2 Dual versus 1 quad

[hmarsh]

Given the choice of a desktop single Intel quad processor configuration or a dual Xeon dual core configuration, which will give better performance all other items being equal (FSB, memory, disk congtroller, disk, etc)?

I'm in the proess of building a new rig and am interested in others experience.

Main use for the rig is business apps, photoediting, multimedia processing.

thx

h

 

[aka1nas]

The dual Xenon setup would theoretically have more bandwidth available, but it's not worth the additional expense unless you have very specialized performance requirements. Also, if you're going to spend that much on such a board and ECC/FBDimms, you might as well spend a few hundred more and get dual Quads.

 

[hans007]

i think you'd have more fsb bandwidth with a xeon setup , but you'd take a performance hit because of FB-dimm latency.

basically for 4 or less cores just stick with a desktop config.

if you want 8 get a xeon.

 

[jmmtn4aj]

4 cores on the same die should be a little quicker, but right now, I'm going to guess the dual dual setup will be slightly faster, because even in the current quad cores, each pair (1 die) has to go through the FSB to communicate with the other pair.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: hmarsh
Main use for the rig is business apps, photoediting, multimedia processing.

thx

h

A single quad would manage those tasks easily, and probably be cheaper. Course where is the fun in that?

PS

My Rig = Dual 5320 Xeons @ 2.5GHz

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: jmmtn4aj
4 cores on the same die should be a little quicker, but right now, I'm going to guess the dual dual setup will be slightly faster, because even in the current quad cores, each pair (1 die) has to go through the FSB to communicate with the other pair.

most xeon boards have dual independant buses.