Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Colocation and Data Centers : Dual xeon 2.8 vs Quad Core 6600

[jolly]

Which CPU is better 2 physical CPU of 2.8ghz Xeon vs Single CPU of quad core 6600.
Quad core got more FSB and L2 Cache and less power.

Thanks

[CNSERVERS]

If it's the old Xeon, I would choose q6600.

[CGotzmann]

does not matter. the new cpu's process more per clock cycle.

Core2Quad Q6600 = 4 x 2.4Ghz, 8MB L2 Cache
Dual Xeon 2.8Ghz = 2 x 2.8Ghz, 1MB or 2MB L2 Cache (depending which CPU you get)

So its:

9.6Ghz vs 5.6Ghz and 8MB Cache vs 2MB Cache (at the most)

[VINAX]

Originally Posted by jolly

Quad core got more FSB and L2 Cache and less power.

The Core2Quad Q6600 absolutely faster and better than the Dual Xeon 2.8GHz.

[CiscoMike]

Originally Posted by AFerrier

So its:

9.6Ghz vs 5.6Ghz and 8MB Cache vs 2MB Cache (at the most)

While the Conroe/Kentsfield/Penryn families are significantly faster than the old NetBurst garbage of 2006 and earlier, Ghz do not add up like that. You can process up to 4 different threads but no single thread will ever run faster than the clocked CPU speed and if an application is single threaded, there is no benefit for a quad core other than the improved cache, prediction and extended registers of the Conroe architecture.

Anyways, like the others said, anything with the "Core2" moniker is better than anything else running a NetBurst architecture.

[YUPAPA]

The old xeons are too hot and need great cooling badly
Get the Q6600

[Patrick67]

Originally Posted by YUPAPA

The old xeons are too hot and need great cooling badly
Get the Q6600

I had a stack of Supermicro 6014Xi-g's with 2.8 LV Xeons and they never ran above 82F. I run a Q6600 here at home CPU right now @ 111F and its got good flow and lots of fans.

[RyanD]

The q6600 does run quite hot.

However, it's performance per W of power consumption or performance per degree of heat generated is significantly better

[BlueTurbo]

Grab the Q6600 for power consumption gains.

[cwl@apaqdigital]

Originally Posted by RyanD

The q6600 does run quite hot.

However, it's performance per W of power consumption or performance per degree of heat generated is significantly better

with proper passive cooling, q6600 runs about 35c~40c which is actually pretty "cool" in 1U setting.

q6600 itself draws just 80watt max, and that's 20watt each per 2.4Ghz core! anyway you cut it, that's an excellent ratio of performance per watt! comparatively, the new AMD phenom 9700 AM2+ (quad 2.4G cores) draws 125watt!

[Jamie Edwards]

Originally Posted by AFerrier

does not matter. the new cpu's process more per clock cycle.

Core2Quad Q6600 = 4 x 2.4Ghz, 8MB L2 Cache
Dual Xeon 2.8Ghz = 2 x 2.8Ghz, 1MB or 2MB L2 Cache (depending which CPU you get)

So its:

9.6Ghz vs 5.6Ghz and 8MB Cache vs 2MB Cache (at the most)

GHz do not add up like that. When running your one thread on your Quad 2.4GHz CPU, you are only running the thread on a single one of those 2.4 GHz CPUs.

You should also consider that;
1) Only two of the cores can access 4MB of cache at the same time; so even if two cores of the same half of the chip were being hammered and had use for 8MB, they can only get hold of 4MB of cache.
2) The Q6600 quad is in fact two dual-cores tied together, so the bus is bottlenecked in that respect as opposed to two entirely separate CPUs sitting on the motherboard.

If your Xeon does not have a 4 digit model number, it is one of the older ones that use Netburst.

[Jamie Edwards]

Originally Posted by cwl@apaqdigital

with proper passive cooling, q6600 runs about 35c~40c which is actually pretty "cool" in 1U setting.

q6600 itself draws just 80watt max, and that's 20watt each per 2.4Ghz core! anyway you cut it, that's an excellent ratio of performance per watt! comparatively, the new AMD phenom 9700 AM2+ (quad 2.4G cores) draws 125watt!

I'm not sure this is entirely true (but please correct me if wrong - I am only going from what I recall).

The newest Q6600 chip with "G0 stepping" instead of B7 stepping is 'special' because its power consumption is so low, which is 95Watts - not 80 (which would be incredible).

Also, even the newest Q6600 G0 95W won't idle between 35 and 40 on passive cooling - no way! Even with after-market cooling (I am talking about heatsinks bigger than your hand, with a 120mm case fan strapped to them) do they struggle to idle at 40.

[bqinternet]

There's absolutely no comparison. The Q6600 will run rings around the older Xeons, and will use less power, too. The Q6600 may run at a lower clock speed, but it gets more done per cycle, plus it has a faster FSB and more cache.

[cwl@apaqdigital]

Originally Posted by Jamie Edwards

I'm not sure this is entirely true (but please correct me if wrong - I am only going from what I recall).

The newest Q6600 chip with "G0 stepping" instead of B7 stepping is 'special' because its power consumption is so low, which is 95Watts - not 80 (which would be incredible).

Also, even the newest Q6600 G0 95W won't idle between 35 and 40 on passive cooling - no way! Even with after-market cooling (I am talking about heatsinks bigger than your hand, with a 120mm case fan strapped to them) do they struggle to idle at 40.

well, just few minutes ago, we just completed a 1U supermicro server (PDSMI+ w/Q6600 and supermicro SNK-P0016 copper passive heatsink) which reported 37C CPU temp (BIOS reading) right after a long MEMTEST86 screening of 8-Gig RAM. couple of minutes late in idle, the reading went further down to 33C!

nevertheless, you're correct about Q6600 draws 95w max. however, you may want to consider Xeon X3220 (=q6600) which draws 85watt max. Clovertown E5310~E5345 quad-core do use just 80w max. even the spanking new E5472 (quad 3Ghz cores, 1600fsb, 12M L2 cache) also draws just 80-watt!