Will the Core 2 support being placed on a motherboard with a second Core 2?

Hello,

The quad core is a bit pricey. Does the Core2 support a second core 2
processor on the same system?

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 14:08:30 +0000, boe wrote:

> Hello,
>
> The quad core is a bit pricey. Does the Core2 support a second core 2
> processor on the same system?

There is a Xeon version of the Core2 that supports two chips in a system,
that makes much more sense then the so-called quad core. The weak point of
the Intel architecture is the front side bus and the QX6700 exacerbates
the problem by hanging two dual core chips off of the same FSB. The Xeons
have separate FSBs for each chip, unfortunately those system use FB DIMMs
which have much higher latencies than regular DDR DIMMs.

You didn't say what your application was. Unless you are running a server,
having four cores won't help you. There are very few applications that can
take advantage of more than one core. Two cores are slightly useful for
desktop users because many people to a little multitasking, but it's hard
to see how four cores will be useful for anything except servers.

I do a lot of video processing/conversions.

"General Schvantzkoph" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 14:08:30 +0000, boe wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> The quad core is a bit pricey. Does the Core2 support a second core 2
>> processor on the same system?
>
> There is a Xeon version of the Core2 that supports two chips in a system,
> that makes much more sense then the so-called quad core. The weak point of
> the Intel architecture is the front side bus and the QX6700 exacerbates
> the problem by hanging two dual core chips off of the same FSB. The Xeons
> have separate FSBs for each chip, unfortunately those system use FB DIMMs
> which have much higher latencies than regular DDR DIMMs.
>
> You didn't say what your application was. Unless you are running a server,
> having four cores won't help you. There are very few applications that can
> take advantage of more than one core. Two cores are slightly useful for
> desktop users because many people to a little multitasking, but it's hard
> to see how four cores will be useful for anything except servers.

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:57:15 +0000, boe wrote:

> I do a lot of video processing/conversions.
>
> "General Schvantzkoph" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 14:08:30 +0000, boe wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> The quad core is a bit pricey. Does the Core2 support a second core 2
>>> processor on the same system?
>>
>> There is a Xeon version of the Core2 that supports two chips in a system,
>> that makes much more sense then the so-called quad core. The weak point of
>> the Intel architecture is the front side bus and the QX6700 exacerbates
>> the problem by hanging two dual core chips off of the same FSB. The Xeons
>> have separate FSBs for each chip, unfortunately those system use FB DIMMs
>> which have much higher latencies than regular DDR DIMMs.
>>
>> You didn't say what your application was. Unless you are running a server,
>> having four cores won't help you. There are very few applications that can
>> take advantage of more than one core. Two cores are slightly useful for
>> desktop users because many people to a little multitasking, but it's hard
>> to see how four cores will be useful for anything except servers.

That sort of thing could be done in parallel, you'll have to check if the
programs that you are using are multithreaded or not. If they are then a
Xeon or Opteron system might make sense for you, I'd stay away from the
QS6700 for the reasons that I already stated.

Thanks - I appreciate the info.

I currently use the Core 2 6700 and it is a HUGE improvement - my programs
multithread nicely. Not sure how much a Quad or 2 core2 solution would
work but I figure I might as well find out. The quad 6700 is a tad pricey
for me to consider but adding another core 2 6700 might have been an option.

"General Schvantzkoph" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:57:15 +0000, boe wrote:
>
>> I do a lot of video processing/conversions.
>>
>> "General Schvantzkoph" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 14:08:30 +0000, boe wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> The quad core is a bit pricey. Does the Core2 support a second core 2
>>>> processor on the same system?
>>>
>>> There is a Xeon version of the Core2 that supports two chips in a
>>> system,
>>> that makes much more sense then the so-called quad core. The weak point
>>> of
>>> the Intel architecture is the front side bus and the QX6700 exacerbates
>>> the problem by hanging two dual core chips off of the same FSB. The
>>> Xeons
>>> have separate FSBs for each chip, unfortunately those system use FB
>>> DIMMs
>>> which have much higher latencies than regular DDR DIMMs.
>>>
>>> You didn't say what your application was. Unless you are running a
>>> server,
>>> having four cores won't help you. There are very few applications that
>>> can
>>> take advantage of more than one core. Two cores are slightly useful for
>>> desktop users because many people to a little multitasking, but it's
>>> hard
>>> to see how four cores will be useful for anything except servers.
>
> That sort of thing could be done in parallel, you'll have to check if the
> programs that you are using are multithreaded or not. If they are then a
> Xeon or Opteron system might make sense for you, I'd stay away from the
> QS6700 for the reasons that I already stated.

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 21:27:12 +0000, boe wrote:

> Thanks - I appreciate the info.
>
> I currently use the Core 2 6700 and it is a HUGE improvement - my programs
> multithread nicely. Not sure how much a Quad or 2 core2 solution would
> work but I figure I might as well find out. The quad 6700 is a tad pricey
> for me to consider but adding another core 2 6700 might have been an option.
>
> "General Schvantzkoph" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:57:15 +0000, boe wrote:
>>
>>> I do a lot of video processing/conversions.
>>>
>>> "General Schvantzkoph" <> wrote in message
>>> news:...
>>>> On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 14:08:30 +0000, boe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> The quad core is a bit pricey. Does the Core2 support a second core 2
>>>>> processor on the same system?
>>>>
>>>> There is a Xeon version of the Core2 that supports two chips in a
>>>> system,
>>>> that makes much more sense then the so-called quad core. The weak point
>>>> of
>>>> the Intel architecture is the front side bus and the QX6700 exacerbates
>>>> the problem by hanging two dual core chips off of the same FSB. The
>>>> Xeons
>>>> have separate FSBs for each chip, unfortunately those system use FB
>>>> DIMMs
>>>> which have much higher latencies than regular DDR DIMMs.
>>>>
>>>> You didn't say what your application was. Unless you are running a
>>>> server,
>>>> having four cores won't help you. There are very few applications that
>>>> can
>>>> take advantage of more than one core. Two cores are slightly useful for
>>>> desktop users because many people to a little multitasking, but it's
>>>> hard
>>>> to see how four cores will be useful for anything except servers.
>>
>> That sort of thing could be done in parallel, you'll have to check if the
>> programs that you are using are multithreaded or not. If they are then a
>> Xeon or Opteron system might make sense for you, I'd stay away from the
>> QS6700 for the reasons that I already stated.

If your workload can be handled by separate boxes then that's the cheapest
way to go. I've just ordered a 4G E6700, 320G drive, Intel motherboard
with on board graphics, 600W Enermax supply, Lina Li case, and the price
came in at just under $1600 which is only $500 more than a QX6700 by
itself. By having a second box everything is doubled, the RAM, the RAM
bandwidth, the disk sub system bandwidth, the networking bandwidth.

The Core 2 Duo's CANNOT be used in multi-processor motherboards. Only the
dual core Xeons can.

--
DaveW

----------------
"boe" <> wrote in message
news:yZVch.63181$...
> Hello,
>
> The quad core is a bit pricey. Does the Core2 support a second core 2
> processor on the same system?
>

General Schvantzkoph wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 14:08:30 +0000, boe wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> The quad core is a bit pricey. Does the Core2 support a second core 2
>> processor on the same system?
>
> There is a Xeon version of the Core2 that supports two chips in a system,
> that makes much more sense then the so-called quad core. The weak point of
> the Intel architecture is the front side bus and the QX6700 exacerbates
> the problem by hanging two dual core chips off of the same FSB. The Xeons
> have separate FSBs for each chip, unfortunately those system use FB DIMMs
> which have much higher latencies than regular DDR DIMMs.

It depends a lot on what the mix of computation to data churn (memory
access rate) if memory will be a bottleneck. Given that a dual socket
motherboard is going to cost more than a single, and that you need to
use Xeon for multiple sockets, the quad may be a more cost effective
solution.
>
> You didn't say what your application was. Unless you are running a server,
> having four cores won't help you. There are very few applications that can
> take advantage of more than one core. Two cores are slightly useful for
> desktop users because many people to a little multitasking, but it's hard
> to see how four cores will be useful for anything except servers.

I'm told games, but I know big compiles. And boards like the ASUS allow
the memory to be o/c separately from the CPU, so you can use 667 memory
instead of 556 and it will still be in spec. That addresses the memory
problems to some extent. Since I don't have benchmark figures for quad I
can't say definitively. With a dual memory doesn't seem an issue, I
can'r really measure the gain from memory o/c, but I bought fast memory
anyway, for future use.

Your argument MAY have merit for applications like video where there is
a lot of data as well as CPU use, but faster memory is only slightly
more than 556. so that might not be a bottleneck.

I would love to have a CPU to test with large compiles, or see results
for video.

--
Bill Davidsen
He was a full-time professional cat, not some moonlighting
ferret or weasel. He knew about these things.

General Schvantzkoph wrote:

> If your workload can be handled by separate boxes then that's the cheapest
> way to go. I've just ordered a 4G E6700, 320G drive, Intel motherboard
> with on board graphics, 600W Enermax supply, Lina Li case, and the price
> came in at just under $1600 which is only $500 more than a QX6700 by
> itself. By having a second box everything is doubled, the RAM, the RAM
> bandwidth, the disk sub system bandwidth, the networking bandwidth.

That is a BIG if... I don't think your configuration is typical of
people considering quads, honestly. People running servers are likely to
have need for more disk in RAID configuration, for instance. So I think
the typical cost of a 2nd system would be higher in most cases.

And unless you have a HUGE pipe to the net, a typical 1Gbit NIC is going
to saturate your network. Even business internal networks are largely
only 1Gbit, and 100Mbit is still common.

What you say is all true, I'm not disagreeing with it, just suggesting
that it's not a typical case.

--
Bill Davidsen
He was a full-time professional cat, not some moonlighting
ferret or weasel. He knew about these things.