Dell has just released it's new 64Bits Xeon Poweredge Servers

Beside 64Bits Xeon CPU, DDR2 Memory

Improvement for PE2850 includes 6 drives instead of 5 in PE2650

However, PE1850 is going backward, there are only 2 drives instead of 3, no more RAID, the reason from my Dell rep. is the 1u case cannot handle the heat from the new configuration. (What?)

Any comment?

I am curious about the new 64bit Xeons too and I like the fact that Intel now uses AMD technology :)

the reason from my Dell rep. is the 1u case cannot handle the heat from the new configuration. (What?)

This is only going to get worse, to the point that 1U may not be viable?

Compare, the production process gets smaller the watts increases, over 100 watts for Prescott.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/images/cpu_history_big.gif

Originally posted by Paul-Xensia
the reason from my Dell rep. is the 1u case cannot handle the heat from the new configuration. (What?)

well, because the new 800fsb Xeon Nocona (1M L2) is basically based on Prescott which produces 30% more heat than equivalently clocked Northwood on which the Prestonia Xeon is based.

the latest Prescott 3.4E output a whopping 115watt which may not be 'survivable' in 1U even with super-duper passively cooled by copper heatsink. I guess that what dell rep was referring to....

do we really want to put 'water-cool' in 1U?!

Originally posted by Walter
I am curious about the new 64bit Xeons too and I like the fact that Intel now uses AMD technology :)
64-Bit Battle : Intel’s Xeon 3.4 GHz vs. AMD’s Opteron 250 (http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=noconaopteron&page=1&MSCSProfile=95385A1F52DEA1A229D5B37542054464A0B0EB399F604A3EB883D63AACE5350097E8FCF46FF22B2168A9949B348A0340ACAD4F12C0FDBE8641CFA83A4C82FBF8568A01EAFA 0BF48D4B671E2428D798969B59F7481AEA6A6B0F2D3EFAF50AC64FB7DED16201D25B7670D067DA80485A7B27E925E687753DF937A307BA1A227F89F0B89DEB5458341B)

pay attention to Apache web server performance benchmarks which speak by themselves.

Dell rep also confirmed there won't be an AMD poweredge.

My god...no more raid 5 on 1u, how can Dell (no we should blame Intel) allow this.

Originally posted by cwl@apaqdigital
pay attention to Apache web server performance benchmarks which speak by themselves.

Pretty impressive :D
And if you count in the clocking at 2.4 Ghz vs 3.4 Ghz...

Originally posted by Walter
Pretty impressive :D
And if you count in the clocking at 2.4 Ghz vs 3.4 Ghz...
even the 2.0G OP246 beats Xeon 3.4G by 30% and costs only 30% as well...

It's a shame that there are not many places offering those beasts...

So who's offering 1u or 2u Dual Opteron?
I see HP, IBM, and who else?

Originally posted by hostingasia
So who's offering 1u or 2u Dual Opteron?
I see HP, IBM, and who else?

Of the large vendors, it's pretty much HP, IBM and Sun.

VOXROX uses the HP Proliant DL145 series on our Opteron line of servers, and customers have been extremely pleased with the performance/reliability of this model.

We are currently evaluating the IBM xSeries e325 also, and will likely be offering this model soon. It looks to be a better server than the DL145. As usual, IBMs engineering runs circles around Dell and HP, and with the e325, it doesn't come at a significant cost premium.

Sun's pricing is astronomical, and their lead times leave much to be desired.

There are also a bunch of smaller vendors offering Opteron based servers. Dell isn't, and has no plans to do so despite high customer demand.

