Single quad-core 2.8Ghz?

[badlydrawnboy]

I wonder how a single quad-core 2.8Ghz Penryn would compare to the current 2.66Ghz Woodcrest?

 

[edesignuk]

Well it's 4 x faster cores, and though I don't know too much about processor and chipset tech, I thought multiple cores on a single chip performed better than cores being spread out across different chips. It should be better I'd have thought, significantly.

 

[fluidedge]

intel have said themselves, penryn is not a *huge* increase in performance - less then 10%.

 

[badlydrawnboy]

Well it's 4 x faster cores, and though I don't know too much about processor and chipset tech, I thought multiple cores on a single chip performed better than cores being spread out across different chips. It should be better I'd have thought, significantly.

This might be an interesting option for me, and significantly cheaper. I've heard that most apps can't really even take advantage of the 8-core technology yet, including Photoshop CS3.

Here's a quote from Boots over at the MacGurus site (pretty knowledgeable folks about this stuff):

"Maybe as the OS gets better over time, 8-core will yield more but really PS core-usage at present from what I've observed appears to range from single-core on some stuff, dual core on a bunch of stuff, and 4-core on some stuff but not a lot. But the 4-core helps the os operations (file open and saves, vm etc) a lot and definitely is an advantage over 2-core. The 8-core really shows its advantage with the 3D and video apps...In general at this point, it's the software that lags behind the hardware in terms of optimization and full use of hardware resources."

What do you think?

 

[Pressure]

I wonder how a single quad-core 2.8Ghz Penryn would compare to the current 2.66Ghz Woodcrest?

It will probably match the old 2 x 3.0Ghz Woodcrest option, with the faster ram and processor improvement.

 

[benpatient]

I'm wondering about this as well, because there is only (presumably) a single full-speed 1600 mhz FSB channel with the quad 2.8, which is different from the dual dual 2.66 in that there were two full FSB channels (although they were a bit slower).

At least in theory the bandwidth between the RAM and the processor would be less in the new single quad 2.8 setup than the old dual dual 2.66 setup.

it IS 500 dollars cheaper, though the quad 2.8 xeon actually costs more than 500 bucks in lots of 1000 right now...

 

[AaRdVarK]

I'd like to know if upgrading down the line is just a matter of dropping in another processor. Do you think they use the same motherboards as the dual-processor rigs?

Edit: Well, looking at it now, it seems like it's not a good deal to drop the second processor. It looks like they go for $800 anywhere else, but you only save $500 by dropping it. Maybe I'll get the dual-proc and then pull out the processor and sell it.

 

[fluidedge]

interesting idea

 

[ktbubster]

or... could you get the single processor now and then drop in an additional processor say... 3 years down the line when they will no doubt be mucho cheaper, but the 8 cores may be taken advantage of a lot more down the road thus giving you a pretty decent system boost down the line for a limited amount of money?

Hmmm think think think. Could be a good option for people who have limited budget now but like to keep their comps for along time.