without the overclocking support. On some level it continues to irk me that Intel deliberately gimps its CPUs and chipsets in order to "differentiate" and "segment" the market, but what can you do.

One more thing to the OP: You have to be very careful in checking that whatever consumer motherboard you have in mind will actually accept a Xeon CPU. That's not necessarily a given even though all Ivy Bridge, and also all Sandy Bridge, CPUs are practically identical.

Guys- I think you're missing the original point. If any feel the need for a server, by all means build a server. But most here do not want/need ECC and other server bells and whistles for a home machine.

The point I originally wanted to make was that there is another cheaper alternative to an I7 CPU which would be a better alternative to those who had no intention of overclocking. As to a motherboard, the H77 (although not advertised) has native support for Xeom As an example see the H77 Pro4-M CPU compatibility:

http://www.asrock.com/mb/cpu.asp?Model=H77%20Pro4-M

A nice board for under $100.

So adding the savings from the CPU, the motherboard, the higher quality bin, and the better thermal qualities together, why would any not consider the Xeon as an option?

Habit.

Also lots of people use the IGP and wouldn't consider an i7 to begin with on account of their pricing so...

Are there any mini-ITX server boards out there what will take a Xeon E3-1230 V2?

@dvdmonster: Considering that Xeon E3 based on Ivy Bridge doesn't even exists, and considering there are no ITX C202/C204/C206 boards, and considering none of the desktop chipsets accept Xeons according to their CPU support lists, we can safely say no, and probably there won't be any.

DVD- only one mini-ITX board is in production currently, the Intel DBS1200KP Mini ITX based on the C206 chipset (1155 slot). Specifications here:

http://ark.intel.com/products/60637/Intel-Server-Board-S1200KP

And Faug- Many desktop boards happily accept a Xeon. It's really just a matter of the BIOS recognition. Those that stay on top of it include ASRock. For example:

http://www.asrock.com/support/cpu.asp?s=1155&u=461

Also the v2 Xeons have been out for a few weeks in Hong Kong, so they do exist and are available to some.

@Intel board: missed that one board somehow, thanks for the correction.
And the CPU's being out in Hong Kong means someone is selling stuff he isn't supposed to sell, and pretty pointless if you don't have BIOS update for that part.

Intel did a limited rollout of the V2's in HK prior to the general release this month. And I guess I wasn't clear on the BIOS comment. Only the desktop board BIOS's need the tweak. If a board already accepts a Xeon first generation it will also accept the V2 version without issue.

Now available (OEM only) in Singapore also. Bulk in USD is $215, so final retail when it gets to the USA should be ~$250.

And just something that may be of interest to the SPC crowd, the new Xeon E3-1220L:

Cores:2
Threads:4
Frequency: 2.3 GHz
Turbo Freq.: 3.5 GHz
L3 Cache: 3 MB
TDP: 17 Watt

Yes, 17 watts.

17W without an IGP isn't all that impressive.
What's nice about these specs is the turbo frequency (similar to the old 20W 1220L). But what sort of cooling would you need to take full advantage of the turbo in practice?

Looks like Intel will release the V2 Xeons to the rest of the world on May14th. Preorder price has also been tweaked lower, so am hoping for a retail on the 1230 to be about 230USD.

Energy requirements do far seem to be coming in as 45w at idle (3.3), 105w at full turbo (3.7).

Update- Passmark finally has the E1230V2 listed here:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html#

With a score of 9959 note that only the I7-3770's will exceed it (by a max of 5% for the 3770k), but at about a 33% premium in price. The 3770 does have HD Graphics 4000 of course, but I'm assuming none here are interested in that!

Finally priced, alas at a premium at ~245USD. Surprised that version 1 hasn't moved down at launch.

Finally got my hands on the 1230v2 and would like to present a few findings. Please note 2 things:

1). I am in NO WAY a professional tester.
2). Those that should be interested in the Xeon as a desktop CPU are non-gamers, non-overclockers.

