i'm just curios, most dedicated hosting offers have celeron and pentium, but i don't see athlon as much, is it because of performance or what? couldn't they offer a great dedicated at a lower price? or AMD processors are good but just for personal use and not for servers?

I have heard a lot of people mention heating/cooling issues.

Originally posted by demonmoo
I have heard a lot of people mention heating/cooling issues.

true, if you do not cool it properly (just like any other processor). it was problematic to cool AMD 4-5 years ago (that's when this story came out, I think), but this problem simply does not exist anymore.
AMD makes great processors. I will chose AMD over Intel any day.

regards,
M.

because the price difference does not compensate for the additional headache. for dual cpu machines, which make up 90% of our server base, dual amds cost the same (if done properly) and deliver worse general performance, outside of a few niche applications (there is an ongoing religious war about amds being better for counterstrike servers).

in short, why bother? i have ran amds on my desktop for years and have been happy with those systems. its a question of the right tool for the job.

paul

Opteron is another story though. Those Opterons are quite speedy even when they're stacked against 3.02ghz xeons.

I have a amd box, very speedy :) No issues and it's a great machine! :)

Opteron is another story though. Those Opterons are quite speedy even when they're stacked against 3.02ghz xeons.


I support this statement. PLUS, amazingly, Opterons generate less heat than Xeons, if I have not mistaken.

Thanks.

Originally posted by KKHost.Net
I support this statement. PLUS, amazingly, Opterons generate less heat than Xeons, if I have not mistaken.

Thanks.
According to this article http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12428 you're right.

According to this article http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12428 you're right.


Thank you. If I have not mistaken, I read it in my Forbes magazine last week. Not really a techie magazine, that's why I'm not too sure.

Again, thanks for your reference link ;)

Why do most hosts use Intel processors (Celeron, P-IV, Xeon)??

Because that is what clients have come to expect and demand. That is the short and simple answer to the question.

I have never had anyone asking for a AMD as yet. In fact the main server related questions I get are what O/S do we use and what CP are we using. No one ever really askes about the processor.

You are contradicting your own statement, iTec. Your customers "demand" Intel, or "no one ever really askes about the processor"?

Your second statement seems much closer to truth, and so I don't see any reason NOT to use AMD for hosting. It's cheaper and faster.

- why hostings do not offer AMD as much as intel?

- Because of the poor blowjob.

From an 'outsiders' perspective (we don't sell servers) whether right or wrong when I see a supplier offering AMD processors it seems to me that they're being cheap.

This is probably totally unfair to AMD but I perceive it as lower quality, much like a celeron as compared to a P4 and I don't think I'm alone in that.

The thing is from our perspective we've always used servers based on P3s / P4s and they've been reliable so that's what we look for when sourcing servers - I wouldn't risk AMD to save $20 month.

Again, probably totally unfair to AMD but I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling this way.

The thing is from our perspective we've always used servers based on P3s / P4s and they've been reliable so that's what we look for when sourcing servers - I wouldn't risk AMD to save $20 month.


I believe you are referring to the Durons/Athlons? From what I know, a set of Opteron server has almost the price of a Xeon and it can be even more expensive, depending on the mobo brand and quality.

Thanks.

I think we will start to see a lot more AMD servers soon, especially with the release of Opterons.

One of the main reasons could be that the motherboards for AMD weren't really stable. I'm an AMD user for years now, but the mobo's were terribly unstable, until the nforce2 came out. That thing stands like a rock, but only under windows.
In linux there were some problems with it. I think most hosters don't want to risk the chance of instability, especially in such cramped space.


And a sidenote. I've only seen one hosting company which uses AMD, but their prices doesn't differ from Intel hosters. If I get it, i'd feel ripped off, so...

I've seen lot of wh companies offering AMD. They seem to be very popular in Europe.

Originally posted by athlonkmf
One of the main reasons could be that the motherboards for AMD weren't really stable. I'm an AMD user for years now, but the mobo's were terribly unstable, until the nforce2 came out. That thing stands like a rock, but only under windows.
In linux there were some problems with it. I think most hosters don't want to risk the chance of instability, especially in such cramped space.