Up to recently, HP and Dell (not so much IBM and Sun) have had extremely strong allegiance to Intel. Both of these vendors have received extremely high discounts from Intel especially on their Xeon line of processors. HP offering an Opteron product was definitely interesting, even though they publically claim that it is simply a stop gap solution to Itanium. :rolleyes:

It looks like AMD really has a winner with their Opteron. It blows away the Xeon in performance, and while the newer Xeons do have the 64bit extensions, most hosts (are there any?) are not yet using these processors. Intel EMT64 is really AMD64; looks like AMD has the tech lead on that. Itanium was too little too late (or early, depending on how you want to look at things).

hostingasia, since you are in Hong Kong....I guess is time for you to change from those IBM, HP companies~

Try use entinux.com, hong kong based company and reputated with AMD server~
=)

WC,

Thanks. I knew who entinux is and had several conversation with David Chang, their sr. technical sales manager. You can't miss them, they placed the ad on back of SingTao Computer Mag for almost 4 months. :)

However their price is actually higher than vendor based, don't believe me? Do a calculation yourself will reveal the truth. Besides, the 2u case is really OEM, you can get and build the same configuration yourself with 1/5 less. :) Their line is very similar to Pogo Linux http://www.pogolinux.com/ in US and Mainland, and David said they have no relationship with Pogo though. Besides, the service and support will never reach the leave Dell, HP nor IBM.

http://www.entinux.com/products/servers seemed they still do not have the 1u version for Opteron. Pogo has 1u though.

But we like their Titan TN310 much and it's very good for NAS.

At the end, we will still choose PE2850 as our main line but put some IBM eServer 325 or HP DL145 if clients ask for them. Amazing enough, we already have client inquiry about PE2850, seemed most of them are still Intel biased. It's all about marketing.

Btw, we are going to the Xeon EM64T road show in Island Shangri-La next week and hopefully ask them some questions about their rival Opteron's performance against Xeon EM64T. :)

What about http://www.swt.com
Any comments?

Oh...if you need more, there are
http://www.qsol.com/
http://www.verari.com/servers.asp
and many more, the problem is do you really trust those? Consider the price is probably only 10% cheaper than vendor and the support may not be there when you need them.

i noticed those 1u opteron from ibm and hp only comes with 2 hd bays, not 3. Does the overheat problem also exist in AMD Opteron?

Originally posted by nopzor
VOXROX uses the HP Proliant DL145 series on our Opteron line of servers

Not quite a cheap server ... A somehow equipped DL145 (Dual 242, 2GB memory, 40GB SATA) will already be in $2700 price range.

Originally posted by hostingasia
i noticed those 1u opteron from ibm and hp only comes with 2 hd bays, not 3. Does the overheat problem also exist in AMD Opteron?

Perhaps even more....

I have not seen IBM 1U server contains 3 drives.

Gotta love those Opterons!!! 1 GHz less and still beating intel soundly!!!

Originally posted by hostingasia
i noticed those 1u opteron from ibm and hp only comes with 2 hd bays, not 3. Does the overheat problem also exist in AMD Opteron?
unlike Athlon, Opteron does have internal temp. trip which can shut itself off if overheated. for 2nd layer of protection, you can also turn on temp. trip in motherboard BIOS.

Originally posted by HFdave
Not quite a cheap server ... A somehow equipped DL145 (Dual 242, 2GB memory, 40GB SATA) will already be in $2700 price range.
not going to debate with you two again about name brand vs whitebox, but here in US, you can get it custom-built w/4x 160G hot-swap SATA in 1U for under $3K......opteron based servers won't have cheap stuffs in there, only major brand components are installable in Opteron servers, so qualiaty and reliability is usually there.

Originally posted by lumbyjj
Gotta love those Opterons!!! 1 GHz less and still beating intel soundly!!!
not only dual Opteron smokes dual Nocana in simple web server, the 4-way opterons 848 (w/1M L2; about $1300 per CPU) also beats 4-way Xeon MP 3.2G w/4M L3 (coded Gallatin, costs $3K per chip) in heavy-duty 'forum-type' databases and 'order-entry' (stored procedure) stress test:
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=1982&p=1
not to mention about total ownership cost efficiency.....

