helo all,

AMD XP 2400 and Celeron 2.4 Ghz servers , which one is more good perfomance?

Id say an AthlonXP 2400+ for raw performance, but if you want a server that will be reliable and less prone to heat problems, a Celery will be what you are after.

I personally think the amd's are better than the celeron, but I don't know what the benchmarks say...

Athlon XP 2400+.

for servers I would choose C 2.4

I would go with the AMD. Simple fact it will provide better performance than a celeron.

As for heat issues, if you are getting it from a decent server provider you don't need to worry about it.

I've found the AMD 2400+ about as good as its p4 counterpart, so I'd go for the 2400+.

yeah if you're getting the server from a good DC then hear isn't an issue since they should have immense coolers and the like :P

Celerons have no cache and stuff, and are not meant for server usage, but low-end desktops. Athlons on the other hand are high-performance chips that are meant for servers. However, do note the AMD Athlon 2400+ is only 1.8GHz. However, it has a large L2 cache and so forth. If you want performance, AMD is the way to go. However, under no circumstances is a Celeron any good.

I would go for AMD out of those 2 choices.

Defineately the AMD.

AMD as well.

100% AMD. It is compatible with P4...

we have some XP2400 boxes, and our clients there are happy

cel > p3 > amd > p4 > xeon > ..

"cel > p3 > amd > p4 > xeon > .." > amd64 > opteron.

:D

Originally posted by excelblue
Celerons have no cache and stuff, and are not meant for server usage, but low-end desktops.

Erm yes they do, they have 128KB L2 cache and 20KB of L1 cache.

The P4 based Celery's also have a 400Mhz FSB opposed to the 533/800Mhz of the P4.

They are based on the same architecture as the Intel Pentium series and are aimed at the low-end home and server market.

Athlons on the other hand are high-performance chips that are meant for servers.

No, AMD AthlonXP's are actually aimed more towards the home and gaming market rather then the server market, hence it is very rare to see them in the server market.

You find me an AMD press release which states that AMD AthlonXP's are aimed towards the server market....

However, do note the AMD Athlon 2400+ is only 1.8GHz.

No, wrong again, it is 2.0Ghz, the 2200+ is 1.8Ghz (I know I have one) and the 2500+ is 1.83Ghz.

However, it has a large L2 cache and so forth.

Finally something along the right lines, it has double the L2 cache of the Celery, with 256KB, but this is still not as much as the 512KB and even 1MB of other processors.

If you want performance, AMD is the way to go.

Yes agreed. But should you want far better reliability and less heat, then a Celeron would have to be preferential to an AthlonXP.

However, under no circumstances is a Celeron any good. Im totally lost for words with this statement. Celerons are perfectly fine for low-end servers. You try telling that statement to the thousands, in fact tens of thousands of web hosts who run their servers on Celeron's and have done so for a long time.

All my servers are now dual Xeon, but for a long time I had a few Celeron machines and they were perfectly fine for running web servers. Granted, they are not as fast or as powerful as P4's or Xeons and do not handle complex MySQL etc as well, but then they are not meant to be, they are aimed at the value market.

No offence, but I think you are a gamer, who is trying to use the games industry as an example for the server market. Well the two markets are totally different, we dont go be FPS in this market im afraid.

And at least find out the facts prior to posting next time.

I would go for the AMD

Originally posted by qserver
for servers I would choose C 2.4

If you are a server provider, you should know better. The AMD chip has double to cache, which makes a large difference.

Originally posted by ddihosting
"cel > p3 > amd > p4 > xeon > .." > amd64 > opteron.

:D

That only applies if you run the opteron in 64 bit mode.

Originally posted by Apoc
If you are a server provider, you should know better. The AMD chip has double to cache, which makes a large difference.

remember I'm a server provider, not a server user. That's the difference.

BTW, Celeron D has 256K L2 cache

Celerons have no cache and stuff, and are not meant for server usage, but low-end desktops.

Actually, celerons were initially released intended for use with print servers :cool:

They are a good work horse, but personally I would go with AMD as you would get a better performance overall

Originally posted by qserver
remember I'm a server provider, not a server user. That's the difference.

