What chip is better for web hosting. I know this topic is popular, so I hope it doesn't turn into a AMD vs Intel war. I have to buy a dedicated server and wondering which one is better for the job. Both have same ram, drive, etc.

we have found their performance to be similar - however - the p4 runs cooler and will not shut down if it loses the fan - the p4 will slow down.

P4 for the power reasons alone, but a P3 1.4 w/ 512k will use less power and put up just as much punch as that p4 1.7 (celeron)

Intel : (note that isnt a p4, its a celeronp4!)

A) Runs cooler - more resiliant to heat and fan failures
B) Intel chipsets tend to be more stable (assuming you dont get a crappy sis chipset)

Originally posted by DD-SNC
P4 for the power reasons alone, but a P3 1.4 w/ 512k will use less power and put up just as much punch as that p4 1.7 (celeron)


First off all a P3 1.4 w/ 512K (I belive it's the same infra-estruture as a P4 it no ht) but a P3 1.4 will mostly performe as a Celeron 2.0 our greather....

Beacuse a P3 500 MHZ it's compare to a 1.0 / 1.3 Celeron power.


Secound Always prefered Intel over AMD for server uses...

Intel is know to :>

1° Run Cooler
2° Handle Server loadeds better
3° Faster than AMD on Server issues
4° How Many people you know that had problems it intel ?

If you are goin to get AMD to play games our home use... even some office use that's ok ( I wold not put amd on the office ) but if you are thinking off using AMD try amd in a couple off years mayble than they will have there things together to be a part off the servers biz :)

On raw benchmarks the XP1700 will beat the P4 1.7 in most cases. Check out:

http://www.specbench.org/

or other benchmarking sites.

Personally I would prefer the AMD chip. Why? Price/Performance. You can buy the:

AMD XP1700+ Retail
2-3 Case Fans
Extra 512MB of DDR

for the same price as the P4 1.7 Retail. OEM pricing is a little better, but the AMD chip still is far better. Hell, if your worried about the AMD chip overheating, buy 2 of them. 2 XP1700+'s is still cheaper than 1 P4 1.7.

We run a bunch of servers using AMD chips. Most are XP2000+'s and some are 1700+'s. We don't have any issues with stability, and we've never had one fail.

We have used AMD Duron machines at Rackshack in the past. They are NOT stable, and never last more than 10 days before requiring a hard reboot. I think the chips get hot, or perhaps the Red Hat kernel doesn't like the Duron.

Take care,

Brian

as long as you are in a data center with good environmentals and good hardware replacement - you will find that the XP is better for the money - I have seen that they are about 30 per month cheaper on the average at providers for the same performance as a P4.

Originally posted by bteeter
On raw benchmarks the XP1700 will beat the P4 1.7 in most cases. Check out:

http://www.specbench.org/

or other benchmarking sites.

Personally I would prefer the AMD chip. Why? Price/Performance. You can buy the:

AMD XP1700+ Retail
2-3 Case Fans
Extra 512MB of DDR

for the same price as the P4 1.7 Retail. OEM pricing is a little better, but the AMD chip still is far better. Hell, if your worried about the AMD chip overheating, buy 2 of them. 2 XP1700+'s is still cheaper than 1 P4 1.7.

We run a bunch of servers using AMD chips. Most are XP2000+'s and some are 1700+'s. We don't have any issues with stability, and we've never had one fail.

We have used AMD Duron machines at Rackshack in the past. They are NOT stable, and never last more than 10 days before requiring a hard reboot. I think the chips get hot, or perhaps the Red Hat kernel doesn't like the Duron.

Take care,

Brian

Get Apple Xserve, coolest running PowerPC G4, Not *Crappy* SiS chipset. If you can afford it :stickout:

Personally I would prefer the AMD chip. Why? Price/Performance. You can buy the:

AMD XP1700+ Retail
2-3 Case Fans
Extra 512MB of DDR

for the same price as the P4 1.7 Retail.

You are extremely misinformed if you believe that to be the case. A P4 1.7 is only marginally higher-priced compared to an Athlon 1700XP.

Why? Because the P4 is far superiour to the AMD.

Anybody who is serious about the Servers they are running will go with a P4/Xeon.

Originally posted by stephenM
[quote="bteeter"]

You are extremely misinformed if you believe that to be the case. A P4 1.7 is only marginally higher-priced compared to an Athlon 1700XP.

Why? Because the P4 is far superiour to the AMD.

Anybody who is serious about the Servers they are running will go with a P4/Xeon.

Prove it.

http://www.pricewatch.com

reports the lowest P4 1.7ghz to be $119. (Yeah, it says less but click through and see that the first "P4 1.7ghz" listed is a Celeron.) That's OEM with no cooling.

