Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 38 of 38
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,517
    Quote Originally Posted by Gnax|Jordan View Post
    I think the Core2Quad is exactly what your looking for. The C2D should hold up just fine under normal use, but I would go the extra step and get the more powerful server just incase.

    Alot of it depends on what OS your running.
    Agreed.

    I think the main issue is just that if all those servers happen to be relatively active, you're going to run out of processing power with the Core2Duo. Go with the Quad and give yourself extra head room.

    Feel free to pm me if you like if you have any questions.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    69
    I'd have to agree that a Core 2 Quad would be the right choice for him, especially if these servers are active more than often.
    Ryan Hughes
    Web Designer
    Feel free to PM me!

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    3,038
    If your worried about headroom forget about the virtual core servers and go with a true Quad CPU server or barring that a multicore woodcrest platform which blows the core2duo's away.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,944
    Core 2 Duos and Woodcrests use the same core architecture. The only difference between them is the cache on the small core 2 duos (E6600+ have 4MB, same as Woodcrest) and the 1333mhz FSB which is now available on Core 2's. If you don't need more than the Dual-core in processing there is no point in upgrading to woodcrest as you would have to pay a lot more for the motherboard and the CPU.

    They even packaged the E6600's as Xeon 3060's and sold them for servers.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon|Rich View Post
    If your worried about headroom forget about the virtual core servers and go with a true Quad CPU server or barring that a multicore woodcrest platform which blows the core2duo's away.
    Hey, virtual core servers, can you explain that one

    Quote Originally Posted by 3nraged View Post
    I was just wondering if the following server specs would be able to host 6 game servers for the following games and if it would be possible to run them at 500fps.

    Counter-Strike 1.6 - 20 slots pub & 12 slots priv
    Counter-Strike: Condition Zero - 20 slots pub & 12 slots priv
    Counter-Strike: Source - 20 slots pub & 12 slots priv

    Specs:
    Core2Duo E6600
    2048MB DDR2 RAM
    160GB SATA 3 HD
    8 IP Addresses
    1200GB Premium BW
    Will run them fine, it may even run all 6 with people on ok, it depends what tickrate you make the publics I would recommend:

    CSS

    Public: tickrate 66 and max_fps 1000
    Private: tickrate 100 and max_fps 1000

    The reason you set fps_max to 1000 is that the Source engine roughly halves the figure for some strange reason, it wouldnt even hurt to try 2000

    If you dont set the fps_max command above the default of 300 you will have issues with the tickrate not going above 66

    For CS1.6 and CSZero the commands are different and work in different ways, I would need to do some reading to double check how they still work
    Last edited by Vinnybcfc; 08-10-2007 at 11:46 AM.
    Firestorm Hosting - Game Server Hosting
    http://www.firestormhosting.co.uk

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    3,038
    Virtual core meaning 1 physical CPU with multiple cores.


    A dual core 3060 or e6600 is simply a single cpu machine with 2 virtual cores.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,944
    It has two seperate physical cores, it's not like hyperthreading which would be more of a logical CPU. There are two seperate processors running inside of one case with 4MB shared cache between the two. It is just like a woodcrest, it's not virtual.

    If you look at the benchmark thread in the dedicated forum, you will see the performance.

    My Xeon 3060 (dual core conroe 2x2.4ghz- scores around 400) outperformed the single Xeon 5130 (Dual Core woodcrest 2x2ghz- scores around 300) and my old Dual Xeon 2.4ghz (with hyperthreading (4 logical cpu's)- scores around 180) by a long shot.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    3,038
    You should know from experience my friend that benchmarks and real world performance are very different.

    To my knowledge benchmark stats for servers specifically used for games have not been published, Possibly the reasoning for this is there are just too many variables to make it trust worthy enough to form any kind of reasonable conclusion. If you consider that one hardware configuration might be fantastic for certain games but not suitable for others you would see what I'm getting at.

