Developer Forum

I have an interesting decision, I have to build a workstation, and I can
use either the Intel Core2 Duo 6850 (3.0GHz, 4MB L2), or the Core2 Quad
Q6600 (2.4GHz, 2x4MB L2). The usage is a mix of single threaded
applications and multithread, like video format conversion, building
Linux kernels, and other things which make good use of all of the CPU power.

The object of the build is a system which runs well in spec, so while I
have curiosity if the Q6600 will O/C as well as the E6600, I'm not
planning to run it that way.

This is going to be personal deskside machine, but it will be required
to have reasonable muscle to do some serious computing as well. Any
input regarding which might be better for the described usage would be
of interest, since the price is the same, and performance is about an
even tradeoff between the threaded and unthreaded applications, so it
sounds like a coin flip choice.

--
Bill Davidsen
He was a full-time professional cat, not some moonlighting
ferret or weasel. He knew about these things.

In article <_zjwj.5761$Dz4.118@trnddc01>, XXXX@XXXXX.COM (Bill



Tough, isn't it? The quad-core will need more memory bandwidth than the
dual; this is not an issue to neglect, lest you get the worst of both
worlds.

Do you have direct experience of how well your threaded apps scale to
four cores, in the 2+2 style of a current Core 2 Quad?

--
John Dallman XXXX@XXXXX.COM
"C++ - the FORTRAN of the early 21st century."

I'm waiting for a few more Yorkfields (Quad Core 45nm) to come on the
market. Currently Intel is only shipping an QX9650 Extreme edition part
(3GHz) which has a ridiculous price tag, $1059 on Newegg. I think they
are waiting for their next mask spin before releasing more parts but when
they do I expect that a 2.8GHz Quad Core should be more reasonably
priced. The E8400 dual core part (3GHz, 6M cache, 45nm) is decently
priced at $239. If I needed something today that's what I would choose.
The 45nm parts run cooler than the 65nm parts and there are comments on
Newegg about running the 8400 at 4GHz although most people are reporting
3.6GHz.

With 2x4M cache I don't think that would be an issue, although I have no
way to easily measure memory access now. I will be using PC5400 memory,
on an ASUS board, that allows me to O/C the memory and still stay in
spec. I'm going to say I would be more worried about high data rate
video coding, as I turn material from cameras into DVD and xVCD formats.

I really don't. I would assume the kernel builds would just about
double, since they are multiple compiles running in parallel. Would be
very like two dual core Xeons on a server board, I assume.

--
Bill Davidsen
He was a full-time professional cat, not some moonlighting
ferret or weasel. He knew about these things.

They are still rated 65w, though. Sigh, if I could drop an 8400 into my
six month old motherboards, I have a fiar number of existing systems I
would upgrade. But when the M/B needs to come too, and wants different
memory, I am limited to just the one workstation for the moment.

Thanks for the thoughts, though!

--
Bill Davidsen
He was a full-time professional cat, not some moonlighting
ferret or weasel. He knew about these things.

* Bill Davidsen:

>

With dual XEON systems using independet FSBs per CPU and with most
version also using quad channel memory I doubt you get a similar
performance with a single C2Q on a standard mainboard.

Benjamin

All of the reviews on the hardware sites indicate that the actual power
usage is much lower than 65W. Here is the Xbit article, they were seeing
33.4W at full load on an 8500, 3.4W at idle. The E6850 was 51.7 at full.

http://www.yqcomputer.com/ #sect0

Intel is giving themselves a lot of breathing space with the 65W spec, it
will allow them to introduce a 4GHz part within the same power envelope
if they want. (Take XBit's 34W number, add 40% to account for worst case
conditions, and then add 33% on top of that to account for a 4GHz clock
and you have 63W). The review sites plus a number of people on Newegg
have been reporting pushing the 8400 to 4GHz without to much trouble
which means that Intel could easily create a 4GHz bin if they wanted to.

You are NOT building a "workstation." You might Google the term.
Workstations are much more powerful and are built around Xeon CPU's.

--
--DaveW

Score another win for Intel's marketing group.

The advantage of Xeon is to allow ECC memory (and more of it) and
multiple socket system boards. A workstation is still a personal system,
not a mission critical server, and in virtually all cases a CPU like
Q6600 will produce the same performance as E7330 or similar, given
identical disk and memory.

I described the intended use very carefully, and there's no
justification for spending $1200 more for the CPU and $300 more for the
system board so I can say it's a Xeon. There's also no way the typical
office machine would be satisfactory for this use.

So I'll continue to break systems into "server," "Workstation" and
"office" (or "personal") as being useful. If you have some term which
would be widely meaningful for what you describe, which sounds like a
server with sound, video, and human interface permanently attached, feel
free to share it. In the meantime, googling "workstation" is like
googling "religion," you can find opinion you want and people to agree
with it.

I think the first two paragraphs of the wikipedia entry describe what
most people understand by the term "workstation," and no one else seems
to have been confused by it.

--
Bill Davidsen
He was a full-time professional cat, not some moonlighting
ferret or weasel. He knew about these things.

* DaveW:


Yeah, right shithead. Then companies like Sun and SGI never made
workstations as they never used XEONs in their desktop machines. And
systems like the HP c8000, xw4400 and the like aren't workstations, too.
But wait, the xw4400 can also be configured with a XEON 3000 which is
nothing more than a relabeled Core 2 but following your retarded ideas
it will raise the machine into the grade of a workstation.

But much more likely it's just that you're an idiot and have no clue.

FYI: a workstation isn't defined by the CPU. A workstation is a high
performance desktop system and nothing more. Additionally, workstations
are usually certified for certain applications which is a requirement to
get software support from your ISV.

Still, Bill might not end up with a certified system, and I for myself
would never ever build a workstation by myself, but just because it
doesn't use a XEON it doesn't mean it's no workstation.

Man, get at least the very basics or just shut the *** up!

Benjamin

* Bill Davidsen:


That's nonsense. If ECC can be used is only dependent on the memory
controller which sits in the chipset and not the CPU.


DaveW is a *** er with a very long history of bullshitting. His
competence regarding computers is zero at best and nothing he says
should ever been considered as truth or reality.

Benjamin

Further, some higher-end non-Xeon motherboards will support ECC memory;
they're not very common, but they do make them (if nothing else, look at the
Dell Precision 390/T3400, but I believe I saw some high end ASUS board which
would take it.)

--
Nate Edel http://www.yqcomputer.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "A sufficiently advanced incompetence is
posting domain | indistinguishable from malice."

* Nate Edel:


Yes, as most intel chipsets do support ECC. And not to forget the AMD
side: the Opteron (which like all current AMD CPUs does have the memory
controller integrated in the CPU) does support ECC, too.

Benjamin