BTW, Celeron D has 256K L2 cache

You should know what you sell though :rolleyes:

As for this server, I don't think this one has 256k as a normal celeron has just 128k. Hence, I've got 2048kb in this notebook, that figures..

if i want to run windows web server, so AMD 2500 is a suitable then celeron 2.4 , m i right?

Originally posted by Apoc
You should know what you sell though :rolleyes:

As for this server, I don't think this one has 256k as a normal celeron has just 128k. Hence, I've got 2048kb in this notebook, that figures..

I would just ignore what you said about me, because different people have different ways to do business, if you are a server provider that wants to provide a more performance but unstable machine to the client, that's fine to me.

"The AMD chip has double to cache, which makes a large difference." I don't know what you had in your mind, but this sentence just shows me that you don't pay much attention to the improvemant of CPUs, so I doubt you know much about servers.

Actually the Opterons outperform the xeons even in 32 Bit mode.

As for the cache of an AMD XP processor, it depends on the model (the speed). Some do have 256, but some have 512.

The XP the celeron is a stripped down processor, definatly go with the AMD just for the sheer fact it's not stripped down.

Originally posted by qserver
"The AMD chip has double to cache, which makes a large difference." I don't know what you had in your mind, but this sentence just shows me that you don't pay much attention to the improvemant of CPUs, so I doubt you know much about servers.

You shouldn't doubt about that. I have about 10 years of hardware knowledge.

For instance: I've tested this notebook with two others that I have. This one: 1.8ghz dothan with 2mb cache, others: 2.4ghz celeron (128kb cache) and 2.6ghz p4 (512mb cache). The dothan outperforms both of the two others, while it consumes less energy, because it's at a lower frequency. If you compare the performance of a CPU chip, you shouldn't only base that on the amount of ghz's, but also on the amount of cache, as a low amount of cache simply causes a bottleneck. You could get yourself a 10ghz chip with 128kb cache, it may sound nice, but it wouldn't perform that well.

Originally posted by ddihosting
Actually the Opterons outperform the xeons even in 32 Bit mode.

GNAX showed me some tests with both of the servers, and it was a close call. It depends on the operating system, (I believe the opteron was faster on freebsd, but slower on redhat), and it also depends on the kind of applications.

Originally posted by Apoc
You shouldn't doubt about that. I have about 10 years of hardware knowledge.

For instance: I've tested this notebook with two others that I have. This one: 1.8ghz dothan with 2mb cache, others: 2.4ghz celeron (128kb cache) and 2.6ghz p4 (512mb cache). The dothan outperforms both of the two others, while it consumes less energy, because it's at a lower frequency. If you compare the performance of a CPU chip, you shouldn't only base that on the amount of ghz's, but also on the amount of cache, as a low amount of cache simply causes a bottleneck. You could get yourself a 10ghz chip with 128kb cache, it may sound nice, but it wouldn't perform that well.

oh yea, you should setup two 1U servers, one with celeron 2.4 and one with XP 2400, put couple hdds in, run to high CPU load for couple hours, then you will notice the difference.

BTW, never seen a 2.6ghz p4 with 512mb cache, where can I get one?;)

Originally posted by qserver
oh yea, you should setup two 1U servers, one with celeron 2.4 and one with XP 2400, put couple hdds in, run to high CPU load for couple hours, then you will notice the difference.

BTW, never seen a 2.6ghz p4 with 512mb cache, where can I get one?;)

http://www.usereasy.com/product_6541.html
http://www.vdhsoft.be/eu/0014.HTM
http://www.computersonics.com/productdetail.asp?CCode=28&SCode=185&No=2689
http://www.cpuscorecard.com/cpuprices/ip4.htm
http://www.provantage.com/buy-7itep265-pentium-p4-2-60c-ghz-512kb-l2-cache-pga478-800mhz-fsb-intel-processors-bx80532pg2600d-shopping.htm
http://www.packardbell.com.au/product/Product_Configurations.asp?CID=1&MID=1
http://www.mypccity.com/products.asp?subcategory=CPU
http://www.avadirect.com/product_details_parts.asp?PRID=2203
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/02/intel_prunes_desktop_mobile_pentium/
http://tomshardware.bizrate.com/buy/products__att182--542-43990,cat_id--403,keyword--Pentium%204.html

Shall I continue?