Don't mean to be impolite, sometimes and most of the time, it’s the marketing that rule the industry as most of the corporate clients know Intel instead of AMD, know more about Microsoft, SUN than FreeBSD etc. AMD has put almost all it’s energy and fund into Althon 64 and Opteron this time, but the response isn’t very positive for Althon and Opteron in terms of widely awareness of the public due to lack of consistency in marketing and strategic. Most of the welcomers are from very specific communities like University and WHT, but these clients only constitute a small share. Plus what Wintel works hand in hand to delay W2K3 till 2005. AMD will definitely have a very touch time this time. Again, it’s monopoly and unfair competition ruin the invention and creativeness.

Originally posted by FHDave
Not quite a cheap server ... A somehow equipped DL145 (Dual 242, 2GB memory, 40GB SATA) will already be in $2700 price range.

True, it's not a cheap server. That being said, we're definitely not paying $2700 per server - it's amazing what buying in bulk will do for pricing :cool:

It's really a tradeoff. The servers from the large vendors are extremely well designed and burned in. The whitebox manufacturers often don't have the custom engineering and testing that goes into products such as the DL145. We haven't yet (knock on wood) had a hardware failure on our VOXROX/HP line of servers. This has translated to decreased support load on our end to deal with failing / poorly cooled / badly designed hardware, and thus also translated into happier clients who have more stable machines.

Of course, I'm comparing HP rack servers with whitebox rack servers. There is still a definite price advantage to be had when dealing with desktop style systems/servers.

Best Regards,

Some update about the latest EM64T server:

We are getting more and more PE1850/PE2850 from Dell since Oct and the performance is surprisingly much faster than PE2650 mainly due to 800FSB, DDR2 (CL=2.5) Micro RAM, but the most important and the most part we love it the RAID CARD. It's not PERC4e/Di with 256M cache. e stands for PCI-Express

The speed for RAID-5 is so good, 120M/s Read 102M/s Write and we love it so much considering it's actually cheaper than PE2650!

In what way is PE2850 cheaper than PE2650? Dell Small Business Websites have PE2650 starting at $999 whereas PE2850 starting at $1499.

Do you have any benchmark numbers that compar PE2650 vs. PE2850?

Originally posted by hostingasia
So who's offering 1u or 2u Dual Opteron?
I see HP, IBM, and who else?

Appro offers dual and quad 1U opterons.

Guspaz, why do you always follow me? (Just kidding) :)

FHDave, we have established a very long relationship with Dell and we got PE2850 much cheaper than list price.

Btw, if you do the same configuration, PE2850 and PE2650 shouldn't be US$500 difference, it's something around US$100.

Not following you around :p

Just interested in hardware, so attracted to threads like these.

My comment should be put into context; I'm trying to say, there are hundreds of companies producing 1u (or 2u) dual (or quad) opterons. They're not that special, and HP and IBM aren't the only two.

Do a google search for 1u dual opteron (or 1u quad opteron) to see what I mean.

Finally, Dell has released SC1425 with Dual Xeon and SATA!

I think Dell will start loosing it's share of the market if it dosen't start offering Athlon/Opteron machines.

At work we use a crapload of Dell boxes that we will probably with a vendor that offers Opteron servers (i.e. HP, IBM, Sun).

I myself won't buy another Intel chip, they just aren't as good anymore.

See the latest comparison from anandtech.com,
Xeon 3.6 EM64T 800Mhz beats Opteron 250 with a margin.

Btw, Corporate America uses at least 85% of Intel over AMD. AMD has a long way to catch up. Ask those CTOs, you will understand why they select Intel over AMD.

Originally posted by hostingasia
Finally, Dell has released SC1425 with Dual Xeon and SATA!

I bet the price will just like PE750 ... once you start adding more and more, it will be higher than PE1750/2650.

That's absolutely correct, why not get a SCSI based PE1750, 2650 or 2850.

Originally posted by dk2
I think Dell will start loosing it's share of the market if it dosen't start offering Athlon/Opteron machines.

At work we use a crapload of Dell boxes that we will probably with a vendor that offers Opteron servers (i.e. HP, IBM, Sun).

I myself won't buy another Intel chip, they just aren't as good anymore.

One thing that I don't get it ... Why is AMD servers (from brand name vendors, that is) so much more expensive than Dell's Intel based server? Shouldn't AMD be cheaper, when the AMD CPU itself is actually cheaper than Intel CPU?

Take an example ...

Dell PE1750
Dual Xeon 2.4 GHz
1GB memory
36 GB SCSI
$1248

HP DL145
Dual Opteron 250 (2.4 GHz)
2 GB memory
40 GB SATA
$4298

OK, add 1GB to Dell PE750 for $330 (crucial). Dell comes to be around $1575-ish. Sure, HP Opteron 250 is faster than Xeon 2.4 GHz. But is the price difference well worth it? We are talking about AMD being 2.73 times more expensive then Dell. I may prefer buying two or even three PE750 (and have 4-6 CPUs, 4-6 GB memory, two-three SCSI drives, two-three independent servers) than buying one HP DL145.

Wouldn't you agree?

I am sticking with Dell/Intel ... Seems to me they are giving be the best bang for the buck.

Opteron 250 is MUCH more expensive than Xeon 2.4, performance wise, it's 2-3 times faster than Xeon 2.4.

You shouldn't compare orange with apple. :)

Besides, Dell's direct sell can even lower the cost than HP's distributor sell.

BTW, no body looking for FSB 400Mhz 2.4 these days with Dell, all go for 2.8G at least.

Voxrox has a special deal with HP and Voxel has a special deal with Dell ... your idea of buying in bulk is more than what most companies consider feasible

The dual xeon 2.4 is 533 fsb ... his point is, even if you factor in chip costs, there's no reason that the box should be approx. 3k more expensive.

Also Dave, where did you get that price for the PE1750.

Originally posted by hostingasia
Opteron 250 is MUCH more expensive than Xeon 2.4, performance wise, it's 2-3 times faster than Xeon 2.4.

You shouldn't compare orange with apple. :)

Besides, Dell's direct sell can even lower the cost than HP's distributor sell.

BTW, no body looking for FSB 400Mhz 2.4 these days with Dell, all go for 2.8G at least.

All the Dell PE 1750/2650 are 533 MHz FSB.

And no, I don't believe Opteron 250 is 2-3 times faster than Xeon 2.4/533. In fact, Opteron 250 is not even 2 times faster than Xeon 2.0/500 in database performance (http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2205&p=5). Even if it is 2-3 times faster, I believe in not putting all my egss in one basket. I will rather have three servers than have one. So what justifies the high cost for these Opteron servers, especially when the CPU chip itself is cheaper in Opteron than in Xeon?

Originally posted by The Broadband Man
Also Dave, where did you get that price for the PE1750

Dell Small Business is my friend :)

Dell PE1750, $949 base after $550 instant saving.
Free memory upgrade to 1GB
$299 extra for second CPUs.

Can't complaint with such pricing :)

Dell PE1750
Dual Xeon 2.4 GHz
1GB memory
36 GB SCSI
$1248

Guess what? We can even get additional 5-10% off. :)

Too bad that we cannot export Dell servers to US or vice versa.

Dave, where do you get the pe1750? I bought the same server for 1000 before but that was due to a discount. I am in need of about 4-5

That's Dell pricing on thei website, Small Business division.

So what justifies the high cost for these Opteron servers, especially when the CPU chip itself is cheaper in Opteron than in Xeon?

You can't compare the opteron 250 (2.4) with the xeon 2.4. They are two fundamentally different servers. The opteron 242 (1.6) and xeon 2.4 are more comparable. Although the opteron 242 still kills the xeon 2.4.

It seems to me that the gamers are benefiting the most from the opteron servers. They are getting more servers on each machine and seeing better performance from the opterons by 50% or more over the xeons.

