CPU cores VS # of CPUs

[Decon]

Hypothetical question:

 

Two video-editors have systems A and B.  System A has a single 8 core CPU.  System B has 2 Quad-core CPUs.  Both systems use processors from the same architecture and neither configuration has hyper-threading enabled.  The hypothetical owners of these systems both use the same program and that program has both multi-CPU and multi-core support up to infinite CPUs and CPU cores.  Which configuration will perform better? 

[Flyguygamer]

I think if they are clocked the same, with the same ram, and all else equal than they would be the same.

[Tedster]

I would say the dual Quad-Cores because they'd each have their own memory channels and stuffs. There would also be better cache (fewer cores per cache) but then they'd have to communicate to share between the 2 physical CPUs.

[WoodenMarker]

Dual cpus would be better if optimization was perfect due to doubling of everything but cores.

[dadasmithywinkle]

Whichever has more powerful cores. You can have a lot, but [generally speaking] a CPU with less but stronger cores will beat a CPU with more but slower cores.

[AlwaysFSX]

I think if they are clocked the same, with the same ram, and all else equal than they would be the same.

A dual chip system would be slightly slower accounting for latency between the two I think.

[TheSLSAMG]

Whichever has more powerful cores. You can have a lot, but [generally speaking] a CPU with less but stronger cores will beat a CPU with more but slower cores.

Both systems use processors from the same architecture and neither configuration has hyper-threading enabled.

Same core architecture.

[dadasmithywinkle]

Same core architecture.

 

Then the single chip, as the latency caused by the mobo may slow it down a tid.

[Decon]

Thanks guys, I suspected that the single-chip would probably do better.  One of my friends asked me; I told him that the single-chip would do better, he said that was stupid and that dual cpus would always be better therefore this thread

[multifrag]

Most probably would be no visual difference. The only reason i have 2x xeons is cheap cores. I need a lot or rams and cpus to render. I'll upgrade to 2x6 cpus soon. 12 cores will cost me about £100....

[WoodenMarker]

A dual chip system would be slightly slower accounting for latency between the two I think.

The slightly higher latency should be overshadowed by more resources when it comes to resulting performance.

Thanks guys, I suspected that the single-chip would probably do better.  One of my friends asked me; I told him that the single-chip would do better, he said that was stupid and that dual cpus would always be better therefore this thread

In the real world, a single cpu is usually better due to lack of optimization. 

[Bogica]

Dual CPU's in a perfect world where everything you described is true due to higher amounts of cache per core and higher memory bandwidth. But in the real world optimization isn't that good.