As for xp2400: it IS performing faster than a 2.4 celeron.

You really shouldn't come up with such crap if you have no idea what you are talking about.

AMD is cheap efficient and effective. Cooling should not be an issue if it you spend an extra 10 bucks adding a fan or two it's still cheaper than it's intel counterpart.

Such anger.....lol but duh the 2400 would perform better

Originally posted by FNetwork
Such anger.....lol but duh the 2400 would perform better

No anger, I just can't stand people who think they know everything about servers, infact sell them too, and infact know very little about it.

Originally posted by Apoc
http://www.usereasy.com/product_6541.html
http://www.vdhsoft.be/eu/0014.HTM
http://www.computersonics.com/productdetail.asp?CCode=28&SCode=185&No=2689
http://www.cpuscorecard.com/cpuprices/ip4.htm
http://www.provantage.com/buy-7itep265-pentium-p4-2-60c-ghz-512kb-l2-cache-pga478-800mhz-fsb-intel-processors-bx80532pg2600d-shopping.htm
http://www.packardbell.com.au/product/Product_Configurations.asp?CID=1&MID=1
http://www.mypccity.com/products.asp?subcategory=CPU
http://www.avadirect.com/product_details_parts.asp?PRID=2203
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/02/intel_prunes_desktop_mobile_pentium/
http://tomshardware.bizrate.com/buy/products__att182--542-43990,cat_id--403,keyword--Pentium%204.html

Shall I continue?

As for xp2400: it IS performing faster than a 2.4 celeron.

You really shouldn't come up with such crap if you have no idea what you are talking about.

well, I can only find 2.6 GHz with 512KB L2 Cache from the links, where is the 512mb cache one?

As for the servers, did you actually setup the servers with celeron and amd xp before? BTW, don't compare PCs with servers, don't think you know PCs then you would know servers, totally different things. For PCs, I would go for AMD XP 2400.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030422/index.html

"In the extensive benchmark tests under Linux Enterprise Server 8 (32-bit as well as 64-bit), the AMD Opteron made a good impression. Especially in the server disciplines, the benchmarks (MySQL, Whetstone, ARC 2D, NPB, etc.) show quite clearly that the Dual Opteron puts the Dual Xeon in its place."

All I have to say. :)

Originally posted by qserver
well, I can only find 2.6 GHz with 512KB L2 Cache from the links, where is the 512mb cache one?

As for the servers, did you actually setup the servers with celeron and amd xp before? BTW, don't compare PCs with servers, don't think you know PCs then you would know servers, totally different things. For PCs, I would go for AMD XP 2400.

So you would choose a celeron over an AMD XP? That's about the most stupid thing you could do. Have you any idea how much the cache means to a server? Apparently not.

Indeed, PC's are different from servers. Nevertheless, for both purposes, an AMD XP outperforms a Celeron.

I do know servers and I have benchmarked and seen benchmarks on the Celeron/XP war in the server area.

The XP does win. Not hands down, like I wish it did, but it does. The increased cache and the design of the XP give it a performance boost.

Originally posted by Apoc
So you would choose a celeron over an AMD XP? That's about the most stupid thing you could do. Have you any idea how much the cache means to a server? Apparently not.

Indeed, PC's are different from servers. Nevertheless, for both purposes, an AMD XP outperforms a Celeron.

My last post on this topic.

As I told you before, Celeron 2.4 can has the same cache as AMD XP 2400 has, 256K L2 cache. Barton 2500 can has 512K L2 cache, but not 2400.
Don't be an armchair strategist, i suggest you go to setup the servers and try it by yourself, you will see the difference.

Not true. It depends on the model. Some have 256K Cache and others have 512K Cache depending on the model.

the athlon xp is still better than the celeron, the architecture of the chip itself is better than the celeron

Indeed. Qserver, what you said it simply not true.

I have tested all sorts of servers here in one of my racks in Amsterdam. I've tested them in order to see what would be best, and then especially to see price/quality, so I tested celerons too.

