Speed comparision XEON (HELP)

HI I need some help.

I have a Dell with a Xeon process 1.8GHZ from 5 years ago, I am
considering upgrading but I am trying to quantify the difference in
speed for new processors vs my old.

I am considering the follwing:

1) new Xeon processor 2.8GHZ (single)
2) new Xeon Processors 2.8GHz plus another Xeon Processor 2.8GHZ
3) new Duo-core Xeon Processor 2.8GHZ

I would be running Windows XP professional.

Will I see a sizable jump in speed if I upgrade to the single
processor? Or Should I get the two processors? or Duo-Core Processor?
If I get the two processors or the Duo-Core processors, do I need a
special 64-bit Windows system? Will my basic software like excel,
outlook, MS Access, be able to use the 2 processors, or is there
special software versions needed to run with multiple processors?

Please help me understand the differences, and please let me know how
much faster (by %) then my orginal.

For Example: Xeon 1.8GHZ vs ABC processor is X% faster

thank you

wrote:
HI I need some help.

I have a Dell with a Xeon process 1.8GHZ from 5 years ago, I am
considering upgrading but I am trying to quantify the difference in
speed for new processors vs my old.

I am considering the follwing:

1) new Xeon processor 2.8GHZ (single)
2) new Xeon Processors 2.8GHz plus another Xeon Processor 2.8GHZ
3) new Duo-core Xeon Processor 2.8GHZ

Are you expecting to just drop any of these into your old board?

I would be running Windows XP professional.

Will I see a sizable jump in speed if I upgrade to the single
processor? Or Should I get the two processors? or Duo-Core Processor?
If I get the two processors or the Duo-Core processors, do I need a
special 64-bit Windows system? Will my basic software like excel,
outlook, MS Access, be able to use the 2 processors, or is there
special software versions needed to run with multiple processors?

Please help me understand the differences, and please let me know how
much faster (by %) then my orginal.

For Example: Xeon 1.8GHZ vs ABC processor is X% faster

thank you



--
bill davidsen
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com

No, I will be purchasing a whole new machine, if I can get a noticable
increase in performance.

I don't really know, but isn't a 1.8GHZ and a 2.8ghz about the same
speed? +-10%
Also, which is better one duo-core Xeon, or two Xeon processors? Will
they have the same performance? Are there any considerations I need to
learn?

thanks

* :

I have a Dell with a Xeon process 1.8GHZ from 5 years ago, I am
considering upgrading but I am trying to quantify the difference in
speed for new processors vs my old.

I am considering the follwing:

1) new Xeon processor 2.8GHZ (single)
2) new Xeon Processors 2.8GHz plus another Xeon Processor 2.8GHZ
3) new Duo-core Xeon Processor 2.8GHZ

First, none of them work in your old Dell Precision workstation which
has a Socket 603 while the newer processors you listed are Socket 604.
The maximum for S603 is 3GHz whith the ultra-rare 3GHz XEONs for this
socket, but you'd still be limited to RDRAM and 400MHz FSB.

As to the processors you listed, it makes absolutely no sense to go for
a single XEON processor. XEON only is useful is you want multiple
processors, if you want just one (be it single core or dual core) the
better choice is the Pentium4. Period.

I would be running Windows XP professional.

Will I see a sizable jump in speed if I upgrade to the single
processor? Or Should I get the two processors? or Duo-Core Processor?

Depends on the application...

If I get the two processors or the Duo-Core processors, do I need a
special 64-bit Windows system?

Nope, even the 32bit Windowsxp Pro runs up to 2 processors with 2 core
each. Support of multiple cpus has nothing to do if the OS is 32bit or
64bit...

Will my basic software like excel,
outlook, MS Access, be able to use the 2 processors, or is there
special software versions needed to run with multiple processors?

Really, all the software you list gives a s**t about multiple
processors/cores.

Please help me understand the differences, and please let me know how
much faster (by %) then my orginal.

For Example: Xeon 1.8GHZ vs ABC processor is X% faster

That's not possible because the cpu is only a small part regarding
system performance. Besides that, the applications you listed already
get bored on your 1.8GHz XEON and just will get more bored on a faster
processor...

Benjamin

I would be purchasing a whole new machine, so besides the processor and
the hard drive speed, what else can boost performance?

* :

I would be purchasing a whole new machine, so besides the processor and
the hard drive speed, what else can boost performance?

Chipset, memory distribution (single or dual channel), gfx card (ok, not
for your applications), disk subsystem configuration (i.e. RAID0).

Benjamin

does the following seem correct?

_______________________________


Dual CPUs and/or dual-core CPUs offere certain advantages. First,
they can split the workload so one program can use one CPU and another
program can use the other. Within a single app if it DOESN'T support
multi-threading it will simply go to the CPU the OS suggests. If the
application is Multi-threaded, it will break up its own tasks and send
each to the CPU most able to process it at that time.

