Results 1 to 24 of 24
Thread: Opteron 240 - Xeon 2.X or 3.X
-
06-06-2005, 04:01 PM #1Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jul 2004
- Location
- New York, NY
- Posts
- 2,181
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!
-
06-06-2005, 04:11 PM #2Temporarily Suspended
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Posts
- 69
Opteron 240 more powerfull then Dual Xeon 2.4
make your choise =)
-
06-06-2005, 04:12 PM #3Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jul 2004
- Location
- New York, NY
- Posts
- 2,181
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!
-
06-06-2005, 04:15 PM #4Temporarily Suspended
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Posts
- 371
Opteron is more reliable
-
06-06-2005, 04:16 PM #5Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jul 2004
- Posts
- 873
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
-
06-06-2005, 04:24 PM #6Temporarily Suspended
- 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
-
06-06-2005, 04:29 PM #7Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jul 2004
- Location
- New York, NY
- Posts
- 2,181
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!
-
06-06-2005, 04:43 PM #8Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2003
- Location
- Indiana, US
- Posts
- 1,355
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.
-
06-06-2005, 05:45 PM #9Temporarily Suspended
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Posts
- 371
Look at this picture, it worth 1000 words
http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/...i=23054,00.jpg
-
06-06-2005, 06:25 PM #10Backup Guru
- Join Date
- Feb 2002
- Location
- New York, NY
- Posts
- 4,618
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/ ***
-
06-06-2005, 06:32 PM #11Temporarily Suspended
- 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)
-
06-06-2005, 06:41 PM #12Temporarily Suspended
- 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....
-
06-06-2005, 06:43 PM #13Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jul 2004
- Location
- New York, NY
- Posts
- 2,181
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!
-
06-06-2005, 06:51 PM #14Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jul 2004
- Location
- New York, NY
- Posts
- 2,181
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!
-
06-06-2005, 06:54 PM #15Temporarily Suspended
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Posts
- 371
Can you do the standard mysql benchmark?
-
06-06-2005, 06:56 PM #16Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jul 2004
- Location
- New York, NY
- Posts
- 2,181
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!
-
06-06-2005, 06:57 PM #17Managed Hosting Expert
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Location
- North Yorkshire, UK
- Posts
- 4,164
64bit OS helps Opterons ;-)
█ Dan Kitchen | Technical Director | Razorblue
█ ddi: (+44) (0)1748 900 680 | e: dkitchen@razorblue.com
█ UK Intensive Managed Hosting, Clusters and Colocation.
█ HP Servers, Cisco/Juniper Powered BGP Network (AS15692).
-
06-06-2005, 06:59 PM #18Temporarily Suspended
- 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
-
06-06-2005, 07:03 PM #19Temporarily Suspended
- 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.
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
-
06-07-2005, 01:29 AM #20Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jul 2004
- Posts
- 873
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.
-
06-07-2005, 01:52 AM #21Temporarily Suspended
- 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?
-
06-07-2005, 02:01 AM #22Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jul 2004
- Posts
- 873
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 !
-
06-07-2005, 02:53 AM #23Temporarily Suspended
- 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.
-
06-07-2005, 02:57 AM #24Temporarily Suspended
- 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 !