3.0 Ghz Xeon versus 3.2Ghz P4

[schatham]

I'm looking to get a system (most likely a Dell Workstation) that'll be a stable platform for around 4 years. Basically office work, some coding, some database, email, some photo manipulation (not to any great extent). The plan is to use it for a home office for 2 years, then move it to a business office where it will be used mainly as a community machine for the office to use, for another 2 years.

I'm comparing a 3.0 Ghz Xeon (the workstation will house 2 of them, but I am currently looking at just one), versus a 3.2Ghz P4 as the base for this system.

Assuming all other things to be equal, is the 3.0 Ghz Xeon going to perform the office functions faster than the 3.2Ghz P4?

Is there any chart/comparison anywhere on something like this? How would the dual Xeons perform, as compared to the 3.2 Ghz P4?

 

[Cooler]

If FSB and l2 are equal Single 3.2 P4 will be better then single 3.0 Xeon.

 

[Leper Messiah]

xeons have more cache generally than P4s, but for the price, they aren't worth it unless you're putting them in to some kind of server. Even then Opteron>xeon, so yeah. If you're forced to go with dell, get the P4. Spend the money on something else, more RAM, bigger HDD or something.


Dual xeons are a different story I guess, but for home/office work they're overkill.

 

[schatham]

The only reason we had been considering the Xeon was that the machine needed to have a 4-5 year lifespan. I was thinking that the Xeon with 1 CPU might be fine for the first couple years of the computer's service, and then adding the second CPU might buy some time on the back-end of that 4-5 year span.

Thank you both for the info.