Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1

    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?

  2. #2
    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

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    8,154
    Quote Originally Posted by dethfire View Post
    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?
    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.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by WN-Ali View Post
    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.
    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

  5. #5
    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.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by WN-Ali View Post
    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.
    ok thanks for honesty, I had touchsupport look at it and try to optimize, didn't really work though, whatever they tweaked

  7. #7
    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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,635
    How about 246 vs 290 (Single 246 x2) vs (Dual 290 x2)?

    How much difference is that?

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by WN-Ali View Post
    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.
    $279 for

    opt 248
    sata II 250
    raptor 70gig 10k
    6gig ram

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    8,154
    Quote Originally Posted by dethfire View Post
    $279 for

    opt 248
    sata II 250
    raptor 70gig 10k
    6gig ram
    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.

  11. #11
    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

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    8,154
    Quote Originally Posted by peruviantalk View Post
    How about 246 vs 290 (Single 246 x2) vs (Dual 290 x2)?

    How much difference is that?
    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.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by WN-Ali View Post
    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?
    I am with softlayer, I will take a look! This is for a very large forum community.

  14. #14
    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
    With this, you will have the option to add a 2nd processor if/when needed to double the cpu power.

    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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •