Which Computer is Faster for Stand Alone Use?

[len k]

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)

 

[s100]

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.

 

[Thaumaturge]

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

 

[len k]

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).

 

[K-Tron]

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

 

[Craig A]

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...….

 

[len k]

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
.

 

[Odin]

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.

 

[len k]

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

 

[Power]

Re: Which Computer is Faster , for Stand Alone Use?

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.

 

[len k]

Re: Which Computer is Faster , for Stand Alone Use?

Good idea on the new motherboard in an old case.

Started to figure out CPUs are ID by "E" number, and googaling that gives tech specs, like FSB.

Seems new computer is a 5110 @ 1.6ghz: Googal says Xeon 5110 =4M Cache, 1.60 GHz, 1066 MHz FSB
Seems the old computer is a E4400 @ 2 ghz: Googal says that's : 2M Cache, 2.00 GHz, 800 MHz FSB

So even thought new computer is only 1.6 ghz, FSB and Cache are faster/larger.


I'll look in my parts pile from old computers and see if I have any RAM I can add. I ASSUME if it physically fits in slot it's comparable.

 

[Power]

Re: Which Computer is Faster , for Stand Alone Use?

Good idea on the new motherboard in an old case.

Started to figure out CPUs are ID by "E" number, and googaling that gives tech specs, like FSB.

Seems new computer is a 5110 @ 1.6ghz: Googal says Xeon 5110 =4M Cache, 1.60 GHz, 1066 MHz FSB
Seems the old computer is a E4400 @ 2 ghz: Googal says that's : 2M Cache, 2.00 GHz, 800 MHz FSB

So even thought new computer is only 1.6 ghz, FSB and Cache are faster/larger.


I'll look in my parts pile from old computers and see if I have any RAM I can add. I ASSUME if it physically fits in slot it's comparable.

We stripped Xenons for parts. We were giving to very low income people who could not afford to buy for their children. WE found most had very limited computer skills, and did not want to saddle them with idiosyncrasies of a dual core server. Our goal was reliability and uniformity. We made machines that were very similar to what they would find in classroom or library. We had a separate QC team. If you built it, you could not QC it.
When QC person was satisfied, they signed off on machine.

Max FSB is determined by motherboard spec's, not processor in it. Motherboard FSB may be quite a bit higher.


Any RAM that fits in slot will not damage system, but may not work. Most desktops used less expensive unbuffered non ECC ram. The server Xenons we got used ECC ram, usually buffered. It will fit in slot, but MB will not recognize it.

 

[len k]

Re: Which Computer is Faster , for Stand Alone Use?

Was thinking I'ld have to check on motherboard's FSB speed. Hard on the old computer, it's a DELL, seems a proprietary motherboard. I've looked on DELLs for an something like a ASUS board number , none to be found. And haven't found any info on DELL site when looked in past.

RAM in the new computer looks to have flat aluminum wrapped over it (both sides), must be a heat sink.

 

[Power]

Re: Which Computer is Faster , for Stand Alone Use?

Dell™ OptiPlex™ 745
Tech Specs :


CHIPSET Intel® Q965 (ICH8) Express Chipset
OPERATING SYSTEM Dell Supports:
Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional
Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition

PROCESSOR Intel® Core™ 2 Duo 1066MHz FSB Socket T with Dual Core technology XD, EM64T, 2MB and up to 4MB L2 cache, EIST and VT (E6000 series)
Intel® Pentium® D 800MHz FSB Socket T with Dual Core technology XD, EM64T, 2x2MB L2 cache, EIST, and VT on 950/960 (900 series)
Intel® Pentium® D 800MHz FSB Socket T with Dual Core technology XD, EM64T, 2x1MB L2 cache (800 series)
Intel® Pentium® 4 800MHz FSB Socket T with HT, XD, EM64T, and 1MB L2 cache (500 series)
Intel® Celeron® D 533 MHz FSB Socket T with XD and EM64T (300 series)
NETWORK CONTROLLER Broadcom® 5754 Gigabit Ethernet LAN solution 10/100/1000 Ethernet with Remote Wake Up and PXE support
SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT Broadcom Full ASF 2.0

MEMORY
DIMM Slots Four Four Four Two
Type Dual channel shared DDR2 SDRAM system memory. Unbuffered, non-ECC DIMMs only
Speed 533MHz (4-4-4 latency), 667MHz (5-5-5 latency), 800MHz (6-6-6 latency) 533/667 MHz memory
Modules Types Supported 512-MB, 1-GB, or 2-GB (800MHz not available in 2GB DIMM)
Minimum memory Dual-channel: 1GB
Single-channel: 512 MB
Maximum memory 8 GB (2GB per channel) 4 GB (2GB per channel)
Bandwidth 533MHz: Up to 8.5 GB/s in dual channel mode
667MHz: 10.7 GB/s with dual channel
800MHz: 12.8 GB/s with dual channel *USFF does not support 800MHz
DRIVE BAYS AVAILABLE
3 1/2 bay One One One slim-line 0
5 1/4 bay Two One One slim-line 0
D-bay (notebook modules) 0 0 0 One
Hard Drives Supported Two One One One
INTERFACES & CONNECTORS
Connectors Four SATA connectors Two SATA connectors Two SATA connectors One SATA connector
Supporting one device each Supporting one device each Supporting one device Supporting one device
Two designated for hard drives One designated for hard drive One designated for hard drive Designated for hard drive
Two designated for optical One designated for optical One designated for optical
Drive Interfaces SATA only drives SATA only drives Slim-line optical PATA drive D-mod PATA drive

