I am little confused with the prices of dedicated server. It's beause of the AMD and Intel price war.
What is the basic diff between AMD processor and Intel processor.
Companies charge same for AMD ATHLON 950 and Cel 800.
But when PIII comes into picture prices are sky high. Is there anything wrong with the processing speed.
What is the diff between
PIII 800, CELERON 800 and AMD's 800 processor.

:D

Well its hard to say...

My vote is for P3 800 if it was charged the same :)

But if your comparing from a Celeron 800 to Athlon 800... I'd go for the Athlon.

why not athlon 800? I can't understand this thing. Is there any diff between processing or ??????

This is just a price and presitge issue. I think in the server markets saying PIII server "sounds" better than saying Athlon server. Also, the pricing between the two chips is significantly different:

On pricewatch.com:
PIII 800: $100-120
Athlon 800: $57

I would choose the Athlon over the Celeron. Athlons competed head-to-head with the Pentium chips not their L2 cached starved cousins, the Celeron.

Very important consideration for a web server is RAM. RAM is the key to good server performance. If you ever start using swap space (virtual memory), your hosed. I would rec. at least 256MB for any web server -- unless it is for very light load. If you under high-load and running database opt for 512MB.

In answer to your question:

The difference between an AMD chip and an Intel chip is that they are designed and manufactured differently, by different companies. There is a *lot* involved in making a processor, so naturally when two companies make chips, even based on the same architecture, they are very different.

AMD chips are cheaper in general, but also tend to run hotter.

Intel chips are high-quality, consume less power (relatively speaking), but are more expensive.

The Celeron is a purposely stripped down Pentium II/III chip, designed solely to compete with AMD.

Personally, considering you'd only save $50-$100 total (which is pennies compared to the overall cost of the machine), go PIII. It will be much faster than any Celeron (for a given MHz rating), and will run cooler than the Athlon -- especially important in a small case.

AMD chips are cheaper in general, but also tend to run hotter.

Intel chips are high-quality, consume less power (relatively speaking), but are more expensive.

The Celeron is a purposely stripped down Pentium II/III chip, designed solely to compete with AMD.

AMD chips are cheaper and do run hotter, but their power to MHz is much more than the Intel chip. The AMD Athlon 1.2 GHz processor can perform just as much as a Pentium IV 1.5 GHz. This is because the AMD processor uses more power than the Intel chip (2.5V vs. 3.3V).

The Celeron is designed to compete with the AMD K6-2/K6-3, and Duron processor. It is not designed to compete with the Athlon and Thunderbird processor.

if you go to this web site http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q2/010608/index.html

your find a good review of the AMD and Intel chips on windows platforms, but I don't know of any unix platform reviews.

-Michael

I would always recommend Athlon over P3 at anytime. I understand that P3 based system always sells more for the server based machine because of their marketing :). I have no doubt that P3 is a stable platform

However, if you look at price / performace, Athlon beats the crap out of Intel. I have been using Athlon based workstations and have no stability problems whatsoever. Several of our servers also use Athlon based machine with no problem whatsoever. The only qualm I have about Athlon based machine is that it requires better power supply and it is HOT (requires bigger heatsink). You also have to know which motherboard to choose for your Athlon based system because some motherboard compromises stability.

If you go to a hardware forum such as Anandtech.com, very few people are building Intel based machine nowadays. Those freakin gamers :stickout chooses Athlon over Intel anytime ! :)

Look at some benchmark here:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1441&p=8

eitherway, I would easily recommend both platform as a server based system.

more benchmark :)

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1499&p=7

i would imagine intel has a larger demand for servers but i still get a decent amount of e-mails asking about amd servers..not wanting intel.