Originally posted by Everyday
You can't compare the opteron 250 (2.4) with the xeon 2.4. They are two fundamentally different servers. The opteron 242 (1.6) and xeon 2.4 are more comparable. Although the opteron 242 still kills the xeon 2.4.


I intentionally use the same clock speeds to compare performance/price. Read my post ... I simply don't think Opteron 250 gives 2.73 times more performance than Xeon 2.4 GHz to justify the 273% higher price in Opteron. Same clock speed, not as much performance gain than price increase.


It seems to me that the gamers are benefiting the most from the opteron servers. They are getting more servers on each machine and seeing better performance from the opterons by 50% or more over the xeons

That's a very little gain for the price, don't you think? For the same price of one Dual Opteron 250 server (HP) I can get three Dual Xeon 2.4 GHz servers (Dell). Surely I can do more with tree servers than one.

Read my post ... I am comparing prices and I simply don't think Opteron 250 gives 2.73 times more performance than Xeon 2.4 GHz to justify the 273% higher price in Opteron.

I did read your post, did you read mine Dave? The issue here is that you are comparing a 64 bit processor with faster FSB, memory, etc to a 32 bit processor with a slower FSB, memory, etc.

If you want to compare on price then at least do a fair comparison on servers. What you are doing in effect is saying that a Celeron 2.4 server costs X and a a Xeon 2.4 server costs Y. Why pay the extra for the xeon when they are both 2.4 processors.

Dave,

That's what I am referring to.

"You shouldn't compare orange with apple."

Besides, I started the topic "Comment about latest Dell Poweredge Server" to discuss the opinion about latest poweredge.

So do you think PE1850 with 2 HS trays is a failure? PE1750 is much better as with 3 trays you can do Raid5.

Did you try to turn on the PE2850? It's like a F1 or Jet, man, it really turns you on with the exciting sound, thank god, they are all in datacenter, not in my office.

some say it sux, some say its the bomb :) you know how it is...
but the facts sound great !!!

Does anyone here get better discounts with them

Okay, Matt is basically saying you can't compare the hardware but Dave is doing a cost/benefit comparison. In anycase, the opterons do not let you host that many more gameservers. In a server to server comparison Matt, an opteron 242 can host about 2 more servers than a Dual Xeon 2.4. Hosts tend to be able to get away with hosting more on an opteron but for optimal perfonace a dual xeon can host 6-8 and opteron 7-10. So when you put price into perspective, Xeons are more worth it

Anyway, does anyone get discounts with Dell due to having a large order in the past?

Dave, your post makes no sense. You can't compare CPUs based on clockspeed. Should you compare a Pentium M Dothan 2.0GHz to a Pentium 4 2.0GHz? Of course not! The Dothan would be the speed of a 3.2 or 3.4 P4, not a 2.0!

You have to compare CPUs based on PERFORMANCE, not on CLOCKSPEED.

The price of processors does not increase in a linear fashion, and you're naive to assume they do. Look at the price of the Xeon 2.4 vs the Xeon 3.4. The 3.4 is 4.2 times more expensive than the 2.4, but it's not 4.2 times faster!

Originally posted by The Broadband Man
Okay, Matt is basically saying you can't compare the hardware but Dave is doing a cost/benefit comparison. In anycase, the opterons do not let you host that many more gameservers. In a server to server comparison Matt, an opteron 242 can host about 2 more servers than a Dual Xeon 2.4. Hosts tend to be able to get away with hosting more on an opteron but for optimal perfonace a dual xeon can host 6-8 and opteron 7-10. So when you put price into perspective, Xeons are more worth it

Dave is not doing a cost/benefit analysis. That would involve comparing similarly priced Xeons and Opterons.

Dave instead is comparing the SLOWEST Xeon to the FASTEST Opteron. Of course there is a non-linear price differential!

The Opteron 242 and Xeon 2.4 costs 1.14x more (Xeon is 178$, Opteron is 203$), but as you said, the Opteron will host about 2 more game servers (More if the game servers have 64-bit binaries).

