new xeon 5160 3.0 ghz or two 5050 3.0 ghz xeon processors

[thewhtridr]

Hey all,
I was just curious what others thought about this?

I am designing systems that will be used as the base workstations for
data discovery which is relatively processor intensive. I have the
option of either two dual core xeon 5050 3 ghz processors or a single
woodcrest 3ghz processor. Which would you think would be better?

The only other thing I will mention is the systems regaurdless of which
I choose will have an option for upgrading to dual processor later on
so I could add it later as need be.

Any thoughts Appreciated.

 

[Admiral Q]

Hey all,
I was just curious what others thought about this?

I am designing systems that will be used as the base workstations for
data discovery which is relatively processor intensive. I have the
option of either two dual core xeon 5050 3 ghz processors or a single
woodcrest 3ghz processor. Which would you think would be better?

The only other thing I will mention is the systems regaurdless of which
I choose will have an option for upgrading to dual processor later on
so I could add it later as need be.

Any thoughts Appreciated.

Personally, I'd wait a few months, as Intel plans on having out the new 4
core Xeon processors.

 

[paulmd]

Hey all,
I was just curious what others thought about this?

I am designing systems that will be used as the base workstations for
data discovery which is relatively processor intensive. I have the
option of either two dual core xeon 5050 3 ghz processors or a single
woodcrest 3ghz processor. Which would you think would be better?

The twin dual core xeons.

The only other thing I will mention is the systems regaurdless of which
I choose will have an option for upgrading to dual processor later on
so I could add it later as need be.

Don't bother. Either buy two processors up front, or buy a board wth a
single processor capability only. Otherwise you're paying for a feature
you *will not* ever implement.