One quad core chip versus 2 dual core chips

[dusanv]

I have an opportunity to get a single 3.0 GHz quad core Clovertown. Should I go for it? There's no advantage to having two cores in two sockets versus having four cores in one socket, right?

 

[GotPro]

Barefeats and others have shown that the Single 2.8 Quad is about neck and neck with the old Dual Cpu (Quad Core) 3.0... the much faster ram and system bus speeds just about negate the clock speed difference.

So... unless you are just getting a steal of a deal... I'd go with the quad 2.8... the graphics upgrade alone will make it 2x the machine.

Of course, IMHO!

 

[m1stake]

Yorkfield 2.8 = Kentsfield 3.0

If you're getting a great price, jump on it. If not, and you need a graphics card for whatever reason, spring for the single quad with the 8800GT.

Or, if you're having trouble deciding, buy me both and I'll let you know

 

[Firefly2002]

Actually, interestingly, it's really not the RAM speed- using 667 MHz vs. 800 MHz (which, btw, even in terms of % isn't a huge increase) has 0% influence on speed according to BareFeats- and the bus speed probably isn't really bringing a huge improvement. It's mostly the modified architecture of the new Xeons. They get the same bandwidth and benchmark results with both 667 and 800 DIMMs installed.. but get higher bandwidth than the previous generation at the same memory speeds.

But yeah. The newer ones are faster.

 

[dusanv]

But the Clovertown is the previous gen chip. I'm talking about popping out the 2x2.0 GHz chips and putting in a single 3.0 quad core Clovertown.

Oddly, the new Harpertown chips don't work in the old Mac Pro and I don't think I'd get a decent price for mine because it's a 2.0 GHz (should have bought the 2.66). So I'm stuck with it.

 

[m1stake]

It'll want a CPU in both sockets.

 

[dusanv]

Hm, Anandtech tested and it worked with a single CPU, if I remember correctly. Why do you think it wouldn't work?