Hello All,

If i am going to host some pretty resources hungry sites, should i go with AMD XP 1700 or P4 2.0 (both with 1gb or ram and 7200RPM h/d)

Any advise is much appreciated.

I have read but can someone just tell me an A or B answer please.

Checca

Might be of some use (mind you, the tests were for workstation sort of boxes):

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q4/011031/

Benchmarks comparing XPs with P4s for Linux server performance are scare. Here is one comparison of XP MPs and P4 Xeons:

http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1641&p=4

thanks alot...loookin at them now

What abt from experience?

I would suggest a fast P3 instead!

Originally posted by WebHozt
I would suggest a fast P3 instead!

only cuz your an idiot!

a p3? whats wrong with a real nice pentium pro with MMX? yes that would be leet
</sarcasm>

Cost wise you cannot go wrong with a nice XP 2400+ which is only going to cost you $150 or so. Go AMD all the way!

Depending what resources are used the most, scsi might be a good performance booster.... just stay away from IBM ultrastar drives, they don't run much faster (10k rpm models at least) than your standard 7200rpm ide drive...

Is there really any truth to P3s being better than P4s? One very prominent server company whom I won't mention recently recommended that I purchase their cheaper P3 special over their P4 special for running game servers.

We had a PIII 1.3ghz and decided to upgrade to a P4 2.0ghz CPU since load averages were getting higher. Well when the P4 chip was put in... the server lagged like a snail.

In the ended we ended up getting a new server, swaped drives, and now use a dual PIII (1.0ghz proccessors).

i've hard that p3's will be much better in servers than p4's.

p4 has rather bloated microcode with too much video stuff in it, which isnt going to be used in a server. seems like a duo of p3s would do better than a single p4.

Originally posted by dherman76
i've hard that p3's will be much better in servers than p4's.

In a clock-by-clock comparison, it is.

That's why there are lawsuits out there... read here: http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,104075,00.asp

I think it's hilarious :)

very interesting article - can i join that lawsuit? :)

Originally posted by cheCCa
Hello All,
If i am going to host some pretty resources hungry sites, should i go with AMD XP 1700 or P4 2.0 (both with 1gb or ram and 7200RPM h/d)
Checca

I love the AMD from a shear $/performance ratio, but the I built (XP 1700) runs at 48 celcius most of the time. That is HOT. Comparatively, a P4 2.53 runs at a cool 98 F. The comparison isn't too accurate, because the AMD is in a compromised 1U case with a shorty CoolerMaster sink/fan, and the P4 is in a Tower case with a biggie sink/fan. Although the AMD 1U case has a MONSTER fan that blows front to back directly through the sink fins.

BIG heat pump, but great performance/$$$ ratio.

clockwork:

I'm not experienced in the war of processors, but I do have one thing to say: I've run all sorts of processors in the past on a multitude of machines: everything from ms dos, red hat linux, suse linux, W2k Server, windows 98, XP... and so forth. The processors were everything from the original Pentium, Celeron, PII, Athlon Thunderbird, AMD K6, etc.

I, for one, have never noticed all that much of a difference in any of the processors. Sure some might perform a slight bit better then others, but is it really worth the extra thought you put into it? Especially when a topic is brought up like this and most everyone has their own opionion.

My vote goes for Xeon with 512 on die cache. However, if you told me tomorrow that I can't do that anymore - would I get that upset? No because I would simply load up a Athlon XP and be mostly just as happy. Honestly, the only reason I prefer the Xeon is because I think Hyper Threading is a neat feature.