September 9th, 2006, 05:31 PM
Xeon or Dual Core
Hi, I have a dual Xeon 2.2g Processor system. im looking for a change. Now is Dual Core as fast as a dual Xeon processor. A lot of people have told me to stick to xeon. The dual xeon has hyp-thread tech, but the dual cores don't?
Not sure what the difference would be.
September 10th, 2006, 10:24 AM
to get are your real question, a dual Xeon system will probably be faster then a dual core system in most cases because the Xeon system has more FSB bandwidth to use (dual core basically has two complete CPUs in one package, it allows them to be optimized to better work together [so in some things dual core is better] and saves money, but they generally have less FSB bandwidth per core), but the woodcrest based Xeons are dual core anyways, right now the high end model of every CPU is pretty much at least dual core
if i were you i would buy the dual-dual core [4 core] Xeon (5100 series), Apple Sells one for $2500 (dual-dual core 2.66 Xeon) and I'm sure you could get it cheaper if you build it your self, also the 5100 series Xeon have a much better architecture so a 2.66 GHz 5100 Xeon is much much faster then the 3 GHz Xeon with hyperthreading, and you have twice as many cores (they also have a 3GHz 5100 Xeon which is pretty much the fastest thing you can get)
BTW, hyperthreading only gives you a very small speed increase, where adding an extra core almost doubles the processing power
September 12th, 2006, 04:27 PM
If I understand your question correctly, here's a better way of phrasing it:
If that's the case, then in most cases the answer will be yes. While P4-Xeons due have a bandwidth advantage, don't neglects to take into account the advanced prefetching logic ("Memory Disambiguation") which helps narrow the gap. You'll also notice that additional cache usually only helps significantly in server settings, rather than desktop ones, so most enthusiastic don't see a big performance gain. Depending on your Xeon, the Core2 Duo's cache may be larger.
Intel's implementation of HyperThreading (SMT) is unfortunately not inspiring and mostly serves to build up valuable organizational knowledge. It adds only a minor performance boost, and hardly makes up for the numerous limitations of the Pentium4 (NetBurst) architecture. You'll find that a Core2 processor will out perform a Xeon, clock for clock, in single-threaded applications.
If you purchase a Woodcrest Xeon, which is a Xeon based on the Core2 micro-architecture, then you'll have the best available. However most of the advantages of a server platform don't transfer well to home use, so I'd caution the investment. You may also wish to wait for the quad-core Xeons to be released later this year, which will coincide with a refresh of the Core2 line-up and price reductions. Regardless, a little Googling and you can find some benchmarks to see whether the performance/$ is worth it.
September 18th, 2006, 12:20 AM
I would stick with the Xeon's. If you want a change just upgrade them to a higher speed