ASUS - very good motherboards for AMD. I've been using these for 4 years, and I still have few servers running old AMD Athlon 600 Mhz sitting on ASUS mobo for 4 years - no problems. I'm sure my grandsons will use it in the future.
Tyan - can't find better. Perfect for Athlons MP. Same as ASUS - working without single failure for years with athlons on-board.

Originally posted by invectis
This is probably totally unfair to AMD but I perceive it as lower quality, much like a celeron as compared to a P4 and I don't think I'm alone in that.

it is not unfair - you are just fooling yourself when you consider AMD Athlon/Opteron as a low quality CPU, or esp. by putting it into the same boat with celeron.

regards,
M.

Originally posted by KKHost.Net
I believe you are referring to the Durons/Athlons? From what I know, a set of Opteron server has almost the price of a Xeon and it can be even more expensive, depending on the mobo brand and quality.

Thanks.

As I said, my view is probably unfair but unless you build systems it's unlikely you'd know the prices of the components.

It's the *percieved* quality that's important and Intel have done a great job over the years of projecting themselves as the highest quality component.

My point is that we currently use p3 / p4's and KNOW they are reliable - looking at a different processor manufacturer is a risk and not one we'd take, whether right or wrong.

Originally posted by Mfjp
Opteron is another story though. Those Opterons are quite speedy even when they're stacked against 3.02ghz xeons.

the opterons are a completely different ballgame. we are looking into them heavily and will be reolling them out in the near future. AMD has really taken a giant step forward with them.

paul

we have quite a bit of amd's in our dc and I llike them - we have not experienced any probs with them. I personally prefer them. and we do offer them as much in standard on our page as the intel spec procs.

AMD has been making quality components for YEARS now...

most people on this board are very uneducated when it comes to technology, and the latest advancements.

The AMD vs. INTEL debate was settled after the first AMD ATHLON PROCESSORS came to market... and AMD has been dominating ever since.

Anyone who is even somewhat educated knows that INTEL and AMD processors are both on the same level. The reason most of you are able to have INTEL processors in your destop machines is thanks to AMD, as without them.. INTEL would still be charing unheard of prices. AMD forced INTEL to make their pricing competitive, due to the QUALITY they were able to deliever at afforadble prices.

Even today, AMD processors deliever performance far exceeding INTEL processors in the same price bracket, EVEN having a Hz rating below that of it's counterpart intel processors. This is an incrediable testiment to the QUALITY of AMD processors.

Please make sure you do the appropriate research before making FALSE statements. AMD processors power many very popular sites. Anandtech choose AMD to power thier servers a couple years ago.. and continue to do so today (this was way before the Opterons were ever introduced)

check out http://www.gamepc.com , http://www.anandtech.com , http://www.hardocp.com if you want to get your facts straight

Sadly, AMD processors are overlooked by most of the hosters in the WHT community, simply because they are uneducated.

when the majority of posters believe DELL still delievers a quality product.. what can you expect? :stickout:

Although AMD may have high performing CPUs, they have one problem, when in most cases make them not suitable for servers. They disipate huge amounts of heat and are known to fry in many cases if proper cooling is not applied.

You may say that they can use proper cooling then. But when you are getting into having 42 servers in Rack using 1U cases, you are going to have a lot of problems with AMDs. You can pack a lot more Xeons in their than you can pack in AMDs. Therefore Intel would be a much more viable solution.

I am sure a lot of people in these forums see the advantages of AMDs, these are perfect for desktops but are not as well suited for servers.

Now AMDs Opterons are another series, in some benchmarks when put up against Dual Xeons they would beat them by 7%. They are especially well suited for web hosting.

Originally posted by crucialparad
Although AMD may have high performing CPUs, they have one problem, when in most cases make them not suitable for servers. They disipate huge amounts of heat and are known to fry in many cases if proper cooling is not applied.

You may say that they can use proper cooling then. But when you are getting into having 42 servers in Rack using 1U cases, you are going to have a lot of problems with AMDs. You can pack a lot more Xeons in their than you can pack in AMDs. Therefore Intel would be a much more viable solution.