Pricewatch also reports the Athlon XP 1700+ at $44 again OEM no cooling.

I prefer NewEgg.com for hardware pricing. Lets look at Retail packaging:

Intel Pentium 4 1.8GHz 256K Socket 478 Processor 400MHz Processor Bus - $122 shipped

(That is the cheapest P4 they offer in retail packaging.)

AMD Athlon XP 2000+/266 FSB Processor CPU - Retail 2000+/ 1.67GHz - $67.00 shipped

(I can't find an XP1700 retail.)

So, for the cheapest retail CPU's you can get at Newegg, you're looking at a $55 price difference for the two. The XP 2000+ is a faster chip than the P4. Take that $55 and buy your 512 MB PC2100 RAM and a case fan or two. Like I said above.

The AMD chip will beat the P4 in nearly every benchmark at those speeds. Show me a site that is benchmarking CPU speed that says something different.

Certainly if you want to scale beyond 1 processor, the XP is not even a valid choice. Then again, neither is the P4. I'd have to agree for 2+ processors, the Xeon is the way to go right now, but that isn't the question the thread starter asked, and not what we're answering here.

Oh, and I'm quite serious about the servers I run. Thanks. :-)

Thanks - Brian

I don't need to prove anything to you. I know what my local stores charge for P4 processors, and it certainly isn't $144.

Anyway... bottom line: P4 processors are far superiour to any AMD chip. End of discussion.

wubwob, what do you mean a celeronp4? They make P4 1.7Ghz's. I've never seen a celeronp4 in a computer before. :crazy:

Originally posted by stephenM
I don't need to prove anything to you. I know what my local stores charge for P4 processors, and it certainly isn't $144.

Anyway... bottom line: P4 processors are far superiour to any AMD chip. End of discussion.
So when did you become a mod? I thought they were the only ones that could end a discussion. Or do you get to decide to end one when someone disagrees with you?

stephenM :

if u cannot back up urself with valid proof then all the points and statements u made are completely pointless. various benchmarks and real world experiences have proved AthlonXP outperforms P4 even at a lower clock (as xp1700 1.47 vs. p4 1.7, xp2100 1.7 vs p4 2.0, etc). the heat and stability issue has been discussed again and again and the bottom line is p4 does run cooler but as long as proper cooling devices/methods are applied heat is not an issue for XP in datacenters.

Anybody who is serious about the Servers they are running will go with a P4/Xeon.

this statement alone is an insult to many reputable providers. do u think Rackspace, the leader in managed servers for mission critical applications, is serious about their Servers? then please explain why AMD based servers are the ONLY servers they sell as their standard unix/windows hosting solution?

there are many many reasons beyond technical factors why intel has always been more popular than AMD. some of these reasons are way beyond the topic of this board. however if we take this matter as it stands and compare the price/performance of AMD athlon XP and Intel P4, xp wins for sure. great proofs have already been provided by posters in this thread. it is just so sad to see something like "I don't need to prove anything to you. P4 processors are far superiour to any AMD chip. End of discussion." on such a professional board.

Err...

Originally posted by bteeter
...
We have used AMD Duron machines at Rackshack in the past. They are NOT stable, and never last more than 10 days before requiring a hard reboot. I think the chips get hot, or perhaps the Red Hat kernel doesn't like the Duron.

Take care,

Brian

You might have had bad luck, or we had the opposite... In any case, we still have one AMD Duron 1 GHz there, it's current uptime is more than 140 days. Never had any problems with it (knock on wood). Well, for all I know, it could be on fire, but it's working :)

I'll go and check the Rackshack's webcam for any sign of smoke... :D

Originally posted by Ales
Err...

You might have had bad luck, or we had the opposite... In any case, we still have one AMD Duron 1 GHz there, it's current uptime is more than 140 days. Never had any problems with it (knock on wood). Well, for all I know, it could be on fire, but it's working :)

I'll go and check the Rackshack's webcam for any sign of smoke... :D

Damn, that's cool. :-)

We had two of them for about 1 1/2 years, and just cancelled one of them. I don't think either of them managed more than 10 days uptime before hard freezing. I can't be 100% sure it was the Duron chip, it could have been the Motherboards used, Linux behaving badly, or some combination of the three.

All I know is I'll be glad once we're done with the other one!

Take care,

Brian

I have personally been running AMD XP's of various speeds since they were avalible and have had zero issue. I build servers for local business all of the time for their local intranets and i use AMD almost every time. I have not had one call back or failure. I do use quality MB, memory and harddrives. The only place that the Intel has out performed the AMD is multiple processors. I can also build and supply to my customer an AMD machine for about 1/3 the cost. Less expensive chip, Less expensive motherboard. I do have customers that want nothing but Intel which is fine but when they let show them a comparison side by side they choose the AMD just about everytime.

