Please tell. Between a Conroe E6600 OC @ 3.6Ghz and a Quad Core Xeon E5310 at stock (1.6Ghz 2 × 4M Cache 1066 MT/s) what would crunch those numbers faster (I have folding on the brain)
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Conroe VS Xeon?
- Thread starter AWBbox
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 2,676
AFAIK a xeon would be much better suited but, maybe someone else can clarify?
The Xeon, but only because its a quadcore. Im pretty sure that a Kentsfield would be faster, as it has its cores clocked higher, and its probably cheaper than a Xeon.. I know Kent's are expensive, but so are Xeons.
Mind you, as long as your E6600 isnt throttling, then its running at more than twice the clock speed, and you still have dual core, so while the Xeon is doing 4 instances, your Conroe might well be doing each of its twin instances in less than half the time.
Your overclocked Core2 naturally has a massively boosted FSB speed, and the potential to run insanely fast ram, assuming your ram's up to running 1:1 with the FSB. That could swing the balance in the favor of the E6600 3.6ghz.
Only real way to know is bench it
. Still think Kentsfield would beat them both though 
Clockspeed and quadcore ***!
Mind you, as long as your E6600 isnt throttling, then its running at more than twice the clock speed, and you still have dual core, so while the Xeon is doing 4 instances, your Conroe might well be doing each of its twin instances in less than half the time.
Your overclocked Core2 naturally has a massively boosted FSB speed, and the potential to run insanely fast ram, assuming your ram's up to running 1:1 with the FSB. That could swing the balance in the favor of the E6600 3.6ghz.
Only real way to know is bench it
. Still think Kentsfield would beat them both though Clockspeed and quadcore ***!
Last edited:
If you can only afford it go for the XEON, it might be slower than the Conroe / Kent but you can always pop in a second and get 8 cores on the job. 
Saying that, the cost of the mobi / PSU / moemory would make me wince a bit, so just go for a Kentsfield.
Saying that, the cost of the mobi / PSU / moemory would make me wince a bit, so just go for a Kentsfield.
- Joined
- 2 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 8,721
- Location
- Cleveland, Ohio, USA
The Xeon would dominate becasue the SMP client benefits from running on 4 cores.
No way Hosey
On the Vue 5 Infinite 'CERRO VERDE' scene my QX6700 took 3 Mins 22 Secs, comfortably beating a Dual Xeon 5160 @ 3000 MHz that took 3 mn 31
Vue 6? Read it and weep..
64-bit scores (higher better)
=========
685 : Core 2 Extreme QX6700 @ 3.20 GHz (288741)
633 : Core 2 Extreme QX6700 @ 2.93 GHz (288741)
584 : Core 2 Extreme QX6700 @ 2.66 GHz (288741)
507 : Dual Opteron 285 @ 2.73 GHz (288741)
444 : Dual Opteron 275 @ 2.20 GHz (288741)
300 : Opteron 165 @ 2.66 GHz (288741)
291 : Athlon 64 X2 3800+ @ 2.65 GHz (288741)
274 : Core 2 Duo E6400 @ 2.32 GHz (288741)
240 : Athlon 64 X2 4200+ @2.20 GHz (288741)
32-bit scores
=========
497 : MacPro @ 3.00 GHz (288741)
469 : Dual Opteron 285 @ 2.73 GHz (288741)
446 : MacPro @ 2.66 GHz (288741)
411 : Dual Opteron 275 @ 2.39 GHz (288741)
263 : Opteron 165 @ 2.66 GHz (288741)
253 : Core 2 Duo E6400 @ 2.32 GHz (288741)
183 : Core 2 Duo T5500 @ 1.66 GHz (288741)
170 : Core Duo T2400 @ 1.83 GHz (288741)
164 : Dual Xeon (Prestonia) @ 2.8 GHz (288741)
119 : Athlon 64 3400+ @ 2.40 GHz (288741)
110 : Pentium 4C @ 3.40 GHz (288741)
107 : Pentium 4C @ 3.24 GHz (288741)
100 : Pentium 4C @ 3.00 GHz (288741)
On the Vue 5 Infinite 'CERRO VERDE' scene my QX6700 took 3 Mins 22 Secs, comfortably beating a Dual Xeon 5160 @ 3000 MHz that took 3 mn 31
Vue 6? Read it and weep..
