Antique Engines and Old Iron

[Home] - [HELP] - [Forums] - [Library] - [Photo Gallery] - [Groups] - [Classified Ads] - [Subscribe] - [Links] - [Books] - [Sponsors] -

Go Back   SmokStak > SmokStak® General Discussion > Computer, Camera and ISP Problems
Forgot Password? Join Us!

Notices

Computer, Camera and ISP Problems Solutions for accessing and using the SmokStak® boards. Posting pictures, preventing viruses and solving internet service provider problems.

Computer, Camera and ISP Problems

Which Computer is Faster for Stand Alone Use?


this thread has 17 replies and has been viewed 706 times

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-25-2018, 09:20:15 PM
len k len k is offline
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Manchester, New Hampshire
Posts: 17,709
Thanks: 556
Thanked 6,577 Times in 4,756 Posts
Default Which Computer is Faster for Stand Alone Use?

Just picked up old Server with Xeon CPU in it. Wondering which computer will do work faster, for stand alone use? Just browsing web , MS Excel/Word 2007, Emails. I don't know anything about servers, just regular older stand alone desktops.

My old OS is XP
Think new OS will be win 8 ------> W8P 32/64 bit SVC DPK by Dell (guy gave me couple licenses,
got to find some install disks.)



Computer 1
computer server with : Intel Xeon (2 cpu)1.6Ghz (think it's 64 bit) 3 gig of RAM. Asus server mother board DSBV-D(G1)

Computer 2
Old "desktop" been using, Dell Optiplex 745: CPU is---- Intel DUO 2 CPU E4400 @ 2 Ghz, 1 gig of RAM. (sticker says designed for XP)

Last edited by len k; 08-25-2018 at 09:42:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 08-25-2018, 09:46:46 PM
s100 s100 is offline
Registered-II
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
Posts: 825
Thanks: 204
Thanked 486 Times in 334 Posts
Default Re: Which computer is faster , for stand alone use?

You haven't given us key details that make a big difference, I think. A very important factor when shuffling data around is the front side bus speed. (sounds to me like you are not going to be doing many complex calculations, so processor speed is a secondary factor) Another heavy hitter is hard drive access speed, which we also do not know. Knowing no more than I do I would take a swag and say that the computer with the most ram will be the faster of the two. Less time spent swapping.

I suggest that if you are going to go to all this indigestion to update your computer, why not just buy a newer machine with known specs, and Windows 10, if you insist on keeping Microsoft? That way you will have the longest machine life before obsolescence rears its ugly head. Around here there are resellers who sell reasonably new computers retired from large companies, checked out and functioning with a legitimate load of Windows 10 for low prices. I bought a Dell quad core with 6GB ram and 1333Mhz fsb and a 500gb HD, Windows 10, for $55. I wasn't concerned about speed or anything else, since I was perfectly happy with my old XP Dell, but unfortunately Microsoft declared otherwise by discontinuing support for XP, which caused the tax s/w producers to also give up on XP. But if I had to make the change by gum I would get as modern a machine as possible, so it would last as long as possible before I was forced to update again. Based on that, my biggest concern was that the machine was running W10, and the rest was pretty much window dressing.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to s100 For This Post:
  #3  
Old 08-25-2018, 09:47:38 PM
Thaumaturge Thaumaturge is offline
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Beryl, Utah USA
Posts: 4,201
Thanks: 3,277
Thanked 4,359 Times in 1,833 Posts
Default Re: Which computer is faster , for stand alone use?

My guess would be dual processor as being faster than dual core. I have a dual AMD processor machine that is hands down faster than a dual core machine. But easy to check. Lots of benchmark programs out there for windows.
Doc
__________________
Beginning anew http://machinebuildersnetwork.com
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-25-2018, 10:07:37 PM
len k len k is offline
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Manchester, New Hampshire
Posts: 17,709
Thanks: 556
Thanked 6,577 Times in 4,756 Posts
Default Re: Which computer is faster , for stand alone use?

$55 is cheap, suspect I'm not going to see that here,

Looks like both computers have only 1 physical computer chip, but BIOS and software report 2 CPUs ( Has to be 2 cores in one physical package)

I Got this equipment/software free on craigslist, so would like to try to stay with it for now. Old computer with XP is getting very suggish , maybe malware since XP supported anymore. Reinstalling XP doesn't help much. Might be overhead of Norton Security (anti-virus software).

Excell math will be REAL simple, just stuff like graphing up data. ( couple pages at most)

Most taxing will recorded music editing. ~ 3-7 gig music WAV files 44.4khz, takes 5-10+ minutes to save to harddrive , but that's VERY infrequent work (seems to mostly be harddrive interface speed related , so maybe a serial SATA harddrive will speed that up.)

Also bought some "fast" harddrives in past Staples black friday deals. Maxtor 500 gig 133 AT, parelle IDE (still sitting in the box).
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-25-2018, 10:46:58 PM
K-Tron K-Tron is offline
Registered-III
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Huntington, NY
Posts: 1,769
Thanks: 841
Thanked 870 Times in 604 Posts
Default Re: Which computer is faster , for stand alone use?

