Dual Xeon vs. i7

RZ wrote on 8/8/2011, 7:59 AM
I am planning to get a workstation made to order. Having used dual AMD processors in the past, I am debating Dual Xeons vs Quad/ Hex Core i7. Besides price difference, is there any advantage of dual vs single processor.

The other thing I notice(and I stand Corrected) is that it is only Xeons that are available in a dual processor setup.

Any input is greatly appreciated.

Comments

Steve Mann wrote on 8/8/2011, 10:41 AM
You can look at the rendertest data: http://www.mmdv.com/sonyvegas/rendertest/
(password is 'vegasuser').

The fastest render result (102 seconds) goes to JKolle's BYO Xeon 5650 system. The second fastest (104 seconds - statistically identical) goes to KKolbo's BYO system with an overclocked i7 980.

By far, the BYO computers outrun the factory-built. Dell computers running XP are at the slowest end.
LReavis wrote on 8/8/2011, 12:10 PM
kkolbo's is fastest non-Xeon system, but recently I replaced my 940 by a 970 and got 107 seconds (see 5th post up from the bottom of the long thread at http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=773042&Replies=1). And that speed was obtained on air cooling.

Because the 970 is several hundred dollars cheaper than a 980x, you might want to use it - if you can tolerate less than 3% slower speed (about 5% slower than the Xeon).

The current price of a 970 is a bit less than $500:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Brand-New-Sealed-Intel-Core-i7-970-CPU-NIB-/220824518506?pt=CPUs&hash=item336a2abf6a
ritsmer wrote on 8/9/2011, 12:20 AM
The Xeon processors tend to arrive a little later than the non-Xeons - so today you would compare a latest technology i9xx with a slightly older Xeon.

I have a 2 x Xeon quad 2,8 GHz Mac Pro from early 2008 (!!) running Windows 7 directly (without Bootcamp etc) and it previews full HD AVCHD 28 Mbps at full speed -and does the new rendertest at about 190 seconds (Vegas 9.0e).

Since my first 8086 PC (remember, anyone? no?) I have bought a new machine when the new one was about twice as fast as the old one - so now a six core processor could fulfill this criteria.
I expect, however, that the Xeon generation made from the current Sandy Bridge technology will arrive soon - and just imagine something like 2 x i970 pulling together.... so I think that that will be the next machine here.
Just remember, that while all Windows 7's can manage a multi core processor only the top ones can manage a multi processor machine.
Steve Mann wrote on 8/9/2011, 5:19 AM
Just remember, that while all Windows 7's can manage a multi core processor only the top ones can manage a multi processor machine."

The limitation is in the licensing:
According to the EULA for Win 7 Ultimate the answer is two (2) processors noted under:

2. INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS.
b. Licensed Computer.
You may use the software on up to two processors on the licensed computer at one time. Unless otherwise provided in these license terms, you may not use the software on any other computer.
JohnnyRoy wrote on 8/9/2011, 8:47 AM
> "The limitation is in the licensing:"
> "According to the EULA for Win 7 Ultimate the answer is two (2) processors noted under"

Actually, I believe the limitation is "real". Windows 7 Home Premium will not recognise the second CPU which was the point of that statement. You need to have Professional or Ultimate in order to use two physical CPU's. (i.e., the "top" ones)

~jr
RZ wrote on 8/9/2011, 3:55 PM
I will see how things are in the next 6-8 weeks. I think it will be exciting to see the performance of the Xeon varitey of i7 processors. Apple may be the first one to announce them in their much rumored Mac Pro's. Also will get Windows 7 Pro or Ultimate.Thanks
ritsmer wrote on 8/10/2011, 12:37 AM
Microsoft writes:

Commercial servers, workstations, and other high-end PCs may have more than one physical processor. Windows 7 Professional, Enterprise, and Ultimate allow for two physical processors, providing the best performance on these computers. Windows 7 Starter, Home Basic, and Home Premium will recognize only one physical processor.