Real world load comparisons going from dual xeon 2.8 Ghz to woodcrest 2.0 Ghz 5130? Options

[Jeff]

Anyone have a real-world load comparison upgrading from a dual Xeon 2.8 Ghz 533 mhz bus to a dual dual-core Woodcrest 5130 2.0 Ghz?

[Matix12]

Thats kinda comparing like the worlds worst cpu and the best cpu....


Goes hand in hand, there is a BIG difference.

[eth00]

I don't have any metrics but even going from a 3.2 xeon -> a single conroe is an upgrade cpu wise

[Jeff]

Thats kinda comparing like the worlds worst cpu and the best cpu....
Goes hand in hand, there is a BIG difference.

There are still a lot slower cpu's being sold though as web servers, even here (all the p4s, etc.)
I can get two dual xeon 2.8 servers for less than a dual woodcrest 2.0, so I'm wondering if having the load split between two slower system buses, sets of cpu's etc would be better or if I should bite the bullet and go for a single woodcrest (with an equal number of cores, superior technology, only 2/3 the mhz of the current lead woodcrest, faster system bus and memory, but only one system bus vs. two separate servers, etc.)

So is the dual woodcrest 2.0 twice the server of the dual xeon 2.8?

More than twice the server?

[Creed3020]

I would dare to say it is at least a 100% improvement, beyond that you will need someone has some hard data.

I used to have a DX 2.8 with 533 mhz FSB and it ran pretty well until I started putting newer generation game servers on it. When those servers were full of players those CPUs were working hard with little room to spare. I also believe their low level of L2 cache is too blame.

They only had 512KB per core, when compared to a Woodcrest with 2MB of L2 cache per core the difference is sure to be noticeable.

The price on thos DX are really good, and I would ask sales for more info, because I know someone who is currently getting the 3.2 model, and they said that the FSB was 800MHz, so the exact model may differ from what I had.