Len, You need to pay Staples a visit and return the harddrives you just bought. Maxtor stopped making harddrives almost 15 years ago, even the slowest mechanical drive today will much much much much faster than the Maxtor drives you probably paid a premium for. Drives that old should be given away. IDE went wayside just after the year 2000. Sadly the dual xeon you picked up sounds like a pentium 4 xeon, which will be slower than the core 2 duo you have. You shouldnt be investing anything in 20 year old technology. The cheapest computer in the big box store will be lightyears faster than that old tech. Literally a $200 laptop will do everything you plan on doing.

Chris
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-25-2018, 10:49:36 PM
Craig A's Avatar
Craig A Craig A is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 15,375
Thanks: 16,316
Thanked 20,317 Times in 5,910 Posts
Images: 18
Default Re: Which computer is faster , for stand alone use?

1 gig of ram isn't enough to even boot the system much less do anything with it.
The hdd will BE your ram which is infinity slower than ram...….
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Craig A For This Post:
  #7  
Old 08-25-2018, 10:53:07 PM
len k len k is offline
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Manchester, New Hampshire
Posts: 17,709
Thanks: 556
Thanked 6,577 Times in 4,756 Posts
Default Re: Which computer is faster , for stand alone use?

Bought the harddrives ~ 10+ years ago. Didn't keep them installed because XP didn't support drives that large, I lost data using a PCI Promise (Maxtor) IDE daughter card interface (didn't have the newer chip).

Old eyes , I like a desktop case, more room to install hardware and drives
.

Last edited by len k; 08-26-2018 at 12:20:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-26-2018, 07:39:36 PM
Odin Odin is offline
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Elmira, New York
Posts: 1,347
Thanks: 372
Thanked 1,085 Times in 568 Posts
Default Re: Which Computer is Faster , for Stand Alone Use?

Neither one of these systems are worth much of anything, aside from applications in nostalga/retro gaming or repairing existing industrial controls that require computers from that time period due to available sockets and capabilities.

The first option almost certainly is faster, being a dual Xeon on a server mainboard.

However, both options are more than 10 years old, 2006 and 2007 respectively. Neither one is going to be able to run Windows newer than XP, and being limited that way will not be able to run a new enough web browser to interact with modern websites and services.

You could possibly put Linux on them instead of Windows in order to work around that limitation, but it too is going to have problems with compatibility and limited performance preventing you from doing much of anything with these computers.

I would not buy either one of these systems as a daily driver, they are too old to be useful in that role.

For daily driver use, you need a computer that is newer than 2010 at minimum, and should really be closer to 2012 or 2014 in order to have a few years of compatibility left in it before getting left behind by current trends and no longer able to participate.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-26-2018, 09:15:51 PM
len k len k is offline
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Manchester, New Hampshire
Posts: 17,709
Thanks: 556
Thanked 6,577 Times in 4,756 Posts
Default Re: Which Computer is Faster , for Stand Alone Use?

I already own them and win 8 OS , free from craigs list.

I'm pretty green about servers, is a server motherboard faster than a desktop mother board assuming the CPU's are same? I'm thinking win 8 for OS, use will be web browzing, emails
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-26-2018, 09:35:18 PM
Power Power is offline
Registered-III
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 4,915
Thanks: 1,138
Thanked 2,883 Times in 1,701 Posts
Default Re: Which Computer is Faster , for Stand Alone Use?

Quote:
Originally Posted by len k View Post

Computer 2
Old "desktop" been using, Dell Optiplex 745: CPU is---- Intel DUO 2 CPU E4400 @ 2 Ghz, 1 gig of RAM. (sticker says designed for XP)
I use an intel core duo E7500 2.93 GHZ with 4 GB ram, 1333 FSB, W 7. I use it on web, and with MS office. It is fast.

I originally built it for my daughter in 2007. My original build had a Pentium D 925 on a Gigabyte MB running XP, 250 GB PATA HD, in a Compaq case with factory label on side showing AMD Duron 750 MHZ processor, 64 MB and 30 GB hard drive.

Computers were being stolen in the dorms, so I theft proofed it by putting what was a hot rod in an obsolete case with factory labels.

When prices came down, I upgraded to the E7500, and SATA hard drive. Microsoft has a performance test that rates system from 1 to 7.9. The current configuration shows 6.5.

I later bought a copy of W 7 and upgraded OS. I tried W 10 when Microsoft had free upgrade. 10 ran good, but I do not like it, so reverted to 7.

I think your duo core will be fine with a ram upgrade to 4 GB and a SATA hd.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Power For This Post:
Reply

Bookmarks


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

F o r u m Jump

Similar Threads Chosen at Random
Thread Thread Starter F o r u m Replies Last Post
Making Steel Rust Faster Odin Steam Stationary Engines, Traction Engines, Steam Boats 17 04-08-2018 08:58:34 AM
Engine faster than Truck Brothers Clemens Antique Autos and Trucks 2 02-18-2017 09:14:43 PM
Making a Deere Faster bfmco7 Antique Steel Wheel Tractors - Old Iron Lugs and Cleats 17 03-10-2011 11:02:58 AM


Use "Ctrl" mouse wheel to change screen size.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:39:59 AM.

Smokstak and Enginads site search!


All use is subject to our TERMS OF SERVICE
SMOKSTAK® is a Registered Trade Mark - A Community of Antique Engine Enthusiasts
Copyright © 2000 - 2016 by Harry Matthews P.O. Box 5612 - Sarasota, FL 34277