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

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Adrian, Mar 18, 2007.

  1. Adrian

    Adrian Guest

    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
    Adrian, Mar 18, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Adrian

    leew [MVP] Guest

    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.
    leew [MVP], Mar 18, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Adrian

    Herb Martin Guest

    "Adrian" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > 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)
    Herb Martin, Mar 18, 2007
    #3
  4. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > 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
    >
    >
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Mar 18, 2007
    #4
  5. Adrian

    Admiral Q Guest

    "Adrian" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > 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
    Admiral Q, Mar 19, 2007
    #5
  6. * 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
    Benjamin Gawert, Mar 19, 2007
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Toby
    Replies:
    65
    Views:
    1,608
    Michael-NC
    Apr 22, 2004
  2. wewa
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    696
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64]
    Nov 10, 2005
  3. GraB

    AMD quad-core - even 16-core!!

    GraB, Jun 16, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    372
    Chris Wilkinson
    Jun 17, 2005
  4. thingy
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    418
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Nov 21, 2006
  5. Becky
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    507
    Becky
    Dec 7, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page