The question is, is the 64-bit capabilities and extra gameservers worth the 14% price increase. It all depends on your situation, really, if the Opteron's additinal power and 64-bit capabilities (Assuming you use 64-bit game server binaries) provides more than 14% more game servers, the answer would be yes, the Opteron is a better deal.

Yes but 3 2.4 dual xeons will still be more profitable than 1 opteron .... that IS a cost benefit analysis.

Let's say its for gameservers. i host 12 on an opteron and 6 each on a dual xeon. you do the math

But it's a pointless analysis.

Do this math then:

3 Dual 242 vs 3 Dual Xeon 2.4

As I mentioned before, faster CPUs cost MORE than the performance is worth. You might as well compare the 2.4 Xeon to the 3.4 Xeon. It costs four times as much for just a 32% increase in clockspeed. The 3.4 Xeon, BTW, is about the same cost as the Opteron 250 you're comparing here!

Yes but for commercial purposes or for the hosting business, then the Xeons are better. However, the opterons are agreeably better in terms of performance...THERE :D

Actually the real factor here is what you can buy the servers for from the vendors. For the pricing we get on the hardware it makes it worth while to offer the Opterons.

As far as how many game servers you can run on a dual Opteron, we have a few customers running 16, 16 player game servers on a dual opteron. These are full 95% of the time and have no lag issues. They are using the 64 bit binaries and the 2.6.7 kernel.

Originally posted by Guspaz
Dave, your post makes no sense. You can't compare CPUs based on clockspeed. Should you compare a Pentium M Dothan 2.0GHz to a Pentium 4 2.0GHz? Of course not! The Dothan would be the speed of a 3.2 or 3.4 P4, not a 2.0!


If you don't get what I am after, then don't bother contribute. Everybody else here understands.

People brags the fact that Opteron at the same clock speed beats Xeon at the same clock speed. That I accept and I am not disputing it. Nobody is disputing it. What I am disputing is additional cost for Opteron systems does not justify the 273 % increase over similarly configured Dell servers, again at the same clock speed when the Opteron does not give me 273% increase in performance over Xeon, again at the same clock speed.

Even if Opteron 250 does offer 273% more performance than Xeon 2.4 GHz, I will not spend $4200+ on one server. I better have 3 servers for about the same money. I can do more with three servers with one server.

In any case, the benefit of Opteron 250 seems to be much smaller once you consider its cost.

If you don't understand this, I don't know what else to say.

Originally posted by Guspaz
Do this math then:

3 Dual 242 vs 3 Dual Xeon 2.4


Ok fine ...

HP Proliant DL145
Dual Opteron 242
1 GB memory
36 GB SCSI
$2488/each

Dell Poweredge 1750
Dual Xeon 2.4
1 GB memory
36 GB SCSI
$1248/each

Similarly configure Opteron costs ~200% more than similarly configured Xeons. And I suppose the Opteron 242 is performing at the same level as Xeon 2.4? Why should I pay twice for Opteron?

It could be that HP is just priced insanely. If only Dell has AMD servers, then I am sure the price will make a lot more sense .... This is the reason why I don't think Dell, even without offering AMD servers, will die. Their prices are just unbeatable.

Originally posted by FHDave
If you don't get what I am after, then don't bother contribute. Everybody else here understands.

People brags the fact that Opteron at the same clock speed beats Xeon at the same clock speed. That I accept and I am not disputing it. Nobody is disputing it. What I am disputing is additional cost for Opteron systems does not justify the 273 % increase over similarly configured Dell servers, again at the same clock speed when the Opteron does not give me 273% increase in performance over Xeon, again at the same clock speed.

Even if Opteron 250 does offer 273% more performance than Xeon 2.4 GHz, I will not spend $4200+ on one server. I better have 3 servers for about the same money. I can do more with three servers with one server.

In any case, the benefit of Opteron 250 seems to be much smaller once you consider its cost.