64-bit scores (higher better)
=========
685 : Core 2 Extreme QX6700 @ 3.20 GHz (288741)
633 : Core 2 Extreme QX6700 @ 2.93 GHz (288741)
584 : Core 2 Extreme QX6700 @ 2.66 GHz (288741)
507 : Dual Opteron 285 @ 2.73 GHz (288741)
444 : Dual Opteron 275 @ 2.20 GHz (288741)
300 : Opteron 165 @ 2.66 GHz (288741)
291 : Athlon 64 X2 3800+ @ 2.65 GHz (288741)
274 : Core 2 Duo E6400 @ 2.32 GHz (288741)
240 : Athlon 64 X2 4200+ @2.20 GHz (288741)
32-bit scores
=========
497 : MacPro @ 3.00 GHz (288741)
469 : Dual Opteron 285 @ 2.73 GHz (288741)
446 : MacPro @ 2.66 GHz (288741)
411 : Dual Opteron 275 @ 2.39 GHz (288741)
263 : Opteron 165 @ 2.66 GHz (288741)
253 : Core 2 Duo E6400 @ 2.32 GHz (288741)
183 : Core 2 Duo T5500 @ 1.66 GHz (288741)
170 : Core Duo T2400 @ 1.83 GHz (288741)
164 : Dual Xeon (Prestonia) @ 2.8 GHz (288741)
119 : Athlon 64 3400+ @ 2.40 GHz (288741)
110 : Pentium 4C @ 3.40 GHz (288741)
107 : Pentium 4C @ 3.24 GHz (288741)
100 : Pentium 4C @ 3.00 GHz (288741)
- Joined
- 2 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 8,721
- Location
- Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Linz, to whom are you saying no way? 
Thanks for the response, though i'm not swayed by either processor as of yet. By the way the E5310 is Clovertown, not Kentsfeild I am considering making a bit of a folding farm and I was wondering what processing choice was going to get me best bang for my buck. Bearing in mind I can be getting a E5310 server-system for about £460 new as opposed to what it would cost to build and overclock a conroe system.
I am considering making a bit of a folding farm and I was wondering what processing choice was going to get me best bang for my buck. Bearing in mind I can be getting a E5310 server-system for about £460 new as opposed to what it would cost to build and overclock a conroe system.Linz said:
It should beat a XEON that is running at 3Ghz. Now put your QX to 3.0 Ghz and the result will be similar to the Xeon. (They wont be identical, as you've increased your FSB to get the clock speed)
The difference will be that with the XEON, you can always slap in another chip and double the cores.
Elric said:..The difference will be that with the XEON, you can always slap in another chip and double the cores.
So true, t.b.h if I were going for the render farm thing that's what I'd do. But I'm nearly being divorced with the noise already
AWBbox said:Thanks for the response, though i'm not swayed by either processor as of yet. By the way the E5310 is Clovertown, not Kentsfeild
I know that E5310 is Clovertown not kentsfield, If you read again, I said that a Kentsfield would beat both the Conroe, and the Xeon, its quad core, and clocked at 2.66Ghz just like an Xeon E5355!
Just figured that a Kent's would probably be cheaper than a Xeon server, and give almost as much (if not more, DDR > FBDIMM for speed), and cost a lot less. However if you can get a bargain price xeon, then it would be a fair choice.
Still not totally convinced that 1.6Ghz quad is fast enough to outpace a 3.6Ghz dually though.
The choices I have been juggling through in my head are:
1: If Conroe @ 3.6 > Clovertown @ 1.6 Then i'll upgrade my main PC (spec below to a Yorkfield (Yeah, I know it's far off ) when the time comes and pass the conroe to another machine to use for folding)
2: If Clovertown @ 1.6 > Conroe @ 3.6 Then i'll get another dual socket, E5310 rig asap for folding and add another cpu given time. And you never know, I might even be able to overclock it a little
1: If Conroe @ 3.6 > Clovertown @ 1.6 Then i'll upgrade my main PC (spec below to a Yorkfield (Yeah, I know it's far off
) when the time comes and pass the conroe to another machine to use for folding)2: If Clovertown @ 1.6 > Conroe @ 3.6 Then i'll get another dual socket, E5310 rig asap for folding and add another cpu given time. And you never know, I might even be able to overclock it a little