[ten]

It costs quite a bit less to go with a dual processor setup vs. a single dual-core chip. They look like the same speed, cache, etc. Is the cost difference attributed to the fact that it's newer technology or is the dual core chip going to be (significantly) faster than a dual processor configuration? Or are they the same thing? I don't care much about power consumption, I'm just interested in the most cost efficient solution relative to speed.

[B0b]

Dual Core is the same as Dual CPU but you only need space for 1 CPU rather than 2, meaning you can have a smaller motherboard - it also means that you can have a Quad CPU system in the same as a Dual etc

you'll have to wait for Intel to bring out 64bit CPU's before you'll be using more than 2GB..

AMD's 32/64bit CPU's on the otherhand will see 3GB+ on Windows64

Intel are so far behind AMD now its getting silly


and i think u've got ur wires cross on the costing, it costs less for a dual core than it does for a dual cpu..

there are no CONS to going Multiprocessor only PROS

[ten]

Thanks for the info Bob.

It looks like you can get any number of dual chip setups, most faster than the available dual cores for less cost. If dual core is the same as dual chip in terms of speed, it seems like you would get a lot more bang for the buck going with dual processors. Maybe this is some kind of bassackwards Dell pricing? HP has the AMD option but you can't get a fair cost comparison on the site because there is never a comparable dual to dual core chip speed option. As near as I can tell though there is less of a price jump from dual to dual core.

edit -- outdated info --

[B0b]

what you have to remember with the INTEL Dual Core is that its new tech for them unlike AMD's Dual Core which has been going quite a while

XP isn't 64bit - but XP64 is and Longhorn oops sorry VISTA is due out at the beginning of '07..

Silverstone "TEMJIN" J06-B (Black) Aluminum Supertower Case (w/o PSU) �89.30
560W Silverstone Zeus ST56ZF Quiet SLi 2xPCI-E + 2xSATA EPS12v ATX Dual 12v v2.01 80mm Fan PSU �86.89
Sony DWG-120AB2 Black 16x16x4 DVD�RW Dual Layer DVD Writer OEM UK �26.41
Mitsumi FA404M 1.44 Black FDD+Int USB2 7 in 1 Card Reader (SM/MMC/SD/CF/MD/MS) Fits in 3.5" FDD Bay �14.09
256Mb 3D-Labs Wildcat VP880 Pro DDR AGP Retail �433.05
2x 200 GB Seagate ST3200827AS Barracuda 7200.9, SATA300, 7200 rpm, 8MB Cache, NCQ, 8.0 ms �116.21

the above is what i would call standard for a workstation - an excellent case and PSU for stable temps and voltage
DVD +- DVDR/RW
2 x 200GB in RAID 0 for speed..
even tho' everyone says floppy is dead, you'll still get a client or 2 with a 133mhz Pentuim without internet wanting to supply you with a text document or a picture they took with their 1mpix camera..

and a decent OpenGL Professional Graphics Card

TOTAL: approx: �770
next we'll look at the different options for workstation..

Dual CPU - INTEL
2x Intel Xeon Passive Socket 604 , Nocona Core, 3.6GHz , 1MB Cache, Retail �938.50
Tyan S5360G2NR iE7520, S604, DDR ECC 333, SATA II, SATA RAID, E-ATX �313.73
2x 1GB Corsair XMS, DDR PC3200 (400), 184 Pin, ECC Registered, CAS 3-3-3-8 �244.68

total for Dual 3.6GHz XEON with 2GB RAM: approx: �1,510 +�770 = �2,280

Dual Core - INTEL
2x 1GB Corsair XMS, DDR PC3200 (400), 184 Pin, ECC Registered, CAS 3-3-3-8 �244.68
Intel Pentium D 950 Socket775 , Presler Core, 2x3.4 GHz , 4MB Cache, Retail �227.17
Tyan S5120AGNNRF i915, S775, PCI-E (x16), DDR 400, SATA I, IDE RAID, ATX �135.13

total for Dual Core 3.4GHz P4 with 2GB RAM: approx: �618.00 +770 = �1,388

Dual CPU - AMD
2x AMD Opteron 250 Socket940 , Troy Core, 2.4GHz , 1MB Cache, Retail �496.41
Tyan S2885ANRF AMD, S940, AGP 4x/8x, DDR 400 ECC-R, SATA I, SATA RAID, E-ATX �311.81
4x 1GB Corsair XMS, DDR PC3200 (400), 184 Pin, ECC Registered, CAS 3-3-3-8 �489.36

total for Dual CPU 2.4GHz (faster than 3.6 XEON) with 4GB RAM: approx: �1,310 +770 = �2080

Dual Core - AMD
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ Socket 939 , Manchester Core, 2x 2.4GHz , 1MB Cache, Retail �375.11
Gigabyte GA-K8NSC-939 NF3, S939, AGP 4x/8x, DDR 400, SATA I, SATA RAID, ATX �46.75
4x 1GB Corsair XMS, DDR PC3200 (400), 184 Pin, Non-ECC Unbuffered, CAS 2-3-3-6 �328.95

total for Dual Core 2.4GHz AMD64 with 4GB RAM: approx: �764 +770 = �1,534

i'll leave it to you to do the mathmatics

[Trailbreaker]

My Current Dell desktop has a Intel Pentium D 2.8Mhz with 2x2Mb cache and performance has been great, even when running about 5 apps with Photoshop and Illustrator open. Considering it only cost me �550 from the dell outlet with 2GB ram, 2 dvd drives, a 6800gt and 160gb hard drive - I've nothing but praise.