Originally posted by BasinWebOwnr
I have personally been running AMD XP's of various speeds since they were avalible and have had zero issue.

...

I do have customers that want nothing but Intel which is fine but when they let show them a comparison side by side they choose the AMD just about everytime.

I think that is the key issue. If you're building a uni-processor server, its very hard to justify using an Intel chip over an AMD chip. Servers today are rarely CPU bound, unless your using it in a processor farm, so you're better off saving a few bucks on the CPU and spending it on more/faster memory and/or redundant disks.

Overall you'll get a better performing system, which I think is the point you want to be at.

Take care,

Brian

Originally posted by sailor
we have found their performance to be similar - however - the p4 runs cooler and will not shut down if it loses the fan - the p4 will slow down.

The new bartons are alot more cooler than the P4's if you invest $20 more on coolers :)

About the overhitting protection. Not sure if P4 have it built in the cpu, but good amd motherboards have this option as well..

Originally posted by wubwob
A) Runs cooler - more resiliant to heat and fan failures


Same story as above...

Originally posted by wubwob
B) Intel chipsets tend to be more stable (assuming you dont get a crappy sis chipset)

AMD is not even 0,01% less stable. Do you have a valid url of this?
About the SIS chips, nothing wrong with them, but the NFORCE2 are better of course :)

Originally posted by hostingsp
Secound Always prefered Intel over AMD for server uses...

Why?

Originally posted by hostingsp
Intel is know to :>

1° Run Cooler
2° Handle Server loadeds better
3° Faster than AMD on Server issues
4° How Many people you know that had problems it intel ?

1)Not again :D
2) loadeds?
3)Server issues? Do you mean that when the case burns, intel replaces it in 5 minutes, while for amds, you have to call the noc? Or am I not understanding your question well? :D
4)The bug in the new Itaniums? :D

Originally posted by hostingsp
If you are goin to get AMD to play games our home use... even some office use that's ok ( I wold not put amd on the office ) but if you are thinking off using AMD try amd in a couple off years mayble than they will have there things together to be a part off the servers biz :)

About the games, amd is not the best cpu for games. It's the best cpu for gamers. Why? Good pricing, saves you $100 for a better videocard investment. Putting coolers in your case is also nice (casemodding).

AMD for offices? Business Winstone 2002 benchmarks are showing that the XP3000 is better than the P4 3.2 800FSB with office applications.. hmm :D

Originally posted by bteeter

We have used AMD Duron machines at Rackshack in the past. They are NOT stable, and never last more than 10 days before requiring a hard reboot. I think the chips get hot, or perhaps the Red Hat kernel doesn't like the Duron.

I've played with durons as well. Nice machines, comparable with the P3 256kb cache same mhz :)

What you probably need is a better kernel :)

If you're comparing low end cpus, the Athlon will be the better price/performance bet over the P4. Of course, nobody will get fired for choosing Intel so there is always that consideration to make as well. I personally think the heat issue is a solvable problem and not a major concern. However, as you start going up the Mhz ladder, the 533 Mhz FSB and the newest 800 Mhz FSB P4s really start to hammer the Athlons in terms of performance so if you are looking to build a high end single CPU system, I would say the P4s would be your processor of choice for that.

Hal

Originally posted by TheSpidre
I've played with durons as well. Nice machines, comparable with the P3 256kb cache same mhz :)

What you probably need is a better kernel :) [/B]

Probably right. The one remaining Duron has a pretty old kernel. But, we're looking at replacing the machine with an Athlon XP machine soon, so we probably won't put the effort in.

FYI - I saw earlier today that Barton XP2500+ chips are under $90 at NewEgg.com for those of you looking for a good CPU. :-)

Take care,

Brian

I have run amd server's for quite a long time now (back to the k62-450 :D ) and have never had any problems.

On the price issue AMD's are cheaper and the reviews show they are quicker the Intels (although the gap is closing).

I have just got a new amd computer and got the new nforce2 ulta 400 chipset on my motherboard. It is very quick and there are not problems.

As to the heat issue we all know that AMD get much hotter. If you get yourself a decent motherboard they all come with thermal diode protection which will shutdown the computer. The only time this fails is if you physically remove the heatsink and turn it on :rolleyes:

I am using a cheap coolmaster heatsink and it is currently running at 31c cpu and 35c for the systemp.

Go and get an AMD.

Forgot to add that I am an administrator for a 800mhz AMD athlon (before the xp). It has been up for 113 days 5 hours 24 minutes and then it was only down for a memory upgrade :D