In your opinion, is it worth paying $30 bucks more per month for a Pentium PIII processor compared to the AMD Duron 1Ghz on a dedicated server?

thanks.

Definitely go with the Pentium.

Yes.

Triple Yes.

Whats the basic diff between AMD 1Ghz processor and Pentium 1Ghz processor.

The difference is that a intel will process code,
A duron will process code and heat your coffee as well! (As well as the surrounding environment.)

In short any AMD chip runs hotter!
And Heat is bad, very bad.

AMD Duron's are their lower end chips. They are akin to the Celeron's. I've never had a problem with AMD, but I always used Athlon's (and the K5/6/7's before that). You should be fine with XP/Athlon. I've never seen an actual problem, with all I hear of heating issues. I've seen Pentiums have the same issues.

I think you'll be good with either one (AMD or Pentium), but you don't want to include Duron or Celeron chips in that comparison, because they don't belong there. Some people might argue that, but if you go with either company, don't bother with those low-end crap chips.

A Duron has a smaller cache size and probably a slower bus speed than the Pentium 3.

Originally posted by mbarron
The difference is that a intel will process code,
A duron will process code and heat your coffee as well! (As well as the surrounding environment.)

That's funny. :D

Durons are a no no, however we had an athlon run really really well on a webserver.

The box is dead now (our choice - not literally died) but it was running an athlon 1900+ and we got 200 day stable uptime on it before turning it off... so not all AMD's are bad for webservers.

The basic architecture of the chips is quite different. The Pentium is arguably more suited to being used in a server.
I would definitely go with the Pentium. It's worth the extra money.
We have a Pentium III ourselves and it's been top notch

Thank you for all the opinions. The majority rules and I decided to go with the Pentium PIII 1 Ghz. Apprech.

Not to pick on any companies, and I know this thread is basicly done with. But I see alot of dedicated companies use AMD. For games their awesome, but stability they suck. They like others have said do heat your coffee at the same time. I've yet to play with their XP cpu's but I've messed with about everyother cpu they've made. Intel is far worth the money good luck.

Just to make you aware of something quote wrong, AMD's are just as stable as Intels, it is only when you get into overclocking do chips become unstable, and this is the case with both intel and AMD. Though AMDs tend to run a little hotter, they out preform Intels, with the exception of the P4 due to the fact that AMD has yet to release its new chip that is supposed to be a competitor for the P4.

Originally posted by interactive
But I see alot of dedicated companies use AMD. For games their awesome, but stability they suck.

I respectfully disagree. The desktop I'm typing this on has an Athlon Thunderbird 1100 multiplier oc'd to 1155. It's got a crappy heatsink, so the temperature often ranges above 60 C. Never have I had any stability issues whatsoever with this computer that were not clearly software issues.

With the new Thoroughbred core, you can get an XP that runs significantly cooler than the Palomino ones (I would expect the new XP 1700+, for example, to blow away a P3 1GHz and save you about $40.) XP's run hotter than P3's, but they can take it.

One dedicated company who happens to use AMD cpus is Rackspace, which I believe has a stellar reputation for reliability. Obviously, if using AMD processors meant sacrificing stability, Rackspace would not have the reputation that they do.

AMD 1.5Ghz:
12:00am up 99 days, 16:58, 2 users, load average: 0.10, 0.05, 0.02

AMD 1Ghz
\\mail has been up for: 251 day(s), 9 hour(s), 19 minute(s), 30 second(s)
(previous 2 uptimes were in the 500 day ranges) and this is a windows machine to boot

AMD 700Mhz
12:00pm up 73 days, 10:30, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00

AMD 1.4Ghz
12:01am up 46 days, 15:08, 2 users, load average: 0.37, 0.32, 0.18

This is the last server we have setup with a P3. It gets to about 50 days or so and crashes, it will soon be replaced with another AMD at the begining of the year.
13:53:08 up 1 day, 15:03, 4 users, load average: 0.00, 0.02, 0.00

The rest of our 400+ day uptimes/AMD boxen are low right now due to hardware upgrades.

Needless to say, I'm quite happy with AMD. We tend to measure our uptime in years around here, so I'm partial to components that work and work well. ;)

Cya,
Cloak

Originally posted by cloak
AMD 1Ghz
\\mail has been up for: 251 day(s), 9 hour(s), 19 minute(s), 30 second(s)
(previous 2 uptimes were in the 500 day ranges) and this is a windows machine to boot


~500 x 2 before and currently 251 is roughly ~1,250 days / 365 days a year = 3.42 years. Did they have AMD 1 GHZ CPU's out three and a half years ago? I thought the AMD 1 ghz were released in Octboer 2000? :-)

...

I'm running a 1.3 ghz Celeron right now but I'm going to be trying an AMD XP 1.4ghz also. I just heard stay away from the Durons but the XPs are pretty good.... not sure. I will see.

There are 2 revisions of the P3 1Ghz chip: the Coppermine and the Tualatin

Intel Pentium 3(CuMine): 133mhz bus, 32kb(L1) + 256kb (L2)=256Kb cache
Intel Pentium 3(Tualatin): 133mhz bus, 32kb(L1) + 256kb (L2)=256Kb cache
AMD Duron 1Ghz(Morgan): 100mhz x 2 = 200mhz effective (DDR) bus, 128 (L1) + 128 KB (L2) = 256KB exclusive cache
AMD Athlon XP (ThruBred-B): 166 x2 =266mhz ddr bus, 128kb (L1) + 256 (L2) = 384kb

Btw, the 1Ghz Athlon (slot) was released around March 2000.

2host.com: I never said it has always been an AMD, it was upgraded to an AMD 2 reboots ago (from a celeron 300a@450)

Point stands, damn fine systems. =)

Cya,
Cloak