I am sure a lot of people in these forums see the advantages of AMDs, these are perfect for desktops but are not as well suited for servers.

Now AMDs Opterons are another series, in some benchmarks when put up against Dual Xeons they would beat them by 7%. They are especially well suited for web hosting.

I just have not seen this and I have a lot of amds in my dc. they run fine and are not hotter than intels.

most dedicated hosting offers have celeron and pentium, but i don't see athlon as much, is it because of performance or what?

ask 10 people, get different answers ...

we use intel's bcause they're reliable, affordable (price vs performance) and compatible with the software.

of the 1u amd's customers have placed on colo with us they have a near 100% failiure rate, some of them *multiple*times - it's just not worth the agro.

the P3's P4's and Xeons give us no bother which is *exactly* what we need as a supplier

Before this turns into an AMD vs Intel war - the original question was why don't many people supply AMD dedicateds, NOT which is better . . . that was the question I answered.

Originally posted by invectis
Before this turns into an AMD vs Intel war - the original question was why don't many people supply AMD dedicateds, NOT which is better . . . that was the question I answered.

I answered that ;) because in *server* environments they break too often, so the cost saving isn't worth it in the end ...

Doesn't pentium have the following things?

1) An advertising campaign (the intel logo)
2) Several companies (DELL) have contracts with them, leaving the people who only use those companies to think AMD wasn't good enough for them
3) Better raw processing power (in HZ rating) for applications that dont take advantage of AMD in any way.

I personally use AMD, and AMD is my choice. If AMD signs a contract with HP/Compaq, Dell, or any other computer companies (for those who still buy from companies) and start an ad campaign, they will be more common than intel.

Originally posted by crucialparad
You may say that they can use proper cooling then. But when you are getting into having 42 servers in Rack using 1U cases, you are going to have a lot of problems with AMDs. You can pack a lot more Xeons in their than you can pack in AMDs. Therefore Intel would be a much more viable solution.


No one ever fills a rack with 42 1U boxes...

most people on this board are very uneducated when it comes to technology, and the latest advancements

No kidding. I see these posts all the time about how AMD is cheap and crappy and overheats.

Although AMD may have high performing CPUs, they have one problem, when in most cases make them not suitable for servers. They disipate huge amounts of heat and are known to fry in many cases if proper cooling is not applied

I challenge you to look up the heat emittance of various AMD cpus versus various Intel CPUs. You may be unpleasantly surprised.

You may say that they can use proper cooling then. But when you are getting into having 42 servers in Rack using 1U cases, you are going to have a lot of problems with AMDs. You can pack a lot more Xeons in their than you can pack in AMDs. Therefore Intel would be a much more viable solution.

My own experience suggests otherwise. If the machines are cooled properly there is no reason WHATSOEVER you cannot have 42 1U servers in a rack. I do not have nearly that much, but I do have 28 machines in my rack, all but one of them AMD, in dual or single format, 1U or 2U.

Now AMDs Opterons are another series, in some benchmarks when put up against Dual Xeons they would beat them by 7%. They are especially well suited for web hosting.

In most benchmarks the margin is far wider than 7%. Given the price versus performance, there is no reason to prefer Xeon over Opteron at the time of this writing.


No one ever fills a rack with 42 1U boxes...

Careful...

That is laughable.

Are you suggesting it is not possible? Are you suggesting there is no reason to fill a cabinet with 42 1U servers? Surely you will need additional power drops, but given the high price for rackspace in some datacenters it is entirely common to do this.

Oh..so i should have said MOST instead ? Alright... MOST

It's historical mostly. Intel came first, aimed at high-end servers. Amd came next, aiming primarily at desktop users. It's taken a long time before amd was promoted for high-end server jobs. For years Intel was(still is yes? just dont buy prescotts lol) far ahead in the amount of cache on the CPU- hell even the Pentium III 733 server I run have more cache than 2.4 Celerons (I think) and AMD twice it's speed (I'm not sure about the very newest). You buy what you know (so you know what you get and can be 100% certain your existing aps work) and it's going to take a hell of a lot more tham simply lower prices for people to change when it's for server hardware.