D

 

[csareb]

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.

not necessarily, the ram is the more limiting factor. while neither system is particularly fast, either should be capable of running windows 7 (32 bit) even with the limited ram. that said, you should try for a minimum of 2gb of ram (preferrably more). the dual xeon machine would be the faster of the two.

technically Windows 7 will run on an AthlonXP 2800+ with 1gb of ram and an ATI 9600 PCI graphics card which is considerably slower being only a single core and single cpu machine.

go with the dual xeon machine
you will need at least a basic 3d accelerated graphics card though. (even an old regular pci (if no AGP or PCIe slots avalible) ATI radeon 9600 or X800 series with at least 128mb of ram would work.
keep in mind this is by no means fast, but it should work ok for basic web browsing and possibly youtube (not HD).
If it has SATA ports get a WD black 1tb hdd (59.00 new)
if it only has IDE then get the largest ATA133 drive you can find with the most cache (8mb minimum 16mb or more preferred) even if the board only supports ata100 speed. an ata133 drive will still have better throughput due to various factors.
if it has Sata, a Sata III drive like a wd black will work fine on an older 1.5gbps sata controller, just wont be as fast as it would be on a new controller that supports sata III

not a fan of windows 8/8.1/10 myself so cant say for sure it would run windows 8, but theoretically it should, although if it doesn't have a pci express, or at least an AGP slot, getting a powerful enough graphics card for windows 8 could be a real problem. a radeon x850 with at least 256mb of ram would be bare minimum for windows 8
If you absolutely have to put windows on it, go with windows 7, but realistically that hardware would be better suited to running some of the lighter linux distros.

 

[len k]

Re: Which Computer is Faster , for Stand Alone Use?

Lot to digest,

Don't want to learn Linux, already know windows.

Computer came with what looks like a real screamer video card R84FH ( double wide slot), 2 DVI and 1 HDMI port (VGA using connectors). Web says it's a Radeon HD 5770 - 1 GB.

Harddrives ..... I like Maxtor, now Seagate. Don't want anything to do with a Western Digital. Years ago I bought a new WD 80 gig one, died in 6 months. Web said it was a lemon, MANY other people had dead drives. Was shear luck I had just backed up.

New motherboard has SATA and ATA. I put on a 250 gig ATA harddrive and tried to load XP just for speed comparison. Keeps rebooting at ~ 35 minutes remaining on install. Actually I'm surprised it got that far. Usually on a non-Dell computer it doesn't even start, says something about call Dell support. My win XP install CD came with a DELL machine, must be a licensing issue. I'll try it with a SATA harddrive I have.

 

[Power]

Re: Which Computer is Faster , for Stand Alone Use?

Choice depends on if you want a toy to play with or something that you set up once and it works without issues. Board component drivers for Dell are readily available and well tested. Xenon dual processor drivers??

Unlike Desktop boards, servers typically use ECC RDIM, and do not usually have on-board sound. They have a lot of features that will not be used in a desktop, adding to overhead. Add in cards means you have to find drivers compatible with the add in-card, MB and suitable for the OS you want to use. Have fun.

As I said, I was a member of a group that rebuilt/ refurbished machines for people who could not afford them. When I started, we were rebuilding W95 and W98 machines for XP. There were about 30 people in the group. We bought win 7 licenses from Microsoft for $5.00 each until they stopped selling 7 licenses, then we bought W 10 licenses. We did not use 8. We felt it had too much overhead. In our opinion, 7 was the most stable with the least overhead. I never saw an XP machine that could not be upgraded to run 7/64.

We built literally hundreds of machines running W7/64. All machines we rebuilt were for 64 bit. The QC group had minimum performance standards that all machines had to meet.

The only thing we used Xenons for was as drive wipers. We would wipe 5 drives at once on each machine. We used them because we did not want to take a good pentium or dual core out of line.

As I stated previously, I am typing this on a dual core with W7.

The key is lean and mean No extra hardware or software.

Your board supports SATA 3, T 10, 100, 1000 ethernet, Smart III, supports up to 8 GB DDR2, and the on board graphics are 1900 x 1200 capable.

More than enough for your stated use. No need for any add in graphics, sound, or anything else.

As you have access to recycling center, you may be able to find 2 GB DDR2 modules and faster processor there.
Almost any socket T processor should work. If it is not listed, probably because not yet in production when MB was released.

Never power up without heat sink. Clean contact surfaces well and use a silver heat sink compound with largest fan/ heat sink you have.

 

[len k]

Re: Which Computer is Faster , for Stand Alone Use?

I Can warm my hands on hot air from new computer's 600 watt power supply. Fan Air flow seems good. Seems very hot, is this normal? Is PS shorted? No burn smell. Kill-a-watt meter says 120VAC consumption is ~150 watts during bootup, then steady ~200. Case cover is off, so room temp air input to PS.

Power Supply = Cooler Master product # RS-600-ASAA (with active PFC).
Ran new computer 8 hours straight to air it out (office odors, not smoke or burn). No harddrive or OS.
No loads other than mother board, screamer video card (Radeon HD 5770 - 1 GB), CD and floppy drive.

Previously I've only worked with old computers (250-300 watt power supplies), they had NO noticeable temp rise to my hand.
.