For the test I used the same computer based on an ASRock Z77 Pro4 LGA 1155 motherboard. I chose this MB for 2 reasons- first, it fits my personal needs perfectly; second, I got it free at an ASRock Dog and Pony show. Three CPU's were tested- the i7-3770K, I7-2600K, and obviously the 1230v2. The graphics cores on the i7's were disabled. I won't bother to give the rest of the setup since it was identical in all 3 cases (and I'm certain different from your preferred setup) I won't give any absolute numbers. just percentage differences.

1). Price- Currently the Xeon is the cheapest. The 2600k is about 60USD higher. The 3770k is about 100USD higher,
2). Base clock- 1230v2- 3.3GHz, 2600K- 3.4GHz, 3770K- 3.5 Ghz

Tests- WinRar compression- The 3770K outperformed the Xeon by 7%. The Xeon outperformed the 2600K by 5%.

Cinebench- Once again, the 3770K was better than the Xeon by 7%. The Xeon beat the 2600K by 3%.

ConvertXto DVD- I use this to check encoding times. There was about a 1% difference among the 3. Not really statistically significant result.

Power Needs- No real difference between the Xeon, the 3770K, and the 2600K (using a consumer model WattsUp analyzer) at rest. The systems more or less ate up ~35 watts. At what I considered load the Xeon and 3770K were about equal at 98 watts, the 2600K was a pig at 125W.

Conclusion- Pretty apparent. For those non-overclockers who would prefer to use a discreet Video Card, want excellent performance and hyperthreading, and are also fiscally responsible (ie cheap), the Xeon seems to be the way to go.

What about temperatures? Do you think the Xeon is running cooler than the 3770k?

Sorry about that! I actually held back on purpose as I'm certain that my smearing on of the thermal paste varied from one CPU to the next. But with that in mind: I won't give the absolute numbers as that would vary with the heatsink and fan used.

The results:

The 2600K ran coolest at rest and at load.
The Xeon was second with +2.5C at rest and +2C at load
The 3700K was the hottest at +6c at rest, +5C at load.

I was uncertain if I should be surprised. Looks like the 22nm process does lead to higher temps. That would explain the lower 2600K temps. As to the difference between the Xeon and the 3770k- just my conjecture but I think we are seeing the quality control binning of the Xeon and perhaps more care when it is assembled. Or it could just be the 3770k having a higher (3.3 vs 3.5GHz) operating frequency.

You said the Sandy Bridge draws a lot more power, so no. That's what matters and not the frequency. The Sandy Bridge seems to dissipate heat better. But lots of things such as poor calibration could explain small differences such as those you found between the Ivy Bridges.

I'm not surprised about the Sandy-Ivy difference. It's getting to be well established that a decrease in process architecture is inversely proportional to temps.

If you pick and choose your data maybe. It would be interesting to see a plot of average CPU temperature (ha ha ha!) for 90nm, 65nm, 45nm, 32nm and 22nm. I for one remember some dogs of CPUs in that list around 90 and 65nm, and some rather nice CPUs fabricated at 32nm for example. So it's a lot more complex than just smaller == hotter.

Intel's 22nm is a lot more than just a geometry shrink, so that might explain why it's apparently not quite as good as its predecessor. Or it may be other things, eg. packaging of the CPUs.

This thread is interesting. I went for the i7 3770 due to HT, HD 4000 & Vt-d features. I doubt Xeon are available for sale for mainstream market and where I am living.

I was checking and discover that Core i7 is equivalent to Xeon E3.

Pity that the new V2's weren't available for you. Although I much prefer a CPU without integrated graphics, a Xeon very similar to what you needed is the E3-1245v2. This has HT, HD 4000 & Vt-d; it does run at a Frequency of 3400 MHz, Turbo frequency 3800 MHz vs the I7's 3500/3900. That extra 100MHz of the I7-3770 comes at a rather large premium. Bulk price for the Xeon is 266USD, for the I7 is 342USD!!!

Specifics:

1). For the Xeon E3-1245v2:

Microarchitecture Ivy Bridge
Platform Carlow
Processor core Ivy Bridge-H2
Manufacturing process 0.022 micron High-K metal gate process
Data width 64 bit
The number of cores 4
The number of threads 8
Floating Point Unit Integrated
Level 1 cache size 4 x 32 KB instruction cache
4 x 32 KB data cache
Level 2 cache size 4 x 256 KB
Level 3 cache size 8 MB
Multiprocessing Uniprocessor
Features:
* MMX instruction set
* SSE
* SSE2
* SSE3
* Supplemental SSE3
* SSE4.1
* SSE4.2
* AES instructions
* Advanced Vector Extensions
* Extended Memory 64 technology (EM64T)
* Execute disable bit
* Virtualization technology (VT-x / VT-d)
* Turbo Boost technology 2.0
* Trusted Execution technology
* HyperThreading technology

Low power features Enhanced SpeedStep technology
On-chip peripherals

* Dual-channel DDR3 memory controller
* Direct Media Interface 2.0
* PCI Express interface
* HD 4000 graphics controller

Thermal Design Power 77 Watt

2). For the i7-3770-

Processor core Ivy Bridge
Manufacturing process 0.022 micron
Data width 64 bit
The number of cores 4
The number of threads 8
Floating Point Unit Integrated
Level 1 cache size 4 x 32 KB instruction caches
4 x 32 KB data caches
Level 2 cache size 4 x 256 KB
Level 3 cache size 8 MB shared cache
Physical memory 32 GB
Multiprocessing Uniprocessor
Features:
* MMX instruction set
* SSE
* SSE2
* SSE3
* Supplemental SSE3
* SSE4.1
* SSE4.2
* AES instructions
* Advanced Vector Extensions
* Extended Memory 64 technology (EM64T)
* Execute disable bit
* HyperThreading technology
* Turbo Boost technology 2.0
* Virtualization technology (VT-x)

Low power features Enhanced SpeedStep technology
On-chip peripherals

* Dual-channel DDR3 memory controller
* Direct Media Interface
* PCI Express 3.0 interface
* HD 4000 graphics controller


Thermal Design Power 77 Watt

Also remember that the Xeon's support ECC and non-ECC (of course you would need an expensive server MB for the ECC, and VERY few people in any way need ECC) ; but the best thing is that Xeon's undergo a much more rigorous quality binning process. Intel would NEVER want to alienate in any way the big business client!

Finally was able to get a e3-1270V2 and run a few tests on it. No surprises, it was almost identical in testing to a non-overclocked i7-3770. So now we have the full family of Xeons (except for the 1280 which is quite expensive) to have a little performance/cost comparison:

With the E3-1230v2 as the baseline and using Newegg for prices:

The E3-1240V2 is ~3% faster, 14% more expensive.
The E3-1270V2 is ~6.5% faster, 42% more expensive.
The i7-3770 is ~6.5% faster, also same price as the 1270V2 at 42% more expensive.

As an FYI, the E3-1280 which runs at 3.6GHz base, 4GHZ turbo should be about 10% quicker but is an outrageous ~158% more expensive. Yikes!!!

The Xeon E3 v2 is quite interesting. I've been looking for when Dell's doing a refresh of the PowerEdge R210 II, and during the last week it was updated to the E3 v2. It's the same price, which is nice. Here the price of the E3-1230V2 is equal to the i5-3570K. The former is 100 MHz slower, but features VT-d, 8 MB cache and Hyper-Threading. If you're not overclocking, it's the least expensive way to get 94 % of the top end i7 3770, for only 82 % of the price.

Is the power consumption of a system with discrete graphics and the E3-12x0V2 (no iGPU) equal to the E3-12x5V2 (w/ iGPU)?

A CPU with graphics will almost always use less watts than a CPU plus discrete video card, but to what extent will be up to your choice of cards. The Xeon 12X5's will take about 8 watts more than the Xeon 12X0's, but even the most innocuous non-gaming graphics card, the Radeon 6450 (fanless, of course) will draw 9 watts at idle, ~27 watts at load.

What is the approx comparison at load? That would be more important for me than idle. If you know?