chessmasterscds
2006-12-10T15:49:06Z
ok, The thing is.... I currently have a couple of Xeons Noconas 3.2Ghz that I bought a couple years ago. Right now I want to upgrade....

I'm looking at the Dempsey and Woodcrest architectures... I see that 5060 (dempsey) is the equal in price to the 5130 (woodcrest).

5060 is 3.2 ghz with HT, and 2x2Mb cache and 1066Mhz FSB
5130 is 2.0 ghz without HT and 4Mb shared and 1333Mhz FSB

What I do in my workstation is LOTS of 3D design and rendering in 3D studio MAX. I have been looking in the whole GOOGLE and nobody benchmark these 2 processors together in 3D rendering stuff.

Ok, here's where things get doubtful.... When I render my scenes, I know that If I set ONE of my processors tu render half a scene and the other to render the other half simoultaneously.... I'll cut off the total render time by 1/3..... that means that If both processors render the whole scene together (both working in the same frame at the same time) I'll end up waiting 1/3 more time than if I do it MY WAY...... Ok.....

Noconas have 2 logical processors thanks to HT.... so..... in windows.... 2 logical processors (in 1 of the cores) are rendering the same half of a scene, and the other 2... the other half.

Dempsey is dual core with HT, that means that in each chip, I can set 2 logical processors in one half and 2 to the other half.... and I f I have 2 chips, I can cut my scene in 4.... and assign each part to a different pair of logical cpus

Woodcrest is dual core with no HT, that means that if I want to divide my scenes in 4.... I would have to assign only 1 core to each part..... And that's exactly my question..... which one will perform better.... Dempsey 5060 with 2 logical CPUS (even if the second logical one only helps the other in 10-15%) working on one part of the scene.... or Woodcrest 5130 with one core working in one part of the scene....

I guess this could be answered if someone knows if woodcrest individual cores perform better at lower frequency than Dempsey individual cores with HT (2 logical cpus) at higher frequencies. Remeber de diference between the two is from 2ghz to 3.2ghz)

I know woodcrest is better tha dempsey.... I know... but I want to know wich of THESE TWO perform better (knowing that the top of the line Dempsey beats the lowest-end Woodcrest)


PLEASE HEEELPP!!!!
chessmasterscds
2006-12-11T00:40:31Z
Nobody knows???..... I'm going to put this is simple words.... :

I want to know if one woodcrest 2Ghz core performs better than one physical and one logical dempsey 3.2ghz cores together......

Anyone knows??
chessmasterscds
2006-12-11T15:09:40Z
Hum, I guess this is a mystery nobody in the whole world know....
chessmasterscds
2006-12-12T02:05:07Z
can somebody stop here and say something??.... at least.... "I don't have an idea...." 'cause I'm really thinking nobody here cares about this....
xtremeskier97
2006-12-12T09:30:38Z
Ok...Ill say something..though it wont help.

I have no idea what the answer to your question is/would be. I havent even stepped into dual core yet, much less Xeon CPUs. Sorry
alael
2006-12-12T11:52:50Z
You may like to read the folowing site

-----------------

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=xeon5160&page=1


Or this one:

--------------------

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=542537

Have fun, and let us know what you get for Christmas
Hope it's helpfull

Cheers
Alael
chessmasterscds
2006-12-12T13:34:55Z
thanks to xtremeskier for saying something!!!.... man, I tought nobody was looking at this... anyways.... thanks to alael too... I thik that's the only benchmark in the web that compares these two processors.... But.... ok.... they almost perform the same.... so... what would you guys recommend.... this benchmark say that dempsey renders in 121 seconds and woodcrest in 123...... In 3ds max of course

In maya... woodcrest does it in 43 seconds and dempsey in 45.....

what a hell.... this get me even more confused....I don't use maya yet but I'm planning to use it in the not so near future....

so... which one???
xtremeskier97
2006-12-12T13:40:42Z
With the results sooo close...I would go with the cheaper But that's just me.

Sorry I couldnt be of more help.
chessmasterscds
2006-12-12T14:36:16Z
well, woodcrest is $5 cheaper than dempsey.

I think I will go with woodcrest then. It consumes a lot less power than Dempsey, and they give almost the same performance.
alael
2006-12-13T04:59:54Z
I think it's a good choice.. besides, on the long run, less power is more saving$

Glad I could help,

Cheers !
Alael