2 X quad core processor vs. i7

[Archi_B]

Hi, soo im trying to find out wich way to go, currently i have a hp desktop quad core cpu q9300@2,50 ghz, 8gb ram, 64 bit operating system on a SSD, and nvidia quadro fx 3700 for graphics card; most of the work that im doing involve archicad 14, artlantis 3, cinema 4d, photoshop cs5, after effects...
I wish to upgrade my configuration, but i wonder wich would be better:
1. a desktop with 2 x quad core
2. a desktop with xeon six core
or 3. i7 processor

For the work that im doing wich configuration would be faster
thanks for your help

 

[inzone]

I would say the i7 2600k , but I don't know what you had in mind for options 1 and 2 as far as budget , what processors and are the xeons able to be overclocked also they can be very expensive. The reason I said the 2600k right off the bat would be the price and the overclockability.With option 1 that means you would also be getting a motherboard to support 2 quad cores? If that were the case then get two 2600k's to put in it and you would have a super fast system for your work.

 

[Archi_B]

thanks for your reply, you are right: the six core xeon is expensive. soo what u are basically suggesting is: mobo with 2 X i7 2600k

 

[crisan_tiberiu]

i dont know if there is any mobo for dual i7 2600k.

 

[Archi_B]

i also dont know of any dual i7 mobo; soo the best thing to do is to go single i7?

 

[GhislainG]

Can you specify which processors you are referring to? You can usually install 2 Quad-Core only in a workstation. The fastest would probably be two Xeon X5690 processors.

 

[Archi_B]

well thats what im trying to find out, i dont have any particular processor in mind; my only concern is about the "architecture" of the configuration: 2 x quad core vs. 1 x six core vs. 1 x i7
from what i know for the type of work that im doing, i need "raw power"(wich i belive that the: 2 x quad core and one six core, should provide) but i dont know if the i7 would be up for it( i maybe mistaking), my specs on the i7 is that: its a more "commercial" configuration, but again i maybe mistaking
people i talked to advised me to go six core(more expensive) or dual quad core(less expensive)

 

[Umbongo]

If you can't wait for the LGA 2011 platform then I'd suggest a Core i7 2600K, stock it rivals the Core i7 980 (3.2GHz 6-core) and overclocked bests it. LGA 2011 brings a 3.2GHz 6-core Sandy Bridge-E for $600 (same as the 980), but we don't know how well they will overclock - if you aren't overclocking then Core i7 2600 or wait for the Core i7 3930. Using a Xeon version allows you to use ECC memory - (for larger capacities and tiny bit of insurance on memory failure/diagnosing, but limits overclocking.

You can only use two 5000 or 7000 series Xeons together, and unless you have $3,000 to spend I wouldn't consider dual processors for a workstation.

 

[GhislainG]

You can't say that a dual-quad is faster unless you know what processors will be used. The quads would be Xeon or Opteron processors?

 

[Archi_B]

You can't say that a dual-quad is faster unless you know what processors will be used. The quads would be Xeon or Opteron processors?

well i was thinking that the quads would be Xeon, becouse they(in theory) should be more reliable, i must say that my curent workstation is being used nonstop for rendering

 

[Archi_B]

i want to thank all of you for your imput and replys, and hopefully you will help me figure this

 

[13thmonkey]

wait for sandy-e benchmarks and mobo's and then make your decision, isn't there a hyperthreaded 8 core available in that.

 

[GhislainG]

Have you considered using two Xeon 5540 or faster? Older Xeon processors aren't competivive against an i7-2600K or an i7-990X. If you really need maximum performance, then nothing beats two X5690 (other than a high performance quad processor solution).