If you don't understand this, I don't know what else to say.

Your post is quite amusing. It is YOU who doesn't understand; comparing CPUs based on clockspeed is a mistake only computer illiterate people make. Why are you comparing a high end processor to a low end processor? Why aren't you using a Xeon 3.4 to compare?

Get this through your thick skull: CLOCKSPEED MEANS NOTHING. That's the reason that AMD and Intel switched to model numbers for their newer CPUs.

I again ask you, should you compare a Pentium M 2.0GHz against a Pentium 4 2.0GHz, even through the Pentium M is probably about the speed of a P4 3.2?

Dave,

Dell will not *significantly* reduce the price on base configs.
HP will, if you buy in bulk.

Your numbers are definitely off. While the numbers for a Dual Opteron from HP/IBM are definitely higher than a Dual Xeon from Dell, they are not that much higher, certainly much much less than double.

And you've got to compare a Xeon 2.8 with an Opteron 242.
If you want to look at an Opteron 250, you've got to look at the new EMT64 Xeons (3.4Ghz and above).




Originally posted by FHDave
Ok fine ...

HP Proliant DL145
Dual Opteron 242
1 GB memory
36 GB SCSI
$2488/each

Dell Poweredge 1750
Dual Xeon 2.4
1 GB memory
36 GB SCSI
$1248/each

Similarly configure Opteron costs ~200% more than similarly configured Xeons. And I suppose the Opteron 242 is performing at the same level as Xeon 2.4? Why should I pay twice for Opteron?

Originally posted by FHDave
It could be that HP is just priced insanely. If only Dell has AMD servers, then I am sure the price will make a lot more sense .... This is the reason why I don't think Dell, even without offering AMD servers, will die. Their prices are just unbeatable.

I agree, Dell doesn't need to offer AMD servers to succeed. However if Opterons gain much more ground they may lose business to competitors that offer what people are looking for.

It's not so much a matter of HP's prices being very high, but with Dell's prices being very low. If you compare the prices of the components themselves, they are quite similar, which would indicate if you were to build a server yourself, the price would be very close.

HP Proliant DL145
$2488/each

Wow! buying in bulk sure does help.

And buying in bulk with Dell sure does help much better ... ;) I have recently asked for _only_ 25 servers quote of PE 750, and boy ... the price did go quite a bit lower.

Originally posted by Guspaz
Get this through your thick skull: CLOCKSPEED MEANS NOTHING. That's the reason that AMD and Intel switched to model numbers for their newer CPUs.


If you still dont get it, let me say it once more. I intentionally compared both CPUs at the same clock speed to give me the idea of which vendor/CPU model gives me the best price/performance ratio.

Don't need to preach me about this "Clockspeed means nothing". I am fully aware of it.

Originally posted by nopzor
Dell will not *significantly* reduce the price on base configs.
HP will, if you buy in bulk.


How much in Bulk are we talking about here? Would you mind sharing your HP sales rep? Perhaps I should shoot them an email and see what they can do. Let me know.

In regard to Broadbandmans question, when we have been buying 4 * Dell 4600, dual cpu, 3 * 80 GB SCSI 10K drives, 1 GB ram per CPU and buying 4 of these beasts we got 1 at a very heavly discounted price of about $300 and a free 2650( bare in mind we are in the UK)

Well your first 3 Dell 4600 must cost you a fortune, then they will give you such discount. :)

Well, gentlemen, shall we get back to the topic,

Comment about the latest Dell Poweredge Server?

ie, PE1850, PE2850, PE1855 (Blade), SC1425 (Low end Xeon with SATA)

Ooh... there is a PE1855? Show me ... show me ...

(I've dissapointed they stopped at PE 1655MC)

See my last comment in http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=338174

PE1855 will be out at the month end, but I would rather wait for 1955 that's going to be released in Feb.

Now I am sharing PE1855 powerpoint capture with you guys from my inside contact. :)

PS. Don't buy SC1245, it's a crap just like PE750 (sorry) after I read the configurations.

