Need some Socket 604 Xeon Experts

i would recommend the dual dual cores, rather than the higher clocked single cores. for multithreaded apps, the dual cores should perform better.

File storage and burning of CD's and DVD's mostly. Right now it has 4 36GB 15K SCSI's in Raid 0 and that will be added too and a 32GB Patriot SSD for the OS. I plan on storing all of my Itunes and other video items on this workstation

IMO, both system will be able to handle the load just fine, it seems to be very light load anyway. With more total cores (2x2 vs 2x1), you will be able to do more tasks at the same time and the system will run smoothly, but the tasks might run a bit slower. With only 2 cores running faster, the some tasks might complete faster, but you will not be able to run as many at the same time.

If you plan on doing media encoding (like ripping CDs to mp3 and/or DVDs to DivX/xVid), then the 2xdual core 2.8GHz will probably best since many encoders are multi-threaded.

Then again, how much would the upgrade cost you, because I'm pretty sure a i7 920 could beat that system for multimedia tasks?

LOL! Even my 4.2 ghz overclock e5200 couldn't come close to the multitasking smoothness and productivity of even a previous 533 fsb xeon. If you don't know what your talking about then take a back seat.

Also, Media encoding is different. Just get a lot of RAM and RAID 0. In this case, those scsi drives aren't a bad thing. But he didn't mention anything like this.

I've stressed a system like this, two single cores, and the system always shut down due to heat problems or limited RAM before the CPU's could be bogged down and your suggesting the dual core dual processor setup? Heh... That type of setup is for servers with lots of heavy constant i/o tasks.


Currently trying to put together a previous gen dual opteron system of some type. Very inexpensive and is said to run circles around the 775 type xeon platform. Platform tends to have a bit more options on overclocking as well.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd,889-26.html

Nuff said.

Yeah, figured as much you would have heat troubles. And that is a 3.6 ghz cpu. There's really no way around this except significant cooling which basically costs a lot for the 604 socket when you need two of them if I am not mistaken. Limited options also. Dual core is only going to make it a lot worse. Even when it is only at 2.8 ghz.

The cost of running a Netburst based server and the productivity it generates is just plain disgusting compared to Core2 based Xeons and even old S940 Opterons. They're retired and are dirt cheap for good reasons. In fact people should PAY you to take it away them!
From what I've seen working as a SA almost all small companies have dumped them since early 08.

Probably the only thing that's still reusable is the E-ATX case which should be a good candidate for modding.

Back then one of the reason why you'd need a server motherboard is because of PCI-X for high-bandwidth controller cards. Now it's been replaced by PCIe which solves a lot of things.
RAM with ECC is supported by P35-X48 so no problem there.
So the only compelling reason to get a full server platform is if you need 2P or more in order to obtain more cores than what 1P allows.

For example Q6600 were being sold as Xeon 3220 (not a single difference) because you can achieve server stability with selected desktop/workstation components. With abundance of quadcore CPUs available today a 1P server with business-class reliability can be built very cheaply now thanks to this.

While you are correct you are forgetting that there are two of them... Yeah, kind of forgot about that little detail...

Ever used a dual cpu system?

@Psychosaysdie

So you decided to get the dual core cpu's. Not a bad choice, both were good options really.

What I was trying to explain is that the two of the singles cores at 3.6 ghz would have been a lot faster then two dual cores at 2.8 ghz.

But as far as stability and smoothness in a dual core dual cpu system, it's hard to comment on such a setup since I have not used it and there are no full reviews really on how a system like this reacts.

But as a lot of people say, usually there is no immediate difference between a quad and dual core that they notice at the same clock speed.

I know it's a huge improvement in stability and more responsive with two but do you notice initially it's not as fast as your single core at 3.6 ghz?

Turn off one dual core and try it out, you'll see what I mean.

By all means that is not a bad system even for today's standards if you ask me. And a lot more and then some for your needs.

Yeah, either way, they were both good choices. Although if you were worried about heat issues on the 3.8 ghz, having two going at the same time instead one cpu taking all the computing load should have helped overall. Dual core dual cpu is definitely more stable then a regular dual cpu setup.

Well, good to see that it worked out nice for you. Have fun with your setup. Either way I would be a tadbit jealous, I always wanted to upgrade my old dual xeons with a dual or 3.8 ghz cpu's. Instead I'm currently trying to build an opteron system. Heh.

Nice...

Although, you might want to consider getting another ssd in a raid 0. I been reading that ssd's don't really show it's full potential unless you do this. Unless that is you got one of those expensive Intel ssd's.

Heh... Very nice...

The first major difference would be absolute blazing speed. The I7 is a whole different animal. Honestly i feel like my Xeon system feels a tad bit smoother when it comes to encoding and ripping but the I7 can just flat out fly.