Hello

I want to decide between below servers with Ensim control panel:

- Duron 1 Ghz, 512M RAM ($159 setup + $119/m)

and

- PIII 1.13GHz, 256M RAM ($199 setup + $139/m)

Both with 40G Hard Drives and 300G Transfer.


I have seen some negative feedbacks about AMD servers. Some people tell that they have seen some strange problems with AMD servers.

Do you have any bad experience with AMD servers?

Which server will you choose?

Mac

The problem has been fixed, no problem with the server. Just some misconfig cpu and RAM info.

Why would anyone choose the Pentium III Over the AMD that has twice as much ram? I thought AMD's actually out-performed Pentium III ?

AMD's perform better, but produce more heat. But as the customer, thats not your problem, it's the Data Center's problem (if it ever becomes a problem at that).

He stated Duron though, not Athlon. I don't think the Duron outperforms the Pentium III.

As for strange problems, I haven't had any. Too many people are quick to blame AMD processors when the problems they have are not related to the processor at all.

AMD is better, cheaper than Intel, but it heats a lot. My friend just bought one, he is newbie with hardware and computers, so when he configured hardware wrong and he putted proc. cooler wrong side, so that it took 7 seconds to fire Athlon :D
There is chip that response for temperature in Athlons, but it works incorrect. On Intel processors that chip works nice and it reset proc. when temperature is extremely high.
But I love AMD much more than Intels

I love AMD for personal use, not for the server thought, intel is way better for server use...

Originally posted by CoreFighter
I love AMD for personal use, not for the server thought, intel is way better for server use...

How is it "way better?" Elaborate...

ill take amd anyday over intel (comparable chips). As posted above , amd chips may get hot , but if cooling isnt an issue , you're fine . Dont get me wrong , p3's always get the job done and are well established , it really depends on what you want . When faced with the duron vs p3 , i would have to chose the p3 for its track record . If it was lets say the other way around , athlon vs celeron , i would go with the amd chip .

case

Well instead of comparing those better processes to the worse ones how bout:

Duron vs Celeron (not those new celerons)
Athlon vs P3
Athlon XP vs P4

I would rather have the entire line of AMD's

It seems most of us prefer AMD processores.

Just one more question, has someone used a Duron for more than 3 months without any problem?

Some problems may show themselves in longer time.

Mac

dito , i know amd is getting ready to release some new chips as well with the thoroughbred core and hopefully the barton isnt to far along.

dual p3 vs dual Mp...lol

Originally posted by wmac
It seems most of us prefer AMD processores.

Just one more question, has someone used a Duron for more than 3 months without any problem?

Some problems may show themselves in longer time.

Mac

Of course. Do you think AMD would own so much of the market if there was a problem with their chips? They're not Cyrex :D. Theres absolutly nothing wrong with AMD's, just as theres absolutly nothing wrong with celerons (As the rumor used to go).

Althon's and duron's chips are not good for server, especially for the 1u server, no way you can put it in because of the heating issue.

Their performance:price ratio no doubt is higher than intel, but for the technology, i still think intel is few steps ahead, you can compare a Xeon with 2mb cache, does amd ever make any cpu close to it? even take a 2 years old 2mb cache xeon cpu can out perform amd anyday...

amd is great no doubt, only for the home user, maybe their mp series can be good at server sence since they finally support dual cpu.

I guess amd can be good a near future, as they made the first cpu for the server level (mp's series), time will tell...

GO AMD!!! (http://www.silent-death.com/THG_CPU_Cooling.avi)

have fun watching this video chip! :)

Tom's Hardware Guide has a great article about the differences between the chips when it comes to cooling.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q3/010917/index.html

There's even a video that shows their experiments and the smoking CPU's - very interesting!

Personally, I'm a *big* fan of AMD's - but in a server environment, the temp. based throttling of the Intel P4's is a big plus because rather than frying or locking up, the sytem will just slow down until you can replace the fan/heatsink, etc. For those of us with uptime guarantees, that's a fantastic feature...

AMD. I'm the first to admin I haven't had personal experience with the Athlons. I do have an older K6-2 450 that runs my own little server that I use for my own websites and what not, and its been up for over a year with absolutely no issues. That's not to say I've never rebooted, rather I have never once had an issue with the processor or motherboard, or any hardware for that matter. AMD makes good processors, just keep them cool :D

if they are in a data center (68 F) and in a tower case - with good cooling - I dont think there will be any heat issues with either.

We have not had any problems with either.

Run don't walk to get the PIII.
Why would anyone choose the Pentium III Over the AMD that has twice as much ram?
Stability would be one of my main concerns. If you search through the RackShack forums you will notice that the majority of the people who have major problems with server crashes have had the AMD duron systems. Maybe this is just a coincidence... maybe just the brand of motherboard they use and not related to the chip itself, maybe thermal problem due to assembly. But if it were me I would error on the side of caution and pick the server which statistically is less likely to fail, and that would be the Intel PIII.

