performance differences between core 2 duo and dual core xeon

Discussion in 'Professional Video Production' started by Luis Ortega, Apr 30, 2007.

  1. Luis Ortega

    Luis Ortega Guest

    How do these processors compare for tasks like video editing?
    the Intel core 2 duo
    the Intel dual core xeon
    the Intel quad core xeon
    Can anyone suggest some sites that have performance comparisons?
    Can the dual and quad core xeons be used to build PCs or are they just for
    use on Macs?
    Which motherboards would support them?
    Thanks for any advice.
    Luis Ortega, Apr 30, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. Luis Ortega

    nappy Guest

    There are a number of tests you can google.. It is hell though.. trying to
    actually differentiate between all of teh available flavers. It is
    I am trying to put together another render farm here and I am going batty
    trying to actually discern the differences.
    No.. you can run windows on them just fine.
    nappy, Apr 30, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. Luis Ortega

    nappy Guest

    teh available flavers. It is
    so maddening it is affecting my spelling.
    nappy, Apr 30, 2007
  4. Luis Ortega

    Luis Ortega Guest

    I found a couple of sites that compared core 2 duos to dual core xeons and
    they report that for processor intensive tasks the xeons were slightly
    better but for memory intensive tasks the core 2 duos came out better
    because of the slower memory speeds of the xeons compared to the core 2 duos
    (ddr2 667 vs ddr2 800). The dual core xeons had a faster fsb than the core 2
    duos (1333 vs 1066).
    These tests were comparing one core2 duo against one dual core xeon.
    I imagine that in a system like a Mac pro that uses two dual core xeons, the
    performance should be a lot better than for a single core 2 duo PC system,
    which is what I'm trying to research.
    You may have already seen this site, but I'll pass it on.
    What a weird link! I hope it works. I just copied and pasted.
    Luis Ortega, Apr 30, 2007
  5. You need to sit down, relax, and have a bowl of alphabet soup. That'll
    help a lot.
    Gene E. Bloch, Apr 30, 2007
  6. <SNIP>

    And look how the link looks now - all I did was hit reply!

    Anyway, I'm really posting to suggest that you investigate TinyURL, at

    It's the perfect thing for situations like this :)
    Gene E. Bloch, Apr 30, 2007
  7. Luis Ortega

    nappy Guest

    nappy, Apr 30, 2007
  8. Luis Ortega

    Fishface Guest

    Fishface, May 1, 2007
  9. Tadeusz Krzeminski, May 1, 2007
  10. Luis Ortega

    Luis Ortega Guest

    Thanks for the links.
    I guess that I am trying to determine whether an 8 core is really worth it
    in terms of performance now and in the future.
    I read some reports that discuss that there is a memory bandwidth bottleneck
    for the 8 core given the rest of the specs of the system and so it might not
    be a useful choice over the 4 core. The whole system would need to be
    developed further, maybe with faster memory speeds beyond 667, and perhaps
    some architecture would need refinements to ever get the real benefits of 8
    core, regardless of whether the software is being optimized for multicore
    If this is the case, then maybe 8 cores are a good idea that needs the next
    generation of refinements for the rest of the components to catch up to its
    I don't really know the stuff well enough to form a competent opinion, so I
    keep reading as much as I can before making a buying decision.
    My choices now are whether to stick with a 4 core and improve the ram and
    fast drives and video card or go with 8 core in the hopes that it already
    has adequate support from the rest of the system architecture so that when
    software is optimized for it it can really deliver its full potential. You
    can always improve the ram and drives and video cards but you are basically
    stuck with the processors and underlying architecture until they redesign
    the computer itself.
    On a separate question, if you want to also run windows, is it better to
    install the 64 bit version so that it can access the full amount of ram in
    the system rather than the 32 bit version or does this not apply to a
    windows installation on the Mac Pro?
    Thanks for any advice.

    Luis Ortega, May 1, 2007
  11. Luis Ortega

    Spex Guest

    An 8 core Mac or PC is the current fastest box you can buy for your
    money. In an ideal world there wouldn't be a memory bottleneck but it
    does not stop the 8 core out performing the 4 core by a considerable
    margin. It is up to you to decide if your workflow can make use of the
    extra 4 cores and worth the added expense. It wouldn't be worth it if
    your render times are trivial as half of trivial is still trivial!

    You should install 32 bit Windows if you want to have widest possible
    compatibility with drivers and software.
    Spex, May 2, 2007
  12. Luis Ortega

    nappy Guest

    yo spex.. does Win2K address all 4 or 8 procs?
    Will winXP?
    I know XP64 does?

    Currently assembling a mad little render farm.

    nappy, May 2, 2007
  13. Luis Ortega

    Spex Guest

    From what I remember XP Pro can use 2 processors with any number of
    cores. I can't remember what W2k could address I suspect the same as XP

    I know this won't affect you Nap but XP Home can only address 1 CPU. On
    a similar note I'd expect M$ to have limited many of the pointless
    versions of Vista in a similar way.

    Spex, May 3, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.