1 or 2 processors

[moonrose]

which would be better for gaming and/ or editing
one I7 quad-core 3.3Ghz
or
two Xeon quad-core 2.26Ghz

basically i want to know which is better:
one with multiple cores and high clock speed vs 2 procs with multiple cores but lower clock speed.

 

[Darthfett]

Are you planning on running a server, or building a home computer? If the second, are you planning on running your home computer with a server motherboard?

More than likely, you're not going to be using 2 processors for a home computer. When it comes to gaming, you'd probably do better with a higher clock frequency than more cores, as most games are not 100% optimized for multi-core environments. In this case, it doesn't really matter, as one of the processors you linked is the best in the market. Go for the i7.

 

[Prometheus]

Get the i7. Xeons are designed for servers.

 

[DDRtists]

Get one fast core, multiple cores are pretty much useless for gaming. 99% of games do not use multiple cores, nor have support for them.

 

[Prometheus]

It's hard to find single cores these days. Try an Intel Core 2 Duo.

 

[Samuraid]

which would be better for gaming and/ or editing
one I7 quad-core 3.3Ghz
or
two Xeon quad-core 2.26Ghz

basically i want to know which is better:
one with multiple cores and high clock speed vs 2 procs with multiple cores but lower clock speed.

For gaming? Neither. The first is a waste of money, the second is for heavily threaded loads (you'd have 16 threads).

Your best bet is a Core i5 750 or a Core i7 860 with a compatible LGA1156 motherboard.

 

[Lyerae]

Get two of the i7.
Even though games aren't optimized for them, they may be in the future, and having two cores will increase the overall system speed.
So if you can, go for two.

 

[Prometheus]

I assume you mean a dual core i7. Though a quick look @ newegg shows no dual core i7's.

 

[Lyerae]

I mean two sperate cores, if thats possible. *isn't the best with hardware*

 

[Prometheus]

Two single cores? As in two processor slots?

 

[Ghan]

Something like this is probably the closest you can get:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131374

I don't think there is anything out there to support two i7s, however. Besides, that is just dumb anyway. I have one i7 (920 @ 3.33Ghz) and nothing can touch it. Go with what Samuraid recommended.

 

[Samuraid]

As Ghan mentioned, Core i7 CPUs do not work in a dual-processor motherboard. You must (currently) get Xeon 5500 series CPUs, and the motherboard must have dual LGA 1366 sockets; such motherboards start around $250 minimum.

 

[moonrose]

thanks, for all the input, i wasnt going to get either of those specific procs, just wanted to know what setup would be better.
because some people talk about having a server computer set up for gaming, with 2 procs.
but also what about music editing/recording and 3d editing and etc?

 

[Ghan]

Well, if you're doing tons of different things (as servers often do, especially with virtualization) then more threads is generally very helpful. However, you really need to be doing a LOT of stuff in order to warrant two CPUs in a computer.

 

[Samuraid]

but also what about music editing/recording and 3d editing and etc?

I work a bit in the audio/music industry, and very seldom does anyone need a lot (>4) of CPU cores. People sometimes have dual/quad CPU setups on their workstations, but really don't use them heavily.

Having a maximal number of CPU cores tends to be useful in certain parts of the business world, such as:

• 3D rendering
• Scientific/business high-performance calculations
• Mathematical optimization
• Enterprise databases
• Virtualization

 

[Tru_Power22]

thanks, for all the input, i wasnt going to get either of those specific procs, just wanted to know what setup would be better.
because some people talk about having a server computer set up for gaming, with 2 procs.
but also what about music editing/recording and 3d editing and etc?

i7 will be MORE than enough for what you need.

 

[Icyculyr]

If I had to choose between the two, I'd go the dual xeons, but I'd get at least a 2.66 or 2.93GHz, not a 2.26GHz.
16 Logical Cores is very good for anything that can use those cores (or several programs running at the same time that use a lot of them), totally irrelevant for gaming though.

I'd say Video Editing, 3D Modelling, and Music Editing programs (like Pro Tools) would benefit from having the dual xeons (as long as they can utilise all those cores, I think Pro Tools can - not sure if it still has an issue with hyper threading though), but like I said I'd still go the 2.93GHz.

 

[moonrose]

If I had to choose between the two, I'd go the dual xeons, but I'd get at least a 2.66 or 2.93GHz, not a 2.26GHz.
16 Logical Cores is very good for anything that can use those cores (or several programs running at the same time that use a lot of them), totally irrelevant for gaming though.

I'd say Video Editing, 3D Modelling, and Music Editing programs (like Pro Tools) would benefit from having the dual xeons (as long as they can utilise all those cores, I think Pro Tools can - not sure if it still has an issue with hyper threading though), but like I said I'd still go the 2.93GHz.

thanks, i probably should have said that i use pro tools, i dont know if it can utilize all those cores or multiple tho.

 

[Samuraid]

If I had to choose between the two, I'd go the dual xeons, but I'd get at least a 2.66 or 2.93GHz, not a 2.26GHz.
16 Logical Cores is very good for anything that can use those cores (or several programs running at the same time that use a lot of them), totally irrelevant for gaming though.

I'd say Video Editing, 3D Modelling, and Music Editing programs (like Pro Tools) would benefit from having the dual xeons (as long as they can utilise all those cores, I think Pro Tools can - not sure if it still has an issue with hyper threading though), but like I said I'd still go the 2.93GHz.

The 5500 series Xeons cost about $1400 USD per CPU if you want 2.93GHz. For most people, that is excessively expensive and not cost effective. I suppose if you are willing to spend $3000 on CPUs alone, then you can get something like that, but most of us don't have that sort of extra cash.

 

[moonrose]

The 5500 series Xeons cost about $1400 USD per CPU if you want 2.93GHz. For most people, that is excessively expensive and not cost effective. I suppose if you are willing to spend $3000 on CPUs alone, then you can get something like that, but most of us don't have that sort of extra cash.

exactly, i guess i should of just asked which setup is better, but i wanted to post 1 proc and 2 procs that equal the same price.
thank you all for the input.