Results 1 to 14 of 14
Thread: Opteron 248 vs 270
-
05-14-2008, 01:20 PM #1Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Posts
- 77
Opteron 248 vs 270
How much difference is there between the 248 and 270. If I upgrade from 248 to the 270 will I notice much difference? 270 is $50 more. Worth it?
-
05-14-2008, 01:57 PM #2Internet:Just Piracy No Scurvy
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Hiding under your bed
- Posts
- 1,275
Not enough. Unfortunately AMDs aren't that gr8 compared to intels
Cheapest Multiple C Class IP Hosting
-
05-14-2008, 02:37 PM #3Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Location
- Earth
- Posts
- 8,154
Do you need to upgrade, and is paying $50 more worth it for you? 270 is faster compared to 248, also has dual core processors unlike the 248.
Look at http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php
Opteron 248 ranks 129 on the list, and Opteron 270 ranks 48.
Although I am not an expert in this matter, I would have to say 270 would be twice as fast or even faster than the 248.Last edited by 1Ali; 05-14-2008 at 02:41 PM.
-
05-14-2008, 02:39 PM #4Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Posts
- 77
I think I do need to upgrade, see this? and this is after putting the database on a 10k raptor
Code:top - 13:39:15 up 6 days, 10:14, 1 user, load average: 8.27, 8.26, 6.30 Tasks: 152 total, 8 running, 144 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 66.3% us, 24.7% sy, 0.0% ni, 9.0% id, 0.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0% si Mem: 5711960k total, 5601760k used, 110200k free, 205692k buffers Swap: 4124240k total, 11376k used, 4112864k free, 3807940k cached PID USER PR NI %CPU TIME+ %MEM VIRT RES SHR S COMMAND 12772 mysql 15 0 17 398:02.08 16.9 2161m 940m 4500 S mysqld 16125 nobody 17 0 10 0:00.43 0.3 41896 15m 6280 R httpd 16196 nobody 15 0 8 0:00.24 0.2 40344 13m 5720 S httpd 16120 nobody 17 0 7 0:00.38 0.3 42396 15m 5848 S httpd 16191 nobody 16 0 6 0:00.18 0.3 42660 15m 5952 S httpd 16202 nobody 16 0 6 0:00.18 0.3 42580 14m 5824 S httpd 16122 nobody 16 0 6 0:00.33 0.2 40268 13m 6132 R httpd 16197 nobody 15 0 6 0:00.17 0.2 40072 12m 5752 S httpd 16130 nobody 15 0 5 0:00.30 0.3 42272 15m 6324 S httpd 16215 nobody 15 0 5 0:00.16 0.2 40128 12m 5756 S httpd 16216 nobody 15 0 5 0:00.16 0.2 40056 12m 5752 S httpd 16118 nobody 15 0 5 0:00.20 0.2 40292 13m 5812 S httpd 16195 nobody 15 0 5 0:00.15 0.2 40340 13m 5836 S httpd 16207 nobody 15 0 5 0:00.15 0.2 40132 12m 5736 S httpd 16149 nobody 15 0 5 0:00.27 0.2 40172 13m 6120 S httpd 16185 nobody 16 0 5 0:00.17 0.3 41336 13m 5812 R httpd 16193 nobody 15 0 5 0:00.14 0.2 40308 13m 5820 S httpd
-
05-14-2008, 02:43 PM #5Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Location
- Earth
- Posts
- 8,154
Have you tried optimizing the server, have a server administrator look at the configuration files and optimize them perhaps some good tweaking would save you the $50.
If you really have to, than you should go ahead and upgrade. Wait for an expert opinion however, because this is just my opinion and I am not a 100% sure on this if the 270 would be twice as fast or would barely make a difference.
-
05-14-2008, 02:45 PM #6Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Posts
- 77
-
05-14-2008, 02:48 PM #7Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Location
- Earth
- Posts
- 8,154
How much are you currently paying for the server? Maybe a upgrade to a better processor would help, along the lines of the new Intel Xeon 5000 series.
-
05-14-2008, 02:56 PM #8Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Posts
- 1,635
How about 246 vs 290 (Single 246 x2) vs (Dual 290 x2)?
How much difference is that?
-
05-14-2008, 02:56 PM #9Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Posts
- 77
-
05-14-2008, 03:05 PM #10Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Location
- Earth
- Posts
- 8,154
I am not sure who you are with currently, but take a look at SoftLayer.com and get a Quad Core Xeon 5310. The cost would be about $270 if you use their current promotion, and almost everything would be the same as you have right now but with a much better processor
Is this for a personal web site, or are you hosting a bunch of other people on the server as well? Any control panel?
Instead of the SATA drives, go with the SAS because seems to me you have a heavy database driven web site.Last edited by 1Ali; 05-14-2008 at 03:13 PM.
-
05-14-2008, 03:10 PM #11WHT Addict
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Posts
- 134
Using SAS drives might help too, they are a lot quicker. Raptors really are not that quick, due to the fact they have a lower data density they are not a lot faster than a larger capacity 7.2k
-
05-14-2008, 03:12 PM #12Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Location
- Earth
- Posts
- 8,154
246 and 248 are almost alike, and 290 would be even faster compared to 270. Not sure how much of a difference it would make, but you are looking at Single Core Dual CPUs vs Dual Core Dual CPU.
You should see a noticeable difference in performance with Dual Core Dual CPU.
-
05-14-2008, 03:12 PM #13Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Posts
- 77
-
05-14-2008, 03:17 PM #14Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Location
- Earth
- Posts
- 8,154
I had a feeling you were with SoftLayer.
IMHO, the $50 on top of what you are currently paying would be a waste of money especially since you can get a much better server for similar price.
Here's my recommendation:
Single Processor Quad Core Xeon 5310
4 GB FB-DIMM Registered 533/667
SA-SCSI RAID 1 Disk Controller
2x 73GB SA-SCSI 10K RPM
Total:
$309.00
If you are paying $279 for the 248 plus an additional $50, your total would be $329.00 and you still will not get the performance that you would get with the above server.
Best of luck, and I am sure if you open a ticket with softlayer they can even help you migrate your community forums with their paid support $2.00 per ticket if I am not mistaken