I am trying to decide between AMD XP2600 and Intel P4 3 GHz for my new dedicated server. I am planning to host a web site with about 40,000 mysql read operations per day. Could anyone share any ideas about the performances of these 2 CPU's about handling this amount of mysql read queries?

Thank you.

HT helps a little, in fact, sometimes, HT seems to decrease server performance. You need to do some benchmarking on that.

Hmmm, not sure on that one. They should both handle that load fairly well. Can't say I have done any benchmarking between the two.

The P4 3.0 is of course better than the 2600. Even a P4 2.66 is better than it. I would say if its similar pricing, to go with the 3.0.

The P4 3.0 is of course better than the 2600. Even a P4 2.66 is better than it. I would say if its similar pricing, to go with the 3.0.

I agree.

I would go for 3.0.

Originally posted by UltraUnixNET
HT helps a little, in fact, sometimes, HT seems to decrease server performance. You need to do some benchmarking on that.

That just depends on what kind of applications you run.

For just 40,000 MySQL queries both machines are great and have ample power....... I would go for the best deal and the one with higher level of RAM.

I have a celeron and I perfrom around 140,000 - 175,000 queries/day without problems.

I think you'll be just fine either way. My 2.4ghz celeron with 512mb of ram does 450,000 MySQL queries a day and the load varies anywhere from .2 to 1. 1 being when its processing logs and such :).

WOW, how can you even compair those?

2600+ = 1.9 - 2.2GHZ (pending on core)
and P4 3Ghz

You can't really compat that since the AMD is almost a GHz slower. Maybe a 3200 could come close.

For those of you still living in the dark ages, MHz isn't everything :)

Both of the servers have 512 MB of RAM which is upgradable to 2 GB. I understand that even though the majority agrees on the fact that P4 3 GHz is more powerful than AMD XP 2600+, both would work for mysql web site that I described. So I will go for less expensive solution.

I have another web site where I am planning to give out 2,000 mailboxes to the visitors for free. Estimating that each mail user sends about 10 e-mails and receives approximately 40 e-mails per day. Do you think if XP 2600+ and/or P4 3GHz with 2 GB of DDR RAM could handle this load. (Monthly bandwith allowance is assumed to be sufficient and the server is has a 10 MBit/s port, not 100)

Also, do you know how much affect the FSB speed have on the performance?

The FSB speed will have a nice effect on performance, but I can't say how much. It is noticeable on home machines though.

As for the e-mail deal, what type of solution will you have? A webmail solution like hivemail or @mail, or pop3, imap, accessible through outlook, etc?

E-mail can become quite troublesome depending upon the type of mail you're offering and what kind of antivirus/antispam setup you have. If you're scanning all incoming messages for spam and some jackasses mailbomb you and your server is not very powerful/attackers are good, they could take down your server pretty quickly I'd think. Also, hivemail occasionally has issues with processor runaway and other such bugs. If you've got the money, check out @mail right away. It's expensive, but man is it sweet :).

Originally posted by BeasTboyz
The FSB speed will have a nice effect on performance, but I can't say how much. It is noticeable on home machines though.


Something that is very important is the amount of CPU cache. I have recently done some benchmark tests with a 2.0ghz pentium mobile with 2mb l2 cache, and compared that with a 3.2ghz pentium 4 with 512kb l2 cache. It may be hard to believe but at many points the 2.0ghz was faster.

I myself am an AMD fan, their cpu's compared to a comparable Pentium class tend to benchmark better. Granted you're comparing a P4 with an XP 2600 so yeah the P4 obviously will be faster. But, I would go with the AMD in this case seeing you're talking something that would need more so memory to handle the mbufs then cpu honestly, so yes in this case the AMD should be sufficient. If a celeron can handle as much as what had been stated that AMD should easily handle the hosting you are planning on doing with it.

Regards,
Justin S.

Originally posted by wiresix-Ryan
For those of you still living in the dark ages, MHz isn't everything :)

Almost said the same thing till I read your post :)

AMD runs a bit different than P4's. You can read up on it and see the technology AMD uses, but for instance, an AMD 2400 is similar to a P4 2.4 (SIMILAR) although in my opinion, the P4 is still better. The whole numbering system of 2400, 2600, 2800, 3000 etc.. is supposed to give you an idea of comparable megahertz to the P4 (since it's their only competitor).

I am planning to give POP3 access to all users and scan all incoming mail with spamassasin and Dr. Web which are installed with Plesk 7 Reloaded.

BTW, does anyone know L1 and L2 cache sizes for AMD XP 2600 and Intel P4 3 GHz?

Check at intel.com and amd.com .
Good luck.

I have a AMD XP 2600 at home and its using the barton core its L2 is 512Kb, the new P4 Prescot series have a 1 MB L2 cache, but Perscots tend to be a lot hotter so they need more cooling.

AMD XP 2600 is not barton, it is Troughbred and 128K l1 cache, 128K l2 cache.

P4 has very little l1 cache, but probably it has 512 or 1Mb l2 cache.

For 2000 virtual users on server, you definately need qmail with vpopmail (check qmailrocks.org)

for the price
I would go with xp 2600, and increase ram

Originally posted by muratremix
AMD XP 2600 is not barton, it is Troughbred and 128K l1 cache, 128K l2 cache.

P4 has very little l1 cache, but probably it has 512 or 1Mb l2 cache.

For 2000 virtual users on server, you definately need qmail with vpopmail (check qmailrocks.org)

for the price
I would go with xp 2600, and increase ram

muratremix there are variants of AMD XP 2600+, the one with barton core and it has 512Kb cache, you are also right the throughbred core of AMD XP 2600+ has 256KB cache.

The only catch with the Barton core of AMD XP 2600 is that its core frequency is a bit lower (I dont remmeber the exact number but its 19xx Mhz range) than the XP 2600 throughbred core whose core is a bit higher.

Barton 2600+ is around 1.91mhz, but barton is the best core for the 32bit series, atleast for me it is. It processes alot smoother and alot more then most cores. Just becasue it's slower does'nt mean it's bad =P

Just because it is slower does not mean it is bad, however I would like to have an idea about what makes it better.