Opteron server
1 x Opteron 242 with 1MB cache
SATA HDD
1GB RAM

Xeon server
2 x Xeon 2.4GHz
ATA HDD
1GB RAM


Which one has better performance? We are using for some forums

thanks

Honestly you should be able to get a Dual Opteron 242 for a similar price and i would go with that. Out of those choices though I would go Xeon

Rus

By 2 x Xeon 2.4ghz, do you mean dual xeon, 2 dual xeons, or 2 single xeons? You may want to clarify that..

I am saying 2 single xeons. I know Dual Opteron 242 will be better, but it takes much more :)

It seems that Xeon is still better in this case? If single Opteron comes with 2GB RAM, which one is better?

Well, yeah, it's really an unfair comparison, two xeons to one opteron.

I mean, you're comparing hardware that costs more than twice as much.

Originally posted by Guspaz
Well, yeah, it's really an unfair comparison, two xeons to one opteron.

I mean, you're comparing hardware that costs more than twice as much.

no, it's not. The price is same same, not a big difference

of course 2 x Xeon 2.4GHz will outperform the opteron. On 32bit mode, you won't see much differences between an opteron 242 and a Xeon 2.4.

Originally posted by gate2vn
no, it's not. The price is same same, not a big difference

2x Xeon 2.4: $179 US x 2 = $358 US
2x Xeon Motherboard: $119 US x 2 = $238 US
Xeon cost for CPUs + mobos: $596 US

Opteron 242: $203 US
Opteron motherboard: $159
Opteron cost for CPUs + mobos: 362$

The Xeon cost difference would of course be greater for all the other hardware duplicated (case, PSU, memory, drives, etc)

Again, unfair comparison, hardware doesn't cost the same (Even if the dedi provider charges the same). The outcome should be obvious.

go with the duals, alsways a good choice...

Originally posted by Guspaz
2x Xeon 2.4: $179 US x 2 = $358 US
2x Xeon Motherboard: $119 US x 2 = $238 US
Xeon cost for CPUs + mobos: $596 US

Opteron 242: $203 US
Opteron motherboard: $159
Opteron cost for CPUs + mobos: 362$

The Xeon cost difference would of course be greater for all the other hardware duplicated (case, PSU, memory, drives, etc)

Again, unfair comparison, hardware doesn't cost the same (Even if the dedi provider charges the same). The outcome should be obvious.

That doesn't matter -- what matters to him is what he's getting charged. It's not about being "fair" to the chipsets... don't worry though, they don't have feelings to hurt.

Who knows... they probably have 'I robot' in it :D

Anyway, dual should perform better. Dual Opteron should be the same price as Xeon now.

Originally posted by amusive.com
That doesn't matter -- what matters to him is what he's getting charged. It's not about being "fair" to the chipsets... don't worry though, they don't have feelings to hurt.

That's not what I mean. What I mean is, given what should be fairly obvious to be two CPUs with at least comparable performance, the question should be obvious. Even if you don't know what the actual performance of the relative parts are, the relative prices of those parts should be a hint.

Originally posted by Guspaz
That's not what I mean. What I mean is, given what should be fairly obvious to be two CPUs with at least comparable performance, the question should be obvious. Even if you don't know what the actual performance of the relative parts are, the relative prices of those parts should be a hint.

Not really -- equal performing AMD and Intel chips often have amazing differences in prices (and sometimes Intel's even cheaper. Rarely).

You can't judge performance based on price. Or ghz. Or a lot of other things that people seem to judge performance on.

Originally posted by amusive.com
Not really -- equal performing AMD and Intel chips often have amazing differences in prices (and sometimes Intel's even cheaper. Rarely).

You can't judge performance based on price. Or ghz. Or a lot of other things that people seem to judge performance on.

In my experience, there have been very few AMD processors that can compete with two entire whole computers that are similar in price individually.

Oh, so what you're saying is it's kind of a stupid question to ask which is better?

Go with the Dual Opteron.

Not stupid per-se, perhaps a bit obvious.

And, while you are certainly right that price isn't always a good indicator, Google would point you to tons of head-to-head benchmarks ;)

Ahh, but even benchmarks aren't necessarily a good way to measure performance... the "typical load" might be significantly different than what the actual use of the box would be.

True, but usually a good review has a variety of benchmarks. Take Anandtech for example, they do web server, DB server, general usage, etc. Covers most bases.

If a dual optatron is a possiblity, and you arent planning on renting, its a much better long term desicion, Otherwise i would suggest the dual xeon if your renting and dual optetron is not a possiblity.

Anandtech uses AMD if I've not mistaken.

Originally posted by Tee
If a dual optatron is a possiblity, and you arent planning on renting, its a much better long term desicion, Otherwise i would suggest the dual xeon if your renting and dual optetron is not a possiblity.

The parent poster has mentioned that:

1) Due to price, a dual opteron would probably cost the same as four xeons from his host
2) It's not a dual xeons, it's two full 1cpu xeon servers

To be honest I don't think the question is all that bad. You guys are only comparing CPU capacity, but something that's much more important is that two single xeons are two entirely seperated machines, which means that they have double the BUS speed for everything (harddrives, memory, everything). I think that's really the aspect that matters.

As for CPU wise: I think the performance is near to equal. The Xeons have the advantage that they have more bus speed available, the opteron has the advantage that one single opteron 242 processor is faster than a single 2.4ghz processor (mainly due to the fact that it has more cache).