knockout34
New Member
would two 2ghz dual core xeon processors be that much worse than two 2.66ghz dual core xeons?
Question
- Thread starter knockout34
- Start date
Someone has been posting some erroneous information there. When you combine two NVidia 7900 GTs you don't end up with 15800! That is not how things work when running two video cards in sync with each other on SLI or Crossfire. Those are model numbers not actual performance gains.
Now even on a dual processor board a faster pair of cpus will see a good number of things run faster due to the faster processing power. A dual cored set of 2ghz cpus will certainly run better then a pair of 2ghz single cored model cpus with multitasking right from the start. But programs as well as the operating system will certainly see a gain with the large gap when running a pair of the faster model cpu. You can see that with single cored models as well.
Now even on a dual processor board a faster pair of cpus will see a good number of things run faster due to the faster processing power. A dual cored set of 2ghz cpus will certainly run better then a pair of 2ghz single cored model cpus with multitasking right from the start. But programs as well as the operating system will certainly see a gain with the large gap when running a pair of the faster model cpu. You can see that with single cored models as well.
fade2green514
Active Member
depends on what you're doing. some applications don't require all the performance two dual core 2.66ghz xeons would offer.
you could look at it this way... in single threaded applications, you get about 2ghz out of the one, and 2.66ghz out of the other. in dual threaded apps, you get 4ghz out of the 2ghz xeons, and 5.32ghz out of the 2.66ghz xeons. in quad threaded apps you would get about 8ghz out of the 2ghz xeons and 10.64ghz out of the 2.66ghz xeons... so ultimately it depends what you're doing, but either way the ratio will be the same. so... say you need to convert multiple videos at one time using all 4 cores. the 2.66ghz setup would give you 2.64ghz faster performance, while in a single threaded app it would only give you .66ghz faster performance. it all depends on how much time you have, if you ask me.
what do you plan on doing with the computer? maybe we can help you decide.
you could look at it this way... in single threaded applications, you get about 2ghz out of the one, and 2.66ghz out of the other. in dual threaded apps, you get 4ghz out of the 2ghz xeons, and 5.32ghz out of the 2.66ghz xeons. in quad threaded apps you would get about 8ghz out of the 2ghz xeons and 10.64ghz out of the 2.66ghz xeons... so ultimately it depends what you're doing, but either way the ratio will be the same. so... say you need to convert multiple videos at one time using all 4 cores. the 2.66ghz setup would give you 2.64ghz faster performance, while in a single threaded app it would only give you .66ghz faster performance. it all depends on how much time you have, if you ask me.
what do you plan on doing with the computer? maybe we can help you decide.
Clutch
banned
It's impossible to obtain 100% effieciency with the two cores, so 2x2GHz Xeons in a dual threaded app does not make the performance of a 4GHz Xeon.fade2green514 said:
Ever hear of sarcasm?
Unless he was actually serious... I hope not.
Last edited:
I certaintly hope that wasn't supposed to be serious but only a comparison when discussing the SLI setup seeing a higher performance then a single card just because it was a slightly newer model. Before dual cored cpus came out the way to multitask large programs like CAD and other things was to run a dual cpu board over use of a single cpu. That there saw the extra punch needed.
The idea of OCing a cpu is to gain processor speed by running it at a higher frequency. When at default the dual core offers the multitasking support while running at the default speed. The gain is simply going to a faster model to bring up the base speed. On older Socket A boards the AMD XP3200 only slightly faster then the 3000+ by clock speed saw things load faster. A ".6ghz" difference there would see a larger gap then the difference between 2.205ghz and 2.167ghz on those models. That's more like a jump from the XP1800 1.533ghz to the 3000+ at the 2.167ghz on Intel models.
The idea of OCing a cpu is to gain processor speed by running it at a higher frequency. When at default the dual core offers the multitasking support while running at the default speed. The gain is simply going to a faster model to bring up the base speed. On older Socket A boards the AMD XP3200 only slightly faster then the 3000+ by clock speed saw things load faster. A ".6ghz" difference there would see a larger gap then the difference between 2.205ghz and 2.167ghz on those models. That's more like a jump from the XP1800 1.533ghz to the 3000+ at the 2.167ghz on Intel models.
knockout34
New Member
well for now, mostly games schoolwork, and internet. down the line i may be doing some video.
here this is the basic setup.
http://www.macmall.com/macmall/shop/cart/shopping_cart~action~view.asp
Last edited:
Dr Studly
banned
We know that! But having two dual cored cpus at 2ghz will usually outperform any pair of single cored cpu setup for the obvious advantage of multitasking on a larger scale. Just imagine two quad cored cpus at the same and compare them to the pair of 2.66ghz Zeons. In that sense you would leave the 2.66ghz setup in the dust. That would be more processing power then a good number of businesses use.
knockout34
New Member
so 2 dual core 2.66 ghz wouldnt make that much of a difference?
here this is what im getting. (it is a total of 3 gb not 2)
http://www.macmall.com/macmall/shop/...ction~view.asp
Last edited:
Your question was about "how much worse" it would be to go with the lower model pair not if it would make a difference between a pair of 2ghz cpus and the alternate 2,66ghz model. The 660mhz will obviously see a difference even if those were AMD not Intel models being compared. The point here is that the 2ghz model would be adequate unless you were strictly after the higher speed and performance.
The link you posted there sees this message upon arrival. " We're sorry, but that page cannot be found."
You will have to relocate the intended page there.