Dilema: Dual Xeon or Dual Core system ?

[gilwe]

I have to decide which system to go for. My main host is Nuendo, and I used to use a DELL Precision 670 Dual Xeon 3.2 on a daily basis recording and mixing using Nuendo and misc plugins. My biggest session containts so many plugins and still plays fine with no stuttering etc. on this particular machine.

Now I came across a DELL Precision 650 Dual Xeon 3.06 system which I wanted to buy, and the price asked is the same price I would pay for a new dual-core computer, but I can't decide which one would be preferable because I really have no experience running those sessions on dual-core systems...

Do you think a 3.2 dualcore machine will be able to hold the same amount of plugins and stay "alive", like the Dual Xeon 3.2 did ?

I recall trying that "big" session on a dual Xeon 2.8 server and it performed exactly the same as on the dual Xeon 3.2 - so I thought that there might be more to it than the CPU configuration itself which makes it that string (i.e bus speed, CPU task schedualer etc.) - in a way that only server motherboards can do.

My main dilema - spend 800$ on that precision 650 or get a new 64bit supported dual core 3.2 (or 3.0) system ?

[jupiter8]

http://www.adkproaudio.com/benchmarks.cfm
According to this site a 2.8 DC Pentium is a tad slower than a 3.2 dual Xeon setup,so a 3.2 DC Pentium should in theory be roughly on par with the Xeons.

Of course an AMD X2 4400 smokes them both and what you really want is a dual DC Opteron setup.

[RTaylor]

http://www.pricewatch.com/cpu/

Dual core Xeons look pretty nice. Tyan has a bunch of spiffy new boards that are compatible as well. $2000 or so would get you 2 Xeon 5080 dual-core 3.73ghz processors and a dual board {depending on what Tyan is asking.}

What I've read about them sounds pretty nifty.

[DevonB]

Dual CPU is slightly more efficient than dual core. Dual CPU is significantly more expensive than dual core to build, especially after the price changes come here end of this month. Also, that 3.06 Xeon is using 533Mhz FSB, whereas the 3.2 should be 800Mhz FSB.

Devon

[RTaylor]

http://www.tyan.com/products/html/xeon.html

That does say "1066/1333MHz FSB support", no?

[jupiter8]

Dual CPU is slightly more efficient than dual core.

Is that for Intels only or is that applicable to AMDs as well ?

I believe i read something about the memory controller architecture that made DC AMDs more efficient than duals.Could have misunderstood the whole thing though.

Just curious.

[RTaylor]

The Pricewatch description: Intel HH80555KH1094M Intel - Xeon 5080 Dual-Core - 3.73Ghz - 2MBx2 L2 Cache - 1066FSB - Socket LGA 771 - Dempsey Core - DUAL-CORE INTEL XEON PROCESSOR 5080 3.73GHZ 1066MHZ/2X2M/LGA771 OEM Part No - XEON771

You really should read up on them...

[RTaylor]

Intel Xeon Dual-Core 5060 3.20GHz Dempsey Core 1066MHz FSB, 2x 2MB Cache, EM64T, LGA771 Socket 771/J CPU Processor: BX805555060P (Retail with PASSIVE Heatsink and 3-Year Intel Warranty)

^ Of course, you can get two of these for around $7-750.

[gilwe]

So generally, would you recommend dumping that dual Xeon in favour of a dualcore 3.0/3.2 system ?

[RTaylor]

So generally, would you recommend dumping that dual Xeon in favour of a dualcore 3.0/3.2 system ?

It looks pretty incredible and {again, depending on the price of the board} like you can put together most of a system for under $1500. I read in, I believe it was Information Week, a while back {don't quote me on that} that this crop of Intel processors should pretty much eat AMD. They are pretty exceptional.. Intel must have gotten a little ticked when AMD's 64 bit processors dared to threaten their stranglehold on the industry. :}

I don't know if I'd recommend them quite yet though. You might wait 'till Vista ships and set everything up just right or you might want a bit of practice with the system first. {A Tyan can be a cantankerous thing. Once you've tamed the unruly Tyan-beast though they make for some of the nicest computers around.} I'd read up on them and see if you can find someone that's used one or maybe wait a bit until some of the reviews and bug reports get flowing. If I knew they'd work exactly like they should... I'd say grab one and run with it. I've not built one yet so I can really only guess.

[DevonB]

http://www.tyan.com/products/html/xeon.html

That does say "1066/1333MHz FSB support", no?

I was thinking Pentium 4, not Xeon. My mistake.

Devon

[RTaylor]

http://www.informationweek.com/hardware ... =189602015

Regardless, there are pleasant times acomin'.

[DevonB]

Dual CPU is slightly more efficient than dual core.

Is that for Intels only or is that applicable to AMDs as well ?

I believe i read something about the memory controller architecture that made DC AMDs more efficient than duals.Could have misunderstood the whole thing though.

Just curious.

I'm going by benchmarks I've read about the 'net. The dual CPU was a tad bit faster than the dual core. Which CPU? I'd have to go digging. Really, I didn't care that much when a dual core is so much cheaper than buying a dual cpu motherboard, 2 CPU's, and Windows XP Pro compared to Home to even get it to work, not to mention, good chance you need registered/ECC memory that is a bit slower than standard unbuffered memory.

Devon

[RTaylor]

Really, I didn't care that much when a dual core is so much cheaper than buying a dual cpu motherboard, 2 CPU's, and Windows XP Pro compared to Home to even get it to work, not to mention, good chance you need registered/ECC memory that is a bit slower than standard unbuffered memory.

Read up on it.

You can always buy the board and a single dual core processor and put in the second when you feel the need. {How 'bout them "common sockets"?}

[gilwe]

The specific Dual Xeon 3.06 uses standard DDR400, and the price is for a used system, if that makes a difference...