    As said above I trust real world benchmarks more then something posted on a site by people that may or may not have any experience running game servers on different platforms. Just take a look at some of the comments on this thread alone for an example.. 1/2 say one configuration is the best either specifically only sell that platform or only have ever rented that exact configuration. The former wish to sell more servers and the latter have nothing to compare it to..

    I'm not saying the coreduos aren't good machines, Just trying to clarify a few things for readers so they can make an informed decision as we all know not everything posted on a message board is fact.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,944
    I understand where your coming from but I have been watching both of these series for a little under a year now.

    I'm running both Xeon 3060's and Xeon 5100's and I can tell you that my Xeon 3060's are much better performance for the cost. I spent a lot more on the 5100's and don't see too much gain other than them being dual processor capable.

    I believe based on what a CS: Source server was using on our Xeon 3060's when we had clients running game servers on them that he could definitely fit 6 game servers with three being private. Xeon 3060's are faster than Dual Xeon 3.4ghz in real-world from what I have seen, it is amazing from a single casing.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon|Rich View Post
    I'm not saying the coreduos aren't good machines, Just trying to clarify a few things for readers so they can make an informed decision as we all know not everything posted on a message board is fact.
    Yes but the Core 2 Duos are 2 real cores just like having 2 processors

    And a Core 2 Duo/Quad and a Core 2 Zeon are exactly the same if they have the same cache, clock speed and cores.

    The only difference is better silicon goes into the Zeons to allow two things: A lower TDP with a lower voltage, and possibly higher clock speeds if Intel set any processors high enough.
    Firestorm Hosting - Game Server Hosting
    http://www.firestormhosting.co.uk

  11. #36
    I found this thread in Google looking for Xeon 3xxx (Conroe's) TDP.

    "Yes but the Core 2 Duos are 2 real cores just like having 2 processors"

    Yes, they are two real cores. So is Core Duo, Pentium D, and Athlon X2. It's nothing new, other than the means of communication between cores. The shared low-latency cache of C2D is what gives it such a jump on the others, where Core Duo (besides being only for mobiles) and Athlons have to copy the data they need from one core to the next, and P-D is just ugly, two Prescotts chatting via FSB (northbridge). My point? As long as it isn't hyperthreaded, it's "2 real cores", hopefully good ones (see below).

    "And a Core 2 Duo/Quad and a Core 2 Zeon are exactly the same if they have the same cache, clock speed and cores."

    This is true only regarding the performance of the series; however, the Xeon as a whole is not exactly the same to C2D (they would have the same name if so). Xeon moved to Core microarchitecture (as opposed to NetBurst, the inefficient 22{Northwood}/31{Prescott}-stage pipeline days) not too long after Cores became available on the desktop. The confusion stems from Xeon processors ranging from NetBurst TO Core logic, no name change gives someone the idea that his Pentium D-era Xeon is competitive (due to clock speed) with something of today.

    "The only difference is better silicon goes into the Zeons to allow two things: A lower TDP with a lower voltage, and possibly higher clock speeds if Intel set any processors high enough."

    This could only be so more wrong.
    One: If the C2D and Xeon in question are both Conroes, then they are the same silicon. There is no doubt that a C2D can push just as far and for just as long. These processors are "binned" by the manufacturer for quality and packaged as such. Intel guarantees that a Xeon will hold its own operating at full load around the clock. If the two chips are marked for the same clock speed, they will see a similar (but varying, due to yield) potential for overclock. But the C2D is a hell of a product anyway; I'd have no qualms throwing one of those into a server.. which reminds me.. As a server processor, Xeon scales to more than just one socket. I haven't seen any quad-socket boards as I have with the Opteron, but a dual LGA 771 board can still net you 8 (physical, people, not imaginary) cores if you so desire.
    Two: Historically, server processors have had the highest TDPs of any in their generation, given the emphasis on realtime (critical) tasks, usually necessitating increased FSB speed and cache size, if not also clock speed. Personally, I always thought that mentality was backwards (If you're to leave this thing on 24/7, wouldn't you be energy-conscious too, if not moreso than the casual user?) and apparently it has become a priority for Intel as well. Where the Core 2 Extreme is rated for more juice (like FX), Xeon stood its ground at the power requirements of C2D. That is the ultimate reward for scaling a mobile (Centrino) line across all markets.

