Two processors or one?

Hi

Here's a bit of a theoretical one. I'm doing my research before beginning to build my first pc. I don't really want it to do much. I'm not a gamer and I don't render video! But I do like that idea of building something that lasts. My current pc is just over six years old and low end but its still doing fine. So I was thinking of getting a fairly decent processor (maybe the AMD A8-5600 which is a quad core, I think). Then I came across a machine on eBay that was running 2 xeon processors. I've looked for articles but I can't really get a grasp of why you would want to do it. Or the cost implications. Or how you would work out performance.

Does anyone have any thoughts?
13 answers Last reply
More about processors
  1. That machine is a workstation or a server. They are meant more for specialized professional use (such as Photoshop professionals use such systems) rather than regular system.
  2. henzerani said:
    Hi

    Here's a bit of a theoretical one. I'm doing my research before beginning to build my first pc. I don't really want it to do much. I'm not a gamer and I don't render video! But I do like that idea of building something that lasts. My current pc is just over six years old and low end but its still doing fine. So I was thinking of getting a fairly decent processor (maybe the AMD A8-5600 which is a quad core, I think). Then I came across a machine on eBay that was running 2 xeon processors. I've looked for articles but I can't really get a grasp of why you would want to do it. Or the cost implications. Or how you would work out performance.

    Does anyone have any thoughts?


    There would be no point in getting that for everday use. Computers like that are for servers and workstations not every day work. Office, web browsing and playing games won't really benefit from having two physical processors. If anything it might be worse performance because usually servers use ECC memory which is slower than regular desktop DDR3 RAM.
  3. and so to sum up one processor is good enough for your needs.
  4. Your best bet is to use a quad like the i5 3570K which is far better than the A8 5600, and in your situation it is pointless to invest a lot of money for a dual Xeon rig since you will not notice any difference for 99% of things
  5. bearclaw99 said:
    Your best bet is to use a quad like the i5 3570K which is far better than the A8 5600, and in your situation it is pointless to invest a lot of money for a dual Xeon rig since you will not notice any difference for 99% of things

    You can't say it's far faster. It's completely incorrect as I would say the APU wins. The graphics on that CPU can't do anything.
  6. melikepie said:
    You can't say it's far faster. It's completely incorrect as I would say the APU wins. The graphics on that CPU can't do anything.


    As I have said in a previous thread, the A10 and an I5 3570K are no comparably by simply saying the one is faster...

    @OP, my opinion :

    Get an I3, an I5 would even be overkill. If you don't game at all the A10 is not for you, if you light game and are willing to upgrade in about 3 years i would estimate, THEN get the A10. But don't expect it to run games flawlessly...

    I3-3220 would be my suggestion...

    Atleast after a while if you see things struggling you can get a mid range graphics card to offload some things...
  7. melikepie said:
    You can't say it's far faster. It's completely incorrect as I would say the APU wins. The graphics on that CPU can't do anything.


    :pfff: The APU isn't even close to the I5 in single threaded programs like gaming.
  8. Hi Guys and thanks for the advice and knowledge. I'm running a Pentium D at present and it basically handles my needs. And has done for six years. I have a of with a core duo processor and an AMD 5850 graphics card than I use (almost successfully) as a media centre.
    So I'm really looking for something that can handle the software in five or six years time. I know that's an unknown (a known unknown) and that hardware is currently some way ahead of software but it's probably the main reason my customers are looking for new computers. And while I'm happy they are spending their money I'd like to look at value.

    Although novuaki is probably right. If I successfully build a pc I've probably want to tinker with it.

    Still, it's nice to think about different ideas.
  9. rds1220 said:
    :pfff: The APU isn't even close to the I5 in single threaded programs like gaming.



    I guess from my point of view the AMD is half the price of the Intel.
  10. henzerani said:
    I guess from my point of view the AMD is half the price of the Intel.


    BUT an APU is less than half the performance of an I5...
  11. Novuake said:
    BUT an APU is less than half the performance of an I5...



    Good point, but I'm cheap. However, www.cpubenchmark.net put Intel Celeron G530 as the 2nd best price performance. I'm not that cheap!

    Interestingly, they put AMD FX-6200 third, and that was a processor I was considering.
  12. henzerani said:
    Good point, but I'm cheap. However, www.cpubenchmark.net put Intel Celeron G530 as the 2nd best price performance. I'm not that cheap!

    Interestingly, they put AMD FX-6200 third, and that was a processor I was considering.


    If you decide to go that route rather get the piledriver-based FX6300, quite a bit better and is actually very good...
  13. Novuake said:
    BUT an APU is less than half the performance of an I5...


    Exactly right. The APU's graphics are better but is still weak in sheer CPU power. Yes it is cheaper than the I5 but there is reason why. If it was on the same level as the I5 it would be priced similarly.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Processors