Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Windows 64bit > 2 Dual Core 3Ghz Xeon or 2 Quad Core 2.33Ghz Xeon?

Reply
Thread Tools

2 Dual Core 3Ghz Xeon or 2 Quad Core 2.33Ghz Xeon?

 
 
Adrian
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-18-2007
Any suggestions as to which would be faster in the following setup (assuming
the remainder of the hardware is the same) using Windows Server 2003
Standard R2 64 Bit running:

Exchange 2007 (25 users - not very heavy users)
Account software running Pervasive SQL (only 2 users)
File Server
Possibly install SharePoint Services on this server (light use)

Thanks for any advice.

Adrian


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
leew [MVP]
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-18-2007
Adrian wrote:
> Any suggestions as to which would be faster in the following setup (assuming
> the remainder of the hardware is the same) using Windows Server 2003
> Standard R2 64 Bit running:
>
> Exchange 2007 (25 users - not very heavy users)
> Account software running Pervasive SQL (only 2 users)
> File Server
> Possibly install SharePoint Services on this server (light use)
>
> Thanks for any advice.
>
> Adrian
>
>


Frankly, I would feel like both are overkill. I'd suggest a single CPU,
single core, should be fine for that load MOST of the time. A dual
core, I would feel, would RARELY see an issue. I will say get a box
that is upgradable, but 25 "not very heavy users", file serving, 2 user
database, and sharepoint shouldn't require a lot of horsepower.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Herb Martin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-18-2007

"Adrian" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Any suggestions as to which would be faster in the following setup
> (assuming the remainder of the hardware is the same) using Windows Server
> 2003 Standard R2 64 Bit running:
>
> Exchange 2007 (25 users - not very heavy users)
> Account software running Pervasive SQL (only 2 users)
> File Server
> Possibly install SharePoint Services on this server (light use)


A lot would depend on the actual (measured) Processor Queue
Length -- if nothing is waiting on the Processor(s) most of the of
the time then adding CPUs/Cores will have little or no effect.

In such cases the faster but fewer CPUs would win. Most of
the time however when CPUs Usage is high there are things
waiting, but measuring is the only way to determine this.

As "leew" says however, this whole thing may be academic as
you likely have more power than you need for this load.


--
Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP
http://www.LearnQuick.Com
(phone on web site)


 
Reply With Quote
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-18-2007
Given you're probably overkill here, I'd go for the 2x dual core. Frankly,
I'm not all that impressed with the current round of quad core procs - the
memory buss on the current generation just isn't up to them, IMHO.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64


"Adrian" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Any suggestions as to which would be faster in the following setup
> (assuming the remainder of the hardware is the same) using Windows Server
> 2003 Standard R2 64 Bit running:
>
> Exchange 2007 (25 users - not very heavy users)
> Account software running Pervasive SQL (only 2 users)
> File Server
> Possibly install SharePoint Services on this server (light use)
>
> Thanks for any advice.
>
> Adrian
>
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Admiral Q
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-19-2007
"Adrian" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Any suggestions as to which would be faster in the following setup
> (assuming the remainder of the hardware is the same) using Windows Server
> 2003 Standard R2 64 Bit running:
>
> Exchange 2007 (25 users - not very heavy users)
> Account software running Pervasive SQL (only 2 users)
> File Server
> Possibly install SharePoint Services on this server (light use)
>
> Thanks for any advice.
>
> Adrian
>
>


My advice - I've got a Workstation with each 2x3Ghz Dual Core and 2x2.4 Quad
Core, and the applications I develope - well, I've not seen much of a
difference, except I can process more threads simultaneously on the Quad
Cores - YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary)!

--


---
Star Fleet Admiral Q @ your service!
"Google is your Friend"
http:/www.google.com


 
Reply With Quote
 
Benjamin Gawert
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-19-2007
* Adrian:

> Any suggestions as to which would be faster in the following setup (assuming
> the remainder of the hardware is the same) using Windows Server 2003
> Standard R2 64 Bit running:
>
> Exchange 2007 (25 users - not very heavy users)
> Account software running Pervasive SQL (only 2 users)
> File Server
> Possibly install SharePoint Services on this server (light use)


Both will be overkill. A single Core2Duo/XEON 3000 system (like a HP
Proliant ML110 G4) with enough memory will probably more than enough...

Besides that, while the current dual cores from intel are great the quad
cores suffer from the shared FSB which gets a heavy bottleneck with 4
cores and applications that use lots of I/O (like the ones you list,
usual number crunching apps run fine on quads)..

For a server you should also concentrate on reliable hardware from a
reputable vendor...

Benjamin
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Quad Drive Explorer Quad Drive Explorer (View 5 Drives at the same time).. scott93727@gmail.com Computer Information 0 09-25-2012 03:14 AM
Nice wee article on overclocking an Intel Quad core V a dual core... thingy NZ Computing 0 11-09-2007 02:42 AM
When to pick quad core and when to pick dual core thingy NZ Computing 6 11-21-2006 07:08 AM
I love my Xeon, I hate my Xeon, I love my Xeon... wewa Windows 64bit 9 11-10-2005 06:39 PM
Advice needed for new PC: dual Xeon or dual Opteron, or neither... Toby Computer Information 65 04-22-2004 12:30 AM



Advertisments