What single processor is rougly the same speed as a Dual Xeon 2Ghz?

[camara120]

What single processor is rougly the same speed as a Dual Xeon 2Ghz setup?

 

[Duvie]

Well the general rule I have always heard is that dual is like actually 1.5 as the 2nd cpu doesn't give the whole 100%....The fact that a 2ghz xeon is older and I am not sure what incarbation of HT it had, but I would say 1 p4 3.2ghz p4c or above would be better...

Someone correct me if I am wrong..Couple that with the fact of the faster i875 chipset with dual channel ddr and tweak options I would say the 3.2c should do it....


Ofcourse I think is best world situation cause many apps may not even take advantage of the dual cpu anyways so in some instances cpus much lower can be as good....Now that is not to say it wil feel as snappy as the dual system will.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Duvie
Well the general rule I have always heard is that dual is like actually 1.5 as the 2nd cpu doesn't give the whole 100%....The fact that a 2ghz xeon is older and I am not sure what incarbation of HT it had, but I would say 1 p4 3.2ghz p4c or above would be better...

Someone correct me if I am wrong..Couple that with the fact of the faster i875 chipset with dual channel ddr and tweak options I would say the 3.2c should do it....


Ofcourse I think is best world situation cause many apps may not even take advantage of the dual cpu anyways so in some instances cpus much lower can be as good....Now that is not to say it wil feel as snappy as the dual system will.

A 3.2C would clobber a dual xeon 2ghz.

 

[Ronin]

Originally posted by: Duvie
Well the general rule I have always heard is that dual is like actually 1.5 as the 2nd cpu doesn't give the whole 100%....The fact that a 2ghz xeon is older and I am not sure what incarbation of HT it had, but I would say 1 p4 3.2ghz p4c or above would be better...

Someone correct me if I am wrong..Couple that with the fact of the faster i875 chipset with dual channel ddr and tweak options I would say the 3.2c should do it....


Ofcourse I think is best world situation cause many apps may not even take advantage of the dual cpu anyways so in some instances cpus much lower can be as good....Now that is not to say it wil feel as snappy as the dual system will.

2GHz Xeon's didn't have HT if I recall. If they did, it'd probably be a different story, but a 2.8-3GHz P4, or a 3200+/A64 3400+ would be at least in that league, if not beyond.

 

[Soulkeeper]

a P4 2.8ghz or above would most likely kill it in most benchmarks
the only ones the xeons would still win would be those highly optimized for dual procs but even then this is minimized with HT

i havn't looked at many xeon benchmarks recently so i could be a bit off
and comparing them is hard unless you mention which programs matter the most

 

[TerryMathews]

There isn't nearly enough information here to answer this question adequately.

If you're running a mostly CPU-bound application, it's possible to extract nearly (emphasis on nearly) full performance from a dual-CPU system. Distributed computing applications like RC5DES are a good example, although there are more realistic examples of programs that make good use of dual CPUs.

Cinebench, which is based on a real-world application by the same company, was able to hit 80% efficiency on my dual-Athlon on a 760MPX motherboard. I'm not very familiar with modern Xeon architectures, but on the Athlon each processor had a direct link to the chipset. Back in the P3 days, each processor shared the bus to the chipset. IMO, this is where the 50% came from.

Assuming dual Xeons have a link for each processor to the chipset, their efficiency should be similar.

Cliffs notes: All things being equal, you would need a 3.2GHz P4 to equal (2) 2GHz Xeons in Cinebench. Some tasks may yield higher performance. Some will yield lower. If you're multitasking, you'll see a bigger benefit from SMP. Just like you do from HT.