[Tzan]

Trailbreaker: Thats about the same as mine from Dell except I have the 6800 ( not GT) Works great.

[Trailbreaker]

Ah yes you're right. Mine was a 6800 too, not a GT. If I'm right in guessing you probably have a Dimension 9150. Well worthwhile for the Dual-core processor alone, all the multi-processor systems I looked at were in excess of �1000 off eBay and with smaller caches.

[Tzan]

9100, I got it back in September

[ten]

edit -- outdated info --

[Radiumflux]

Multicore systems don't just split processes per cpu, certain processes and algorithms can be run on both CPUs at the same time, which as far as I know, Photoshop has supported multithreading since 3.05, so in theory a dual processor or dual CPU workstation will be able to run certain tasks faster.
However, given speed differentials in processors, this may not be the case.
In my own experiences, going from a single Opteron 148 to a dual core 165 made a considerable difference. However, the performance differential between processors was maximized as both were overclocked to 2.8gHz.
For pure speed in PS, the Core Duo or Opteron/Athlon64 X2s seem to be the best right now. The fastest sing core chips may well be able operate fast enough that it negates the advantage of multithreading, but overall dual core CPUs have the edge.
See here:
http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q2/core-duo/wb-photoshop.gif
It would appear that the 7% slower dual core FX60 is able to keep up with the FX57 in their benchmarking. Given a 7% difference in speed, the FX60 should be coming in at ~300, although the multithreading obviously makes up for it. Similarly, the dual core 965XE shows a 5% performance gain over the P4 3.73 XE running at the same speed.
Do take note of where the various processors stack up. The only way Intel was able to hit 3.8gHz was by severely lengthening the pipeline on their CPUs, which means less performance per gHz. This is why that speedy 3.73gHz processor is being dominated by much slower Pentium Ms, Athlons, and Opterons. The Pentium M is coming in at 2.0gHz, and the FX57 comes in at 2.8gHz for comparison.
In short, just because that 3.8gHz P4 is "faster" doesn't mean that it will perform better than a slower processor. And with the Core Duo processors, a 2.8 or even 2.6gHz processor will be a much better buy...
_________________
Yeah, but what happens when you refine your tastes so specifically that they don't exist?
At that point it is your duty to bring them into being.

[B0b]

you'll generally see a 60% increase using Dual CPU/Core over a CPU of the same speed when using SMP aware apps and you'll find your system much more responsive than a single CPU/Core

[ten]

edit -- outdated info --

[Radiumflux]

The Opteron/A64/FX are all the same core, and the FX series is just a highend commodity. The FX series is mainly for people who buy Alienware or FalconNW boxes.

I would go dual core at this point as opposed to single core on the basis that it is more futureproof. As more apps start supporting multithreading, single core processors are going to become the new bargin bin celerons and semprons.
The chips that are running at 3.8gHz are very expensive for Intel to manufacture as this is pushing on the upper limits of what the P4 can handle. However, current Intel dual core offerings consist of two chips on the same package, which doesn't cut costs either. Both are expensive, and for good reason.
The 2.8gHz dual core will only perform faster at multithreaded processes, but the 3.8gHz single core will perform better overall. However, they both are badly designed processors that don't perform well.
How soon are you looking to upgrade?
If you can wait, you would do well to wait until summer when Intel's Core 2 Duo series comes out. The Core 2s will perform as well or better than the AMD lineup, so it doesn't make much sense to drop a lot of money in a new system at this point in time if you can afford to wait...
_________________
Yeah, but what happens when you refine your tastes so specifically that they don't exist?
At that point it is your duty to bring them into being.

[B0b]

toms hardware reports with $ whoever pays him $ gets a glowing report!

i've never trusted anything coming out of Tomshardware.com..

photoshop loves the speed of your frontside bus and how fast your RAM bandwidth is.. Dual Opteron boards will give you a throughput of 12.5GB/sec compaired to intels 4.5GB/sec..

if you want to update - wait until next year when vista becomes available.. Intel will have had some time in the 64bit market and then you can make a better choice between Intel or AMD

at the moment AMD rules the roost and even tho' the new duo's are coming - AMD will always pull something out of the Hat.. even Intel have admitted to falling behind AMD in the performance race..

[ten]

Thanks for all of the info guys.

edit -- outdated info --

[B0b]

i know quite a few people who run XP64 and haven't had any trouble, but then there are others who can't get the drivers for their hardware atm..

best bet is to wait another 7 months for Vista before going turning to a 64bit Windows..

Boxx make really nice PC's they give you amazing after sales support! but.. you could prolly build a beast of a PC if you spent the same amount of $ and built it yourself!

RAM wise the fastest has a timing of DDR400 is 2-2-2-5 - there are rumours that the next batch of AMD will have DDR2 support, but what you have to remember is that AMD's current memory controller is far superiour to Intels..

[Awetopsy]

never buy a dell.









never.

[B0b]

heh WP Awetopsy

looks like the latest AMD are DDR2 now.. not that it gives that much in the way of a speed increase, just all those who don't know their hardware would prolly pick an intel machine because it boasts DDR2!

best bang for buck atm is an Intel CPU - its a cheap CPU that can be overclocked to give 54% extra speed!

Pentium D 805 clocked at 2.66 GHz clocked to 4.1GHz!