If it were an XP1800/XP1900 rather than a low-end Duron, that would make the decision more difficult. But if it were Pentium III vs Duron, PIII would win. I suppose it also depends on the cost of a RAM upgrade later where you host the server, since at some point you would probably want to upgrade to 512 and then 1GB as your sites grow.

Originally posted by panopticon
Run don't walk to get the PIII.

Stability would be one of my main concerns. If you search through the RackShack forums you will notice that the majority of the people who have major problems with server crashes have had the AMD duron systems. Maybe this is just a coincidence... maybe just the brand of motherboard they use and not related to the chip itself, maybe thermal problem due to assembly. But if it were me I would error on the side of caution and pick the server which statistically is less likely to fail, and that would be the Intel PIII.

If it were an XP1800/XP1900 rather than a low-end Duron, that would make the decision more difficult. But if it were Pentium III vs Duron, PIII would win. I suppose it also depends on the cost of a RAM upgrade later where you host the server, since at some point you would probably want to upgrade to 512 and then 1GB as your sites grow.

That might apply for rackshack, but what about elsewhere? If you've been reading up on the rackshack boxes, theres something wrong with the new XP's, but we know thats not the box, thats rackshack. Rackshack has more problems with durons because 1. more people have them, 2. their p3 brands are all brand names instead of those dinky little white boxes, it's easy to say a compaq p3 is better then a no name el-cheapo white box amd.

www.Rackspace.com uses a lot of AMD processors and they have one of the best uptimes out there. So if AMD's are a problem how are they doing it?

Originally posted by porcupine


That might apply for rackshack, but what about elsewhere? If you've been reading up on the rackshack boxes, theres something wrong with the new XP's, but we know thats not the box, thats rackshack. Rackshack has more problems with durons because 1. more people have them, 2. their p3 brands are all brand names instead of those dinky little white boxes, it's easy to say a compaq p3 is better then a no name el-cheapo white box amd.

Rackshack used to sell p3 on the white box before they have the partnership with compaq and I hardly hear any problem with their p3 white box, you can always go to rackshack forum and do a search...

Celeron v Duron

or

Duron v Athlon

I want to know if its worth going Celeron or Duron - is there really any significant difference? And is there a considerable difference between the Duron and the Athlon that would mean I should fork out the extra money??

Any ideas?

Thanks.

Originally posted by CoreFighter
Althon's and duron's chips are not good for server, especially for the 1u server, no way you can put it in because of the heating issue.

Tell that to Anandtech who now have several APPro 1U servers with Dual Athlon MPs in them. :)

Personally in this instance I would go for the Intel if we're just talking CPU as at 1.13Ghz it is a Tualatin, which is going to take a Duron to the cleaners as it has 512k full speed L2 cache on board.

That might apply for rackshack, but what about elsewhere?
My feeling would be that if you don't know who is building your system or exactly what hardware they will be using (motherboard, chipset, ram quality, etc.) or how much testing (if any) they will do to determine the system is stable before you get it, your odds will be better with a PIII system than with a Duron system of having a trouble-free server.


Rackshack has more problems with durons because ... 2. their p3 brands are all brand names instead of those dinky little white boxes
Not true. RackShack sold whitebox Intel PIII servers even before they started selling Durons. I believe they started the whitebox line with whitebox PIII servers. Also I haven't seen any significant hardware problems with their whitebox P4 servers which I've been following closely since I have one.

I would always choose an Athlon over a PIII, or even P4. But a Duron over a PIII? That's almost like comparing a PIII to a Celeron. The deciding factors here would be RAM and price, both of which (in this case) outweigh the speed differences. Twice as much RAM and $20 less a month sounds good to me.

Overall,
I have had great experiences with AMD processors. I have been using them since the K6 came out. I've used many different processors from AMD and have never had any hardware problems. However, the newer processors (athlons) run at high temperatures. AMD, and the boards that support AMD processors provide you with CPU software to check on temperatures, and voltages, so there is really no problem. With proper ventalation, AMD processors out perform pentiums at lower costs. -- On the original note of this thread. Ask your host about a 1ghz athlon package, the upgrade to the athlon is beneficial and you will see enhanced performance for only a slightly higher cost (hopefully).

Originally posted by CoreFighter
Althon's and duron's chips are not good for server, especially for the 1u server, no way you can put it in because of the heating issue.

I have a 1U AMD Athlon XP 1700+ server that works great. :)

Their performance:price ratio no doubt is higher than intel, but for the technology, i still think intel is few steps ahead, you can compare a Xeon with 2mb cache, does amd ever make any cpu close to it? even take a 2 years old 2mb cache xeon cpu can out perform amd anyday...

No doubt a Xeon is better, but we're not talking about Xeons here.

amd is great no doubt, only for the home user, maybe their mp series can be good at server sence since they finally support dual cpu.

A computer doesn't have to be dual CPU to be considered a server. ;)

I guess amd can be good a near future, as they made the first cpu for the server level (mp's series), time will tell...

GO AMD!!! (http://www.silent-death.com/THG_CPU_Cooling.avi)

have fun watching this video chip! :)

My slot A motherboard had temperature throttling, so it's definitely possible to implement temperature throttling on AMD Athlon motherboards.