    The best resource is, as always, Wikipedia.
    en . wikipedia . org / wiki / Intel_Core_2
    en . wikipedia . org / wiki / Xeon

    Cheers, and godspeed in building a powerful enough rig.
    Andy

    P.S. Thanks a lot to forum rules. There goes the formatting, quotes, and links.

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by lahs0n View Post
    This could only be so more wrong.
    One: If the C2D and Xeon in question are both Conroes, then they are the same silicon. There is no doubt that a C2D can push just as far and for just as long. These processors are "binned" by the manufacturer for quality and packaged as such. Intel guarantees that a Xeon will hold its own operating at full load around the clock. If the two chips are marked for the same clock speed, they will see a similar (but varying, due to yield) potential for overclock. But the C2D is a hell of a product anyway; I'd have no qualms throwing one of those into a server.. which reminds me.. As a server processor, Xeon scales to more than just one socket. I haven't seen any quad-socket boards as I have with the Opteron, but a dual LGA 771 board can still net you 8 (physical, people, not imaginary) cores if you so desire.
    Two: Historically, server processors have had the highest TDPs of any in their generation, given the emphasis on realtime (critical) tasks, usually necessitating increased FSB speed and cache size, if not also clock speed. Personally, I always thought that mentality was backwards (If you're to leave this thing on 24/7, wouldn't you be energy-conscious too, if not moreso than the casual user?) and apparently it has become a priority for Intel as well. Where the Core 2 Extreme is rated for more juice (like FX), Xeon stood its ground at the power requirements of C2D. That is the ultimate reward for scaling a mobile (Centrino) line across all markets.
    I cant find anything that easily proves it but if you generally read around overclocking forums then you find that they recommend using the Zeons over the Quad Cores although this has changed due to the G0 spec coming out

    It was the same with the Socket 939 Opterons - they generally overclocked higher than the desktop counterparts

    Which means the server processors must have better silicon in them

    Heres a couple of quotes which shows that the silicon quality varies over the wafers:

    http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/moore.ars/2

    As you might guess, the bigger the wafer size, the better, because you can produce chips in larger batches. However, wafers have a very specific property that keeps manufacturers from making them arbitrarily large. Because of the way wafers are made, defects are much more likely to occur nearer the edge of the wafer than near the center. So the number of defects increases as you move outwards from the center of the wafer. Thus advances in wafer technology are geared toward enlarging that "sweet spot" at wafer's center. As semiconductor makers get better and better at enlarging the sweet spot, they're able to build successive generations of fabs with larger wafer sizes. The 8086 was manufactured on a wafer 50mm in diameter, while the latest fabs built by Intel use 300mm wafers.

    http://www.incrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?pid=122939

    When silicon pieces are made, they are printed out in wafers that can contain one hundred chips per wafer. The wafers are then sliced apart into separate chips, which are tested for quality levels. The lower quality ones from G80 prints have one pack of traces sliced by lasers, and are branded as 8800GTS cores. The top quality ones are placed into a special bin, destined to become 8800 Ultras. These ones are capable of doing more with less; it is theorized that they are from the center of the wafer, that somehow the center creates better chips. The reason nVidia originally announced that there would be a limited quantity of Ultras was because at the time their yield was not perfect enough to rely on a steady supply of these high-quality cores.
    Firestorm Hosting - Game Server Hosting
    http://www.firestormhosting.co.uk

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    43
    @3nraged: I think that server will be fine, but what network port is on that server? 10/100/1000Mbps?

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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