Originally posted by ddihosting
Not true. It depends on the model. Some have 256K Cache and others have 512K Cache depending on the model. Just to clear this up, only the AthlonXP's on the Barton core 2500+, 2800+, 3000+ and 3200+ have 512KB L2 cache. There are NO 256KB L2 cache versions of these models. The rest from the Thunderbird right upto the Thoroughbread 2700+ have 256KB L2 cache.

This is where I think you are getting confused:

Now the Sempron, which is to replace the AthlonXP, has 256KB L2 cache at these model's, but then the Sempron is NOT the AthlonXP (although similar architecture, you will never buy one listed as an AthlonXP, so it can't be classed as an AthlonXP, its either an AthlonXP or its a Sempron, not both).

Alright, I was off by 100. :) I will admit when I'm wrong. I should have hit one of my standby sites and veified.

http://www.tek-tips.com/faqs.cfm?fid=4141

I would recommend locating somebody offering a barton core.


http://www.tek-tips.com/faqs.cfm?fid=4102

should read that one also.

Very informative thread, this is almost like a political debate :)

Derrick

In my opinion Athlon 2400 is better than Celeron 2400.

Originally posted by ddihosting
Alright, I was off by 100. :) I will admit when I'm wrong. I should have hit one of my standby sites and veified.

http://www.tek-tips.com/faqs.cfm?fid=4141

I would recommend locating somebody offering a barton core.


http://www.tek-tips.com/faqs.cfm?fid=4102

should read that one also.

Those links aren't working :)

They work from here......................

I'm getting a page cannot be displayed error

XP 2400+, just make sure you cool it well. If cooling is adequate the performance will be much better and reliability will be just as good.

the links works just fine

They do now. I think it's been up and down because a few minutes ago they didn't work from here.

i tested on phpnuke(or postnuke) site forum phpBB 2.0.6 and its loaded with

optimized mysql and with turckmmcache

minimal time on Dual XEON 2.4GHz 0.35 sec

minimal time on AMD Barton 3000+ 0.26 sec

interesting...

One forum on a server is NOT going to tell you jack about the server's power.

The dual Xeon will excel when under heavy load, whereas the Barton will struggle to keep up with the processes and as the load increases therer will be a lot of errors, possibly causing it to crash.

As the load increases on the dual Xeon, the same will happen, but it will be able to handle 2 - 3 times the load of the Barton before it does :)

Sash is right. Under a load a Dual Xeon will smoke a Barton. Just a basic fact, any dual processor system will smoke a single. ;)

That was not a reasonable comparison.

You have to compare apples to apples so if you want to test put that Barton 3000+ up against a P4 3.0.

They both have the strengths and weaknesses. Depending on what you are doing the Barton will excell or the P4 will.

"cel > p3 > amd > p4 > xeon > .." > amd64 > opteron.

I'm amazed nobody commented about this. Is your < key broken or do you really thinky the celery is superior :P

Originally posted by 2uantuM
I'm amazed nobody commented about this. Is your < key broken or do you really thinky the celery is superior :P Lol! :P

I think he was intending them as arrows From Celery all the way to Opteron :)

Originally posted by ddihosting
Just a basic fact, any dual processor system will smoke a single. ;)


THat's not true, but a dual xeon will definitely smoke a barton though.

Better quote.

"Any Dual Processor system will smoke a single processor system of equivalent process or speed". ;)

Yes, I was a little off in that first one. I don't believe a Dual Pentium 100 would be an Barton. :stickout:

Originally posted by Sash!
One forum on a server is NOT going to tell you jack about the server's power.

The dual Xeon will excel when under heavy load, whereas the Barton will struggle to keep up with the processes and as the load increases therer will be a lot of errors, possibly causing it to crash.

As the load increases on the dual Xeon, the same will happen, but it will be able to handle 2 - 3 times the load of the Barton before it does :)

i hope that its true :)

because for dual xeon i pay 1.5 price of barton :)

AMD, unless you can get a 2.4 P4 :)

AMD our Intel?

THis is a useless debate where you can point out numers point where one beat's the other and than a fan comes out and say the XP 24000 runs at 2.0 and (it runs 1.8)....

This is useless as either sides will not accept defeat.

BudWay, that's not true. There are very good ways to determine whether one of the two is better, performance wise.