2 X quad core processor vs. i7

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
12 answers Last reply
More about quad core processor
  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. i dont know if there is any mobo for dual i7 2600k.
  4. i also dont know of any dual i7 mobo; soo the best thing to do is to go single i7?
  5. 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.
  6. 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)
  7. 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.
  8. 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?
  9. GhislainG said:
    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
  10. i want to thank all of you for your imput and replys, and hopefully you will help me figure this
  11. wait for sandy-e benchmarks and mobo's and then make your decision, isn't there a hyperthreaded 8 core available in that.
  12. 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).
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Desktops Quad Core Product