Results 1 to 24 of 24
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    2,179

    Opteron 240 - Xeon 2.X or 3.X

    Hi guys,

    I don't want this to be a drawn out battle etc just want a quick tip.

    I am deciding between 2 Dual Xeon 2.8 Noconas and 2 Dual Opteron 240's

    which one would you get?These are 240's so i figured it might make a difference.
    ServGrid - www.servgrid.com - Affordable and Reliable SSD Cloud Solutions
    Premium 10G Network, 2(N+1) Powerplant and SSD Performance
    Web, Reseller, KVM VPS, Storage and Private Cloud Hosting
    Click here to see our SSD Benchmarks!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    69
    Opteron 240 more powerfull then Dual Xeon 2.4

    make your choise =)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    2,179
    Those are 2.8 noconas ... (the ones with 800 fsb and 1mb cache)
    ServGrid - www.servgrid.com - Affordable and Reliable SSD Cloud Solutions
    Premium 10G Network, 2(N+1) Powerplant and SSD Performance
    Web, Reseller, KVM VPS, Storage and Private Cloud Hosting
    Click here to see our SSD Benchmarks!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    371
    Opteron is more reliable

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    868
    if this is for shared hosting i think dual xeon is better and if its for a special site dual opteron useing 64bit os

    more cpu's = more stable for a shared hosting

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    371
    why use an AMD64 clone why you can get the real thing.

    MSFT recommends 1.4GHZ Opteron.

    the minimum speed required for EM64T is 3.6GHZ

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    2,179
    huh? what? ....
    ServGrid - www.servgrid.com - Affordable and Reliable SSD Cloud Solutions
    Premium 10G Network, 2(N+1) Powerplant and SSD Performance
    Web, Reseller, KVM VPS, Storage and Private Cloud Hosting
    Click here to see our SSD Benchmarks!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Indiana, US
    Posts
    1,354
    I believe the 3.x Noconas performed pretty well again the lower end Opterons. So I would take the 3.x over the 240 but not over the 2.x.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    371
    Look at this picture, it worth 1000 words

    http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/...i=23054,00.jpg

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    4,612
    Go with the Opterons. Any reason you're only getting 240s? You can get a 242 or 244 for very little extra.
    Scott Burns, President
    BQ Internet Corporation
    Remote Rsync and FTP backup solutions
    *** http://www.bqbackup.com/ ***

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    371
    we have plenty of tests on opteron 242,244s, but I really couldn't find something for 240s. but we can safely estimate that the 240 (1.4 ghz) is about 15% slower than 242 (1.6ghz)

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    371
    Let's see it this way, Xeon 2.8 GHZ, two instructions per clock, making it 5.6

    Opteron 240, 1.4GHZ, 3 instructions per clock, making it 5.2

    but the opteron has shorter pipeline and bigger cache, so it should be more efficient....

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    2,179
    Hrm I see - I think I will end up taking the opteron
    ServGrid - www.servgrid.com - Affordable and Reliable SSD Cloud Solutions
    Premium 10G Network, 2(N+1) Powerplant and SSD Performance
    Web, Reseller, KVM VPS, Storage and Private Cloud Hosting
    Click here to see our SSD Benchmarks!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    2,179
    Actually, I've decided to do some testing of my own.

    All our servers are Intels right now (40% Xeon Prestonia and 50% Nocona with rest being P4's)

    I am going to try a few AMD configurations (IDE, SATA and SCSI) and see how they pan out in terms of performance as well as cost.

    I'll post a review later if anyone cares. For the time being, out of the 4 servers, I picked up a 240, 246, a Dual 3.2 (nocona) and a Dual 2.8 (prestonia)
    ServGrid - www.servgrid.com - Affordable and Reliable SSD Cloud Solutions
    Premium 10G Network, 2(N+1) Powerplant and SSD Performance
    Web, Reseller, KVM VPS, Storage and Private Cloud Hosting
    Click here to see our SSD Benchmarks!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    371
    Can you do the standard mysql benchmark?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    2,179
    Yeah - thees are boxes I'm buying from a vendor - Will have them in my rack by Friday. Will post results as soon as they are up.

    Also has anyone noticed differing performances based on OS ?

    (i.e better opteron performance with one but not the other and vice versa for Xeons)
    ServGrid - www.servgrid.com - Affordable and Reliable SSD Cloud Solutions
    Premium 10G Network, 2(N+1) Powerplant and SSD Performance
    Web, Reseller, KVM VPS, Storage and Private Cloud Hosting
    Click here to see our SSD Benchmarks!

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    North Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    4,163

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    371
    Opteron shines on 64 bit OS.
    Xeon with amd64 extension also seems to benefit from 64 bits.

    From my experience, the centos4 based on 2.6 kernel is much better than the ones based 2.4 kernel

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    371
    Originally posted by The Broadband Man
    Yeah - thees are boxes I'm buying from a vendor - Will have them in my rack by Friday. Will post results as soon as they are up.

    I highly recommend the LMbench used by anandtech

    http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdo...?i=2436&p=6


    http://www.bitmover.com/lmbench/

    Instead of just running a bunch of apps and get timing, this LMBENCH measure the time for low level calls, such as thread and process creation and I/O. It is one step closer to the cause of performance differences

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    868
    i just tested apache benchmark and this is my result
    http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showth...hreadid=342820

    Cpu : AMD Athlon 3000+ socket 754
    Ram : 2*512 Geil
    H.D.D. : 2*maxtor sata 8mb buff raid 0
    Apache : 2.x
    PHP : 4.x
    Accelerator : Zend + Turck

    Windows XP 32BIT : 22 Request/s
    Windows XP 64BIT : 23.5 Request/s
    Linux Redhat 9 : 20 Request/s



    Centos 4 64bit : 33 Request/s <without any php accelerator>
    Centos 4 64bit : 36 Request/s <useing e-accelerator>
    Centos 4 64bit : 42 Request/s <useing zend optimizer 64bit>

    so which one is better ?
    Last edited by goolex; 06-07-2005 at 01:35 AM.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    371
    How come I only got 38 reqs/second on a dual opteron 244, and you got similar results on a single socket 754?

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    868
    i tested them in GUI mode ! i belive in text_mode it should be more better

    are you useing zend 64 bit ?
    is your server under load ?

    clock of this cpu is 2.2ghz !

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    371
    I am not using zend, just the stock php, engine, the clock of the Opteron 244 CPU is 1.8GHZ, it is running mod_perl, so the HTTP processes are pretty fat.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    371
    Originally posted by artin1982
    i tested them in GUI mode ! i belive in text_mode it should be more better

    are you useing zend 64 bit ?
    is your server under load ?

    clock of this cpu is 2.2ghz !
    I am using centos3 64 bit on this box, that may explain part of the difference

Posting Permissions

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