Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Tor-NY-BJ
    Posts
    330

    AMD XP2400 vs Intel Celeron 2.0+ GHz 400 FSB

    512M DDR Ram
    80G
    Running CentOS 4 or FreeBSD 5.4

    AMD XP2400 vs Intel Celeron 2.0+ GHz 400 FSB

    Which CPU is better? Price/month is the same.

    I was told XP2400 has overheating issues, but the host told me that not true. I am not sure if Celeron 2.0+ is Celeron D or not. Somebody said Celeron D is not good for servers, but did not gave reasons.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, AU
    Posts
    1,392
    I would go with the XP 2400. We've never had any over heating issues with our AMD's.
    SERVSTRA | THE HIGH BANDWIDTH SERVER SPECIALISTS
    Lowest prices on 2Gbps, 5Gbps & 10Gbps DEDICATED unmetered servers!!!
    █ Custom 10Gbps unmetered clustered server solutions! Email us for more info!
    Over 24 world wide locations to choose from!

  3. #3
    That is not a Celeron D. Not sure why they would tell you Celeron D is bad for server. It should be alot better then then that older 2.0 Celeron. I have 2 servers with a XP2400+ not had one problem with them. I personally would go with the XP2400+ before the older Celeron.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Tor-NY-BJ
    Posts
    330
    from:
    http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showth...hreadid=382050

    AMD 64s have no cooling issues whatsoever. It's really just lower end XPs that have the problem.


    - AMD Athlon XP - discontinued and not the best for servers because they can overheat. but performance is still good just need to keep them cool.

    - Intel Celeron D is not for servers. They belong in those $399 systems that you buy at your local electronics store that only have a 90 day warrantee. (in my opinion)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    394
    Originally posted by Hostworkz.com
    I would go with the XP 2400. We've never had any over heating issues with our AMD's.
    I agree.. I would go with XP 2400, it performs better than Celerons..

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    111
    XP 2400 all the way.

    You won't notice much of a difference between the two, so whatever you think is best.
    Nick Catalano
    Account Manager at Steadfast Networks
    Email/XMPP: nