PDA

View Full Version : Xeon dual processor vs Standard Intel Quad?



WaxSteel
09-22-2007, 04:41 AM
Hi all

Things are a changin' at work and I'm wondering if its worth trying to buy the machine I use. Its a recent Dell Precision 490 with two dual core 2.0 ghz Xeon 5130 processors, Nvidia Quadro FX 3500 256mb & 3gb of ram.

Ah, I notice on the Dell website I can get a single quad core processor in this kind of machine now from Dell....Intel® E5320 Quad Core Xeon® 1.86GHz,1066 MHz,2x4MB Cache. Is it worth getting one of these now over a dual processor like above??

I'm not sure how this weighs up against the recent standard non Xeon Intel quad core processor Dell machines - I mean I'm talking about Intel® Core™ 2 Quad-Core QX6600 Processors like Dell sell in their XPS 710 series.

Can anyone put this into perspective for me. The Dual Processor Xeon I use seems great but is it now old hat compared with price vs power now available 5 months later?

Bytehawk
09-22-2007, 07:49 AM
i'm wondering myself what's the best processor vs money one can buy atm.

got a dual single core Xeon 3.0 ghz. processor machine

WaxSteel
09-22-2007, 08:03 AM
So Dual Processors Rule over Duo Processors everytime?? Does that hold up vs a single Quad processor - the Dell non Xeon Quad retails about £1100 once I get the stuff I want in it.

Recently rendered some simple raytraced balls rolling around for an animation & was getting about 1.5mins a frame on the Dual Xeon, then went home & tried it on my Centrino Duo laptop & was getting 2.5 - 3 mins a frame.

Machines like this Xeon cost about £1300 from new, so was wondering if its worth making a fuss about now before it goes to someone else.

Bytehawk
09-22-2007, 08:36 AM
hmm, I 'm waiting for this 64 bit thing to settle before getting a new pc

might even go mac.

SP00
09-22-2007, 09:06 PM
hmm, anyone hear anything about the new AMD Quad core Opteron base on the Barcelona architecture? Seem like the best bang for the buck.

pixym
09-22-2007, 09:38 PM
If I had a workstation to buy, I would make my choise with a Q6600 and Overclocked him with good ram devices (Gskill). I know people that uses this CPU and Gskill RAM @ 3,4ghz with classic air cooling!

WaxSteel
09-23-2007, 12:03 PM
So a single Quad Core 6600/6700 rather than dual duo core Xeons?

DogBoy
09-23-2007, 12:06 PM
Yes. It's cheaper and you can get cheaper/faster RAM (as long as a maximum of 8GB of RAM will do you).

I'd go single Quad or dual Quad. Nothing else. But then I'm not reknowned for my thriftyness ;)

Captain Obvious
09-23-2007, 04:30 PM
A single CPU with four cores is just as fast as two CPUs with two cores each. The only reason you'd want a Xeon is to get two CPUs with four cores each.

WaxSteel
09-24-2007, 04:47 AM
Ah, but I was interested in comparing this Dual Processor Xeon with the 6600/ 6700 Quad processor (not the Xeon Quad E53xx ). Don't Xeons walk all over the non Xeon processors?

I could probably get a new Dell with the 6600/6700 quad but I think the Xeon Quad is probably over my budget. If the Dual Xeon I'm using (but want to own) is still comparable to the 6600/6700 quad then I might fight for it.

Lightwolf
09-24-2007, 04:57 AM
Don't Xeons walk all over the non Xeon processors?

Nope. As long as the specs are the same (Cache, Clock, number of cores) you can expect pretty much the same performance.

Cheers,
Mike

Signal to Noise
09-24-2007, 09:02 AM
If I had a workstation to buy, I would make my choise with a Q6600 and Overclocked him with good ram devices (Gskill). I know people that uses this CPU and Gskill RAM @ 3,4ghz with classic air cooling!

Yes, I just built a 64-bit system with the Q6600 and 4GB of Crucial Ballistix DDR2 PC2-8500 (1066MHz). I had the cpu oc'd to 3.0 GHz using stock cooling. I just bought a Zalman CNPS9700 NT cooler which has reduced my idle and load temps by about 19^C @ 3.0GHz, using Prime95 for the stress tests. I plan to go to 3.4 GHz when I get around to it. Some forums show people are getting up to 3.8GHz on air only cooling. I think that's pushing it. But overall, the Q6600 is proving to be a very good chip for it's pricepoint.

WaxSteel
09-24-2007, 10:18 AM
Nope. As long as the specs are the same (Cache, Clock, number of cores)

Great, just what I needed to know. Thanks for the input everyone, now I just need to find some money ....

Lightwolf
09-24-2007, 10:20 AM
...now I just need to find some money ....
If you find some, tell me where. I've been looking for ages as well ;)

Cheers,
Mike

evolross
10-15-2007, 02:27 PM
As some of you may know, a good resource for processor benchmarks and comparisons is Tom's Hardware's CPU Charts. It has CPUs, mobile CPUs, and video chipsets. It also has a really nice feature that shows you the best "bang for your buck" in each category. I like where the Intel Core 2 Quad (Q6600) is sitting. Newegg.com has them for $277.99.

Tom's Hardware CPU Charts (http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html)

My only complaint is that is doesn't compare server class CPUs (Xeon and Opteron) at all and it doesn't compare workstation video chipsets (Quadro and FireGL) to the same benchmarks as the desktop video chipsets.