The biggest weakness of dual-core, is that while it has two physical
processors, they share the same memory controller on a single Host Bus.
Internally the CPU takes the single thread each physical processor
will attempt to process parts of it. CPUs work something like a
time-sharing plan on a process. It looks at it for a bit, then looks
at something else, then switches again, until it eventually gets back
to this process. Both of the CPUs in a dual-core will attempt to
time-share the same process and each time it switches, it has to clear
the current cache and reload the cache for the other CPU and back and
forth. Admittedly this occurs very very quickly, but in the scheme of
things, for a CPU this wastes a lot of time switches in and out of
cache memory.

For multi-threaded applications, this process is reduced or eliminated.
A large portion of the performance gain is due to this.

If the system is being used heavily to do multiple tasks, this would be
the order I would expect the system to perform relative to each other
(1 being fastest, 3 being slowest)
1) Dual CPUs
2) Dual-Core
3) Single CPU
If the system is being used for one thing at a time mostly, the order
changes:
1) Dual CPUs
2) Single CPUs
3) Dual-Core

It really depends on how you use your system and which applications you
use. If you are running SQL, along with other programs, you would
likely see a benefit with Dual-Core, but Dual CPUs would still be
better.

Here are some links that should be helpful:

Dual Core Processing: Over-simplified, demystified and explained.
http://www.short-media.com/review.php?r=261

Desktop CPU with two built-in processors does well at juggling multiple
tasks.
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,120656,00.asp

About Intel Multi-Core
http://www.intel.com/multi-core/index.htm

http://www.intel.com/multi-core/docs.htm

* :

does the following seem correct?

_______________________________


Dual CPUs and/or dual-core CPUs offere certain advantages. First,
they can split the workload so one program can use one CPU and another
program can use the other. Within a single app if it DOESN'T support
multi-threading it will simply go to the CPU the OS suggests. If the
application is Multi-threaded, it will break up its own tasks and send
each to the CPU most able to process it at that time.

Correct...

The biggest weakness of dual-core, is that while it has two physical
processors, they share the same memory controller on a single Host Bus.

Well, for current AMD processors this indeed is a weak point -
theoretically. How much performance penalty this results in depends
heavily on the applications...

Internally the CPU takes the single thread each physical processor
will attempt to process parts of it. CPUs work something like a
time-sharing plan on a process. It looks at it for a bit, then looks
at something else, then switches again, until it eventually gets back
to this process. Both of the CPUs in a dual-core will attempt to
time-share the same process and each time it switches, it has to clear
the current cache and reload the cache for the other CPU and back and
forth. Admittedly this occurs very very quickly, but in the scheme of
things, for a CPU this wastes a lot of time switches in and out of
cache memory.

Well, this "time sharing" is done by the scheduler of the operating
system and not by the processor itself...

For multi-threaded applications, this process is reduced or eliminated.
A large portion of the performance gain is due to this.

The whole text seems to be very generic...

If the system is being used heavily to do multiple tasks, this would be
the order I would expect the system to perform relative to each other
(1 being fastest, 3 being slowest)
1) Dual CPUs
2) Dual-Core
3) Single CPU
If the system is being used for one thing at a time mostly, the order
changes:
1) Dual CPUs
2) Single CPUs
3) Dual-Core

Again, this also depends on the applications. IMHO such generalizations
are absolute useless...

It really depends on how you use your system and which applications you
use.

Really? ;-)

If you are running SQL, along with other programs, you would
likely see a benefit with Dual-Core, but Dual CPUs would still be
better.

Not necessarily. With the current crop of intel XEONs, the biggest
bottleneck is the shared FSB, no matter if you use Dual Core or Dual
CPU. On the other side, AMDs biggest benefit is not that the memory
controller is integrated or that it uses a NUMA, the real benefit is
that the cpus/cores don't have to share the connection to the memory
controller...

Upcoming intel processors of their "next generation" probably will have
separate FSBs for each CPU or even each Core which will probably lead to
much better memory performance - and that without the NUMA effects...

The whole article is just a very generalized view at the topic of
SC/DC/SMP. Not any mention of the difference UMA vs NUMA, btw. IMHO not
really helpful but probably all what one could expect from such sites...

Benjamin

wrote:
No, I will be purchasing a whole new machine, if I can get a noticable
increase in performance.

I don't really know, but isn't a 1.8GHZ and a 2.8ghz about the same
speed? +-10%
Also, which is better one duo-core Xeon, or two Xeon processors? Will
they have the same performance? Are there any considerations I need to
learn?

Without a doubt the dual core will be more cost effective, but I can't
swear that having an extra path to memory will never help performance.
On the other hand having the cores communicate without going off chip
may boost performance, so why spend any extra money on another socket? I
have never seen any performance difference looking at users per server
or similar, but I haven't don't have detailed benchmarks.

As for 1.8 vs. 2.8, if your load is so small you don't see the
difference then you probably don't need two CPUs anyway. You really will
see about 50% increase in throughput on a CPU-bound load.

As I've said elsewhere, hyperthreading may give you additional benefits,
although it isn't a substitute for a second CPU core.

--
bill davidsen
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com