Two Dual Core Intels or One Quad Core?

[InertKinesis]

Hi everyone,
So my dad's looking to buy a new computer, and he's given me the following question to answer: Of the following two, what setup will provide better performance?

(2) x Dual Core Intel Xeon Processor 5150 2.66GHz, 4MB L2, 1333
or
(1) x Quad Core Intel Xeon Processor X5355 2.66GHz, 2 x 4MB L2, 1333

Perhaps it would help to provide the following: These are going to be running in a Dell Precision 490 or 690 workstation, under Vista Ultimate (32-bit). The majority of processor-intensive time will be in Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Acrobat, and Adobe Premier. I am pretty sure that the first and last of those are multi-processor capable. This isn't going to be a gaming computer of any kind; Spider Solitaire (does Vista still have it? ) will be the most intense game on it.

Thanks,
Mike

 

[dude_se]

i would probs go for the 2nd and vista does have spider lol

 

[esa193]

dont go for the 2 unless your running a server cuz the bottlenecking and the delay would be huge

 

[freestyler105]

Honestly, both will be awesome. Either way, it'll be way more than fast enough for Photoshop and Premiere. And Acrobat, well, that'll be like nothing to it.

 

[Jenox]

Honestly, it doesn't matter. The Quadcore is the SAME thing as two Dual Core C2Ds put together. In fact, that's exactly what the quad core is, two Core 2 Duo's attached together...

Look at the specs, it's exactly the same. But i think the ONLY difference is in how the cache is divided up. The 2x C2Ds will have 8MB L2 Cache divided in half between two processors, whereas the Quad Core is two sections of L2 cache (4mb ea.) divided amongst one processor, therefor making it technically faster because there is no bottleneck.

Either way, we're talking about the world's smallest bottleneck ever...so just take a pick, for me it's "What's cheaper" and that's the decision maker.

 

[esa193]

no if your useing 2 cpus in to cpu slots that would create a lot of bodel neacking
the intel core 2 quad is to intel core2duo chips yes but there so close and on the same chip that there basicly is no bodelnecking problem but
if your have to cpu on to diff slots
the bodel necking goes way up
this is offcourse if your using this as one pc like playing games ect...
but if your running a server is makes no difference becouse the data does not have to be split up like if you were playing a multicore application. a server would just put on job in each core

 

[Jenox]

No, if you're using 2 CPUs in two CPU slots that would create a lot of bottle necking. The Intel Core2Quad is two Intel Core2Duo chips. But they're so close and on the same chip that they're basically is no bottle necking problem, but if you have two CPUs on two different slots the bottle necking goes way up. This is of course if you're using this as one PC like playing games ect...

But if you're running a server it makes no difference, because the data does not have to be split up like if you were running a multi-core application. A server would just put a job on each core.

Corrected for spelling/grammar/etc etc. Hope it helps.

 

[Celegorm]

Corrected for spelling/grammar/etc etc. Hope it helps.

that wasn't really nessisary, his orriginal post was still readable.

but i do agree with him, the quad core would eleiminate all the bottlenecks you would experiance with the 2 dual cores. even if it is more expensive, it would be worth the price when it comes to performance.

 

[ownage]

How about two socket quad cores? haha. Get the single chip quadcore.

 

[Celegorm]

How about two socket quad cores? haha. Get the single chip quadcore.

lol now taht would be worth any bottle neck