Hah ... looks at those fans. Tha's what I call BIG fans. Not sure how load it is... My PowerEdge 1655 MC is already loud enough.

What different does PE 1955 have over PE 1855? Do you have any idea how much this will sell? Would you mind sharing the PE1855 pwoerpoint file?

No intention to buy SC1245. See a picture of it and know it's gonna be another PE750 with Xeons, that's all.

Sorry, I cannot share more than I posted, or...you know what I mean.

SC1245 is worst than PE750, why? It's because it doesn't have DRAC.

That's fine ... I have requested information through my sales rep.

PE750 does not have DRAC either.

Got the PE1855/1955 PowerPoint presentation. Cool stuff.

Dave,

So you see what I mean by a cool Blade now. :)

>PE750 does not have DRAC either

It does, it's a DRAC3 add on.

Anyway, the 1750 seems to be the key to affordability :D

No, the key to affordability is to get them from ThePlanet (http://theplanet.com/) with DRAC cards for low monthly rates ;)

wrong thread to post

There is an interesting photo bank of Dell, many servers, etc.

http://www1.us.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/corp/imagebank/en/index?c=us&cs=555&l=en&s=biz

http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/corporate/imagebank/servers/pe_6600_300.jpg is my favorite - however wha is the sc1480?

that's the latest low end 1u Dual Xeon with SATA option. Similar to PE750, but actually not worth buying.

Actually, I don't know what SC1480 is. Isn't the one with 1U, Dual Xeon and SATA is SC1425?

Yes, it's SC1425, typo.

Btw, amazing story now.

Dell looking 'more seriously than ever' at AMD
By Matt Loney, Special to CNETAsia
Tuesday, November 16 2004 11:52 AM
PARIS--Dell Chief Executive Kevin Rollins on Monday gave the most direct indication yet that a deal with Advanced Micro Devices may be on the way, dropping a strong hint that an agreement with the chipmaker was a question of when, not if.

Speaking in Paris at the launch of Dell's first blade server, Rollins commented on reports last week that Dell has been studying the possibility of using AMD chips.

Rollins confirmed that the company has been investigating and testing AMD processors very seriously. "Recently, we have had a much more favorable disposition," Rollins said, "because some of (AMD's) products in high-performance computing are very good and in some cases (are) more advanced than those of Intel. We have looked more closely and more seriously than ever before."

Any agreement would probably put AMD's 64-bit Opteron chips into Dell servers. Intel's 64-bit server processor range starts with a Xeon, a substantially more expensive chip.

The prospect of Dell using AMD's processors is one of the industry's favorite rumors. Dell is famously the only major computer manufacturer that does not use AMD processors. HP, IBM and Sun Microsystems all use them in addition to Intel processors. AMD makes no secret of the fact that its executives regularly go knocking on Dell's door.

Last week's reports of a potential deal between the companies drove AMD stock to close on Friday at US$21.02, up US$2.43 on the New York Stock Exchange.

Yea, I have read that too. Soon enough, affordable AMD servers from Dell. HP, IBM ... beware and take notes.

has anyone used the drac 4? Any good or bad experiences?

The Drac4 coming with PE2850, PE1850 is excellent and much better as it can do CD-ROM/DVD redirect, imagine install your windows over the Internet.

Ok, I hate to drag this in yet sort of another direction but..... All of the comments about "I could buy 3 xeon or 1 opteron" don't seem to be very well thought out. Sure you could by 3 to 1. But lets just guess that you have a need of 15 to 5 servers (or *n). What is the real difference in cost when you count in administration etc?

I can tell you that I would rather take care of 5 servers instead of 15.

Originally posted by hostingasia
The Drac4 coming with PE2850, PE1850 is excellent and much better as it can do CD-ROM/DVD redirect, imagine install your windows over the Internet.

so it works regardless of OS and graphics mode?

Correct, that's the best part of DRAC!