Which do you prefer?

For performance sake, I think the ultimate choise would be Dual P3 over XP1700. Two is still better than one :D

Having two processors would make the server much faster overall as it can do much more than the single processor. I've used AMD in the past and also Intel and overall I'm planning to stick with Intel processors only for web servers since my general feeling is that they perform better.

Alan

With the AMD processors fan failure is going to cause serious problems. The only dual-AMD server that I've seen with proper engineering in 1u footprint is a the Appro line...

Personally I think the first focus should be "1u or not 1u"... 1u tends to offer a lot of price advantages when shopping for an ISP.

Intel at 1.4Ghz is pretty damn fast with the 512K cache on those chips...

I disagree that dual CPU is always better. You can introduce a lot of operating system problems if drivers and so forth aren't perfect. Some network drivers don't play nice on multi-CPU systems, etc. With linux: Are you ready for the 2.4 series kernels?

I find processor speed to be one of the smallest factors in server performance. Hard drive speed and amount of RAM are the two most important factors. You didn't mention what speed Pentium III processors you're talking about.

I would go with dual procs.

If it's like Dual p3-1ghz, I'd go for Intel. But if it's dual p3-450, go for the AMD. :)

Something to consider also, is that dual doesnt give twice the power at all....as thats not true. Some processes are by default allocated to the primary cpu.

Viability also would depend on what is being utilised, resources, etc by server software components.

Something to consider also, is that dual doesnt give twice the power at all....as thats not true. Some processes are by default allocated to the primary cpu.
So is Linux not as good at utilizing dual CPU's as Windows?

Which is the best Linux for utilizing dual CPU's?

I heard that FreeBSD is very good in utilizing dual cpus.

Linux is probably the best choice for Dual CPU systems. Just make sure you upgrade your kernel to the latest version.
FreeBSD isn't as good as Linux at SMP (Symetric Multi-Processing) (yet) so it's better you choose Redhat or anything of that sort.

Not really fair having a dual-cpu vs a single cpu

Make it a fair test immediatly :P

Originally posted by ToastyX
I find processor speed to be one of the smallest factors in server performance. Hard drive speed and amount of RAM are the two most important factors. You didn't mention what speed Pentium III processors you're talking about.

This is true. People relate their home systems to hosting servers thinking that bigger cpu is always better.

I've been selling 1 gig AMD Duron servers and PIII 1 gig servers. Delivering web pages on an average system there is no performance differences. sql is a LITTLE faster on the PIII and on a REALLY busy server, the PIII is about 25% faster (other factors the same, memory, hd, etc).

Now I was blown away last night by a new 1 gig Celeron system I put online. Most of my PIII 1 gigs have 256 meg RAM... this 1 gig Cel. has 512 with the same 40 gig 7200 rpm drives as all the machines I have. It was incredible. Installing the same scripts and files (name Cpanel) was at least 30-40% FASTER on the CELERON! Same motherboard as the PIII, same brand memory and same HD. So I would take a 1 gig cel. with 512 megs ram over a PIII with 256 but customers don't see it that way. They just look at their home PC and say 'but my PIII is faster than celeron'.

Actualy AMD sucked before, they were so slow.. but now, for exmple, AMD PIII 900 Mhz is much faster Intel PIII..
The most people here choose Dual because they are dual! 2 more than 1! If it would be 1 vs. 1 AMD would win. I voted for AMD because I love it. Probably for WIN hosts Dual is needed more than for *NIX hosts, for *NIX 1 AMD is enough :)

Sorry for bad english!

AMD: :uzi: Intel: :idea:

When processor speed counts amd with similar clock speed and decent motherboard will always win. Price is also cheaper so i would go with amd all the way.

Some people will tell you that a pentium is more so reliable then a amd but all you need is a decent fan. Also there are some motherboards out there (can't give you any specifcs now) that will automatically shutdown the cpu if the processor reaches a certain temp.

I just realized that everyone seems focused on:

Dual P3 vs. SINGLE AMD.

Everyone does realize that the current state of the art is:

-- Intel: Dual P3 @ 1.4 with 512K cache

-- Amd: Dual MP @ 1.6 (real Ghz, not rating).

The new P3's with 512K cache are much better at server applications than the older 256K cache ones... The "2000+" and "1800+" ratings are not fair when compared to the 512K cache version of the P3. Those numbers are only similar to the P4 (which is slower than the P3 Mhz for Mhz).

And Dual AMD is now available. Most ISP's may not be offering, but when doing co-location... the price is pretty similar.

The Appro 1124 is a 1u system that has Dual AMD and fits in 1u footprint.

The dual AMD systems draw a ton of power, plus the heat they put out creates a number of problems when you have stacks of them in 1u foot print :) If you had 42 of these in a rack, you would have to make a massive effort to channel a lot of cooling and electricity in one place...

The ratings were actually designed to be compared with the older generation of athlons.