My P4 3.2Ghz HT box has bit the dust and Im looking at a E6320 box for running basically the adobe and macromedia suites, what will the performance difference be.


Also the E6300 and E6320 are the same price since the E6320 has twice the L2 cache it seems like the no brainer but am I missing something that the E6300 has?

The E6320 is essentially the newer version of the E6300. The only difference is the newer stepping and obviously the larger L2 cache. Definitely get the E6320, because they are the same price. I've seen them on newegg for around $160.

If you can afford it, you might want to go with the E6420, which is now the same price as the 6300 was when I bought it in March.

In terms of comparing it to the P4, you'll get at least the same performance as the P4, if not better. Not only is it dual core, which the newer Adobe suites are optimized for, but it is drastically more efficient than the P4 despite the lower clock speed.

You'll definitely be satisfied with a Core 2 Duo.

Since this workstation box is only going to cost me around 650 the 254 they want for the upgrade to that processor seems a bit steep since this is just a PC to get me through a year or 2, my main concern was to not lose any performance.

Also is the E3620 a 64bit chip?

All of the Intel Core 2 Duos are 64 bit chips. And don't worry, you won't lose any performance, you'll only gain it. They're also much more power efficient and run cooler than Pentium 4's.

And now hopefully the final question........

Since I just found the dell outlet, they have many C2D's and xeon 1.86Ghz boxes (Dual-Core Intel Xeon 5120 1.86GHz, 1066 FSB, 4M L2 Cache 65 watts)

For my graphic/web design aps how big of a jump in performance will a xeon chip give me?

The Xeon 5120 is simply the dual-processor version of the E6320. A single 5120 will perform similarly to the E6320. I'd suggest buying a Core 2 Quad over a pair of Xeon 5100 dual-cores as the C2Q is as fast and MUCH cheaper than two Xeon dual-cores when you consider in the cost of the motherboard and expensive FB-DIMM RAM that the Xeons take. I'd only suggest getting the Xeons if you need 8 cores- that would be 2 5300 series Xeons.

Are there any other differences other than just being the multi processor version?

Im not building the system and they have both E6320 and single Xeon 5120 workstations in my price range

Take the E6320.

Xeon based systmes are usually slightly more expensive than their identical Conroe (dual core) chip systems. While the chips have the same level of performance, the Xeon systems will often have motherboards designed for TWO separate CPU units, more than 4GB of RAM, or adding high performance Quadro graphic cards for CAD etc.

Unless you plan on seriously upgrading the computer in a different direction than how you have been using the computer the Conroe (dual core E6320) based systems will be your better buy.

There are, but they are subtle. Here they are:

1. Memory
C2D E6320: Uses up to four unbuffered, unregistered DDR2 or DDR3 modules in up to a 128-bit (dual-channel) arrangement for up to 8 GB maximum with DDR2 and currently 16 GB maximum with DDR3.

Xeon 5120: Uses up to 32 fully-buffered DDR2 DIMMs in up to a 256-bit (quad-channel) arrangement for up to 128 GB maximum memory.

Difference: The FSB is the same in both cases at 1066 MHz effective, and that is well below the maximum throughput of the RAM, so the quad-channel setup in the Xeon will be of no use. The Xeon's FB-DIMMs are more expensive, hotter-running, and have a much higher latency than the standard DDR2 modules in the C2D machine. But they come in sizes of up to 4 GB and you can use more than four on a single board, allowing for more than 8 GB for a single machine. You can put 16 GB on a DDR3 C2D board today, but DDR3 is extremely expensive compared to FB-DIMMs. FB-DIMMs also are buffered and use error-correcting code (ECC) so they are much better suited to work in an environment where reliability > speed.

2. Motherboards

C2D E6320: Uses a standard LGA 775 motherboard with a normal 945/965/975, 3000, or 33/35-series chipset. Comes in uATX and ATX formats. Upgradeable to Core 2 Quad. Price is $100-250 in most cases.

Xeon 5120: Uses a dual-socket LGA 771 motherboard with a 5000 series chipset. Comes in ATX, EATX, and rackmount formats. Upgradeable to 2x dual core or 2x quad core. Price is $300-500 in most cases.

Differences:
The Xeon board is much more expensive but is much more upgradeable. It has a current maximum of 8 cores (2x quad) and you are currently using a single dual-core CPU. The C2D board is less expensive but less upgradeable. You can put two more cores in there and that's it. I'm supposing that both are server-class boards and will use decent-quality parts, otherwise the Xeon board will likely be more reliable and be guaranteed to work with workstation/server OSes instead of just Windows Vista or maybe XP like the consumer stuff is.

3. Power consumption:

FB-DIMMs and the second FSB in the Xeon machine suck more power, so the Xeon will use more power.

That's about all I can think of off the top of my head.

Thanks MU,

Looks like the Xeon will be my best bet since if I get into any jams due to computing speeds I can just add another processor and 2GB of ram for around 500, which is a big plus since the 3.2 HT has lasted me about 3 years id hope to get around the same life out of this box.

Its interesting that most of the boxes arent listed as having the 64 bit version of XP (Im going to have to call to double check but since these are already built computers I wonder why they didnt click the 64bit option since its free) and the only 64 bit XP box I could find in my price range was a C2D but the 8GB? that 32bit XP will let me run should be more than enough.

This is probably due to the fact that most people won't need to address more than 3gb of ram. Unless you plan on initially having >3gb of ram memory it will actually hinder your performance to choose the 64bit version as this extended memory addressing system consumes more memory itself. Plus you can always swap your product key with a 64bit install cd at a later time.

Product keys for 32/64 bit versions of windows should easily be exchanged as long as your sticking to the OEM software sets. As this is what is shipped with the machine.

This is probably due to the fact that most people won't need to address more than 3gb of ram. Unless you plan on initially having >3gb of ram memory it will actually hinder your performance to choose the 64bit version as this extended memory addressing system consumes more memory itself. Plus you can always swap your product key with a 64bit install cd at a later time.

Product keys for 32/64 bit versions of windows should easily be exchanged as long as your sticking to the OEM software sets. As this is what is shipped with the machine.