Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    686

    Core2Duo vs. Dual Xeon

    Is there any main difference between these two servers (examples):


    Core2Duo 3 GhZ
    2GB Ram
    200GB Hard Drive


    Dual Xeon 3GhZ
    2GB Ram
    200GB Hard Drive

    Or is Core2 just a new technology of Intel?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    16,087
    Personally I would choose the Core2Duo.
    Michael Denney - MDDHosting LLC
    New shared plans for 2016! Check them out!
    Highly Available Shared, Premium, Reseller, and VPS
    http://www.mddhosting.com/

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    1,369
    I would need specifics such as the model number of each processor and then I would be able to compare them.
    Rageki Web Hosting Solutions - Canada & United States Web Hosting
    DirectAdmin & cPanel Control Panels
    99% Uptime!
    30 Day Money Back Guaranteed!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    The Woodlands, Tx
    Posts
    5,962
    People tend to think a core2 is the same as two processors, it's not. Your not going to get a full 6ghz of power from a core2duo 3ghz. You will get that from two seperate processors though, or closer to it. You might get roughly 4.5 to 5.5 ghz of power from core2 depending on the model. Core2's are popular because it's a heckuva lot cheaper to provide when you account for savings on getting a single processor motherboard instead of a dual processor motherboard, etc. If you are leasing, go with the dual processor set up. If you are buying, do the dual core set up. Of course, you could also do a 2x dual core processor set up too, thats the option I always like best... wait, no, that would be a quad processor quad core I like best We've leased out a few of those. They are true beasts. I'd love to have one as a personal home PC

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    16,087
    Not that I'd do it in a server, but I have a C2D 2.13ghz OC'd to 3.2ghz. Seems to have quite enough oomfh for just about anything I'd want to do. I've had it up to 3.8ghz but I like the 1:1 divider at 800mhz. Been running rock solid like this for just under a year on air with no issues whatsoever

    It really depends on what you are doing, with a C2D 3ghz or Dual Processors at 3ghz, you're *never* going to get a full 6ghz from either set up unless you happen to be running two tasks that both use 100% processor and run one on one core and one on the other. For the sake of cost I'd go with a C2D, if I were going to do dual processors, I'd probably dual C2Ds.
    Michael Denney - MDDHosting LLC
    New shared plans for 2016! Check them out!
    Highly Available Shared, Premium, Reseller, and VPS
    http://www.mddhosting.com/

  6. #6
    I vote for Core2Duo

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    paradise
    Posts
    6,201

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Chennai , India
    Posts
    4,608
    It all matters on ram when comparing these two processors and rajan brother whats your PC spec, is it old 32 mb ram with celeron and linux box on

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    paradise
    Posts
    6,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Biju View Post
    It all matters on ram when comparing these two processors and rajan brother whats your PC spec, is it old 32 mb ram with celeron and linux box on
    yup a overclocked celeron with 32mb ram....how did you guess.. like minded telepathy huh ?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Chennai , India
    Posts
    4,608
    Quote Originally Posted by RajanUrs View Post
    yup a overclocked celeron with 32mb ram....how did you guess.. like minded telepathy huh ?
    Bhai mine is 64 MB ram. mine is faster than yours

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    269
    Back to the topic!

    Xeons systems are usually built with better components, because they are sold as servers or workstations. Generally speaking the Xeon is more expensive than the Core2 and requires more expensive ram and motherboard which makes the machine even more expensive when you calculate the whole deal.

    You can get let's say a dual-socket Xeon motherboard that will allow you to have two Xeons in one system, but don't confuse this with dual cores - you get that with either option, but with Xeons you can use two dual-core at a time for 4 cores total, or 2 quad-cores for 8 cores total. This is not possible with Core2 chips.

    However, two of those Xeon 5150 2.66GHz chips, 4 cores total, would not give you appreciably more speed than one Core2 Quad QX6700, 2.66GHz, 4-core chip, which is a much cheaper option.

    I recommend people to buy Core2 unless they have any specific reasons to use a Xeon.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    The Woodlands, Tx
    Posts
    5,962
    Quote Originally Posted by ElTino View Post
    However, two of those Xeon 5150 2.66GHz chips, 4 cores total, would not give you appreciably more speed than one Core2 Quad QX6700, 2.66GHz, 4-core chip.
    Not true. Cores do not up the speed as much as you might think. For example, a dual core 1.8ghz cpu actually only spits out 2x 1.2ghz. So your total cpu on a dual core 1.8 isnt 3.6ghz like you might think, it's 2.4ghz. So in reality, what is chaeper... a single core 2.4ghz cpu, or a dual core 1.8ghz? Comes out to the same power either way. With a single core, you get what it says it is. If it says 2.4ghz, that is what you get (in most cases anyway)

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,027
    Quote Originally Posted by Webdude View Post
    Not true. Cores do not up the speed as much as you might think. For example, a dual core 1.8ghz cpu actually only spits out 2x 1.2ghz. So your total cpu on a dual core 1.8 isnt 3.6ghz like you might think, it's 2.4ghz. So in reality, what is chaeper... a single core 2.4ghz cpu, or a dual core 1.8ghz? Comes out to the same power either way. With a single core, you get what it says it is. If it says 2.4ghz, that is what you get (in most cases anyway)
    That isnt exactly what happens at all.

    Yes adding more cpus doesnt add linear like performance advantages, however adding an addtional core to a system via another CPU is going to more or double the CPU throughput.

    However there is a difference between having two cores on a chip and two physcial cpus. The difference relates to the cache on the CPU and the FSB.


    A dual cpu xeon say a 5000 series is going to out perform a Core2Duo.
    However if you had a dual 5000 series xeon you'd have either 4 or 8 cores in total as there (I dont think) a single core 5000 series CPU.

    What you must also remember is that whatever you run on a system with more than one core/cpu, it needs to be able to utilise more than one thread.

    Most server applications are well suited to this, and thus why such systems are used to run databases.


    A 3000 series xeon cpu is really a Core2Duo in most cases.
    I think you can get some with a bigger L2 cache
    Last edited by djorgensen; 03-26-2008 at 06:28 PM.
    Damien

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •