dual Core compared to dual cpu

[ncage]

This is thread is suppose to be a compare/contrast of dual core compared to dual cpu. Which is better and why? AMD dual core are suppose to be able to communicate with each other through SRI without leaving the cpu but benchmarks ive seen pretty much say it doesn't make that much an improvement. Intel has to communicate between the cores on the FSB. So would you consider dual core & dual cpu about even? I wonder if we compared a dual opteron 150 to a single dual core 4800+ x2 how they would compare. What does everyone else think?

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

I have seen reviews but am too tired to look them up that showed a definite improvement on the dualcore versus the dual cpu setup at the same speed. I believe the dualcore approached the dual cpu setup of the next speedgrade in some instances but was equally slower in others. I think the use of non-registered memory (and usually the registered memory has ECC) also makes a difference however. When I am not sleepy I will try and track down some benchmarks.

 

[Markfw]

Big differences. With dual-socket motherboard, you quite oftem get 8 memory slots (more memory) and quite oftem PCI-X, which comes in handy for heavy-duty SCSI stuff (I know, thats what I got mine for), and you can now get dual-core opterons for up to 16-core servers, but relatively cheap. (compared to other 16 cpu servers).

But for your example , If SCSI bandwidth is not a concern ? dual-core AMD all the way ! Forget Intel at the moment, they have nothing to offer in virtually any area. Even the Dothan has the Turion-64 at its heels ! (even though Dothan wins, but not price/performance)

 

[redhatlinux]

The comparison on straight cpu speed would not be that meaningful. The Dual mobos usually include other 'features' to keep the beast fed. If you have massively parallel processes to run, then the X2 would probably be better, but if the requirement was for a true server environment, 2 cpus are better. You can't have a big fire without somebody fetching the wood.

 

[Bona Fide]

For the mainstream user, dual CPU is just far too expensive. Opterons/Xeons are usually costly, and a decent motherboard will also cost quite a bit. Add in your ECC-certified RAM, SCSI hard drives, PCI-X cards, and all that, and you're paying roughly 2x or 3x what you would for a comparable dual-core with regular RAM, SATA hard drive, and normal expansion cards.

 

[formulav8]

High bandwith I would go with Dual Cpu's since they have dedicated bandwith for each cpu. Almost any other usage, I would do Dual Core.



Jason

 

[ncage]

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
I have seen reviews but am too tired to look them up that showed a definite improvement on the dualcore versus the dual cpu setup at the same speed. I believe the dualcore approached the dual cpu setup of the next speedgrade in some instances but was equally slower in others. I think the use of non-registered memory (and usually the registered memory has ECC) also makes a difference however. When I am not sleepy I will try and track down some benchmarks.

That would be a cool read...please link if you get a chance.

 

[ncage]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Big differences. With dual-socket motherboard, you quite oftem get 8 memory slots (more memory) and quite oftem PCI-X, which comes in handy for heavy-duty SCSI stuff (I know, thats what I got mine for), and you can now get dual-core opterons for up to 16-core servers, but relatively cheap. (compared to other 16 cpu servers).

But for your example , If SCSI bandwidth is not a concern ? dual-core AMD all the way ! Forget Intel at the moment, they have nothing to offer in virtually any area. Even the Dothan has the Turion-64 at its heels ! (even though Dothan wins, but not price/performance)

i understand that but im just talking two cpu system because we don't have 16 core cpu's yet .

 

[ncage]

Originally posted by: redhatlinux
The comparison on straight cpu speed would not be that meaningful. The Dual mobos usually include other 'features' to keep the beast fed. If you have massively parallel processes to run, then the X2 would probably be better, but if the requirement was for a true server environment, 2 cpus are better. You can't have a big fire without somebody fetching the wood.

What do you mean by keeping the beast fed? SCSI along with raid? The bus architechture as far as i know is no better on a dual cpu system. Xenons work off of one bus.

 

[ncage]

Originally posted by: Bona Fide
For the mainstream user, dual CPU is just far too expensive. Opterons/Xeons are usually costly, and a decent motherboard will also cost quite a bit. Add in your ECC-certified RAM, SCSI hard drives, PCI-X cards, and all that, and you're paying roughly 2x or 3x what you would for a comparable dual-core with regular RAM, SATA hard drive, and normal expansion cards.

I understand the expense and this is why i never had a dual cpu system . I was just thinking tonight on how they would compare in performance. Dual cpu have pci-x & scsi but that doesn't mean all dual cpu systems have scsi hardware or pci-x hardware. Some just have ide/sata drives and pci hardware.

 

[Dadofamunky]

I myself couldn't answewr that as I stopped building dual-CPU systems in the Pentium 200MMX days. That stuff ran great for me but the result was that the OS executed on one CPU while any apps I ran executed on the other. The Tyan boards tended to be more expensive but ran like little tanks. I am excited about the X2s though and have to REALLY fight myself to not plump for one posthaste

 

[aka1nas]

Depends on what kind of dual cpu machine we are talking about. Xeon's use a serial bus architecture with 1 CPU hanging off the other. This leaves them bandwith starved just like the Pentium D's. However they currently have HT while regular Pentium Ds do not.

On the AMD side, dual-core A64s are pretty comparable to Dual Opterons.

As an earlier poster mentioned, dual cpu machines are workstation or server class machines and will usually have registered and/or ECC RAM, which is a bit slower than the regular RAM we crazy overclockers use. They also tend to have beefier expansion(64-bit PCI-X) buses to support things like high-end SCSI RAID. The AthlonMP platform was the closest thing we have had to (relatively) cheap SMP with decent gaming potential until the X2's came out.

 

[ncage]

Originally posted by: aka1nas
Depends on what kind of dual cpu machine we are talking about. Xeon's use a serial bus architecture with 1 CPU hanging off the other. This leaves them bandwith starved just like the Pentium D's. However they currently have HT while regular Pentium Ds do not.

On the AMD side, dual-core A64s are pretty comparable to Dual Opterons.

As an earlier poster mentioned, dual cpu machines are workstation or server class machines and will usually have registered and/or ECC RAM, which is a bit slower than the regular RAM we crazy overclockers use. They also tend to have beefier expansion(64-bit PCI-X) buses to support things like high-end SCSI RAID. The AthlonMP platform was the closest thing we have had to (relatively) cheap SMP with decent gaming potential until the X2's came out.

Good point. The AMD64 x2 & opteron 2 way at the same frequency should be about the same this is if the bus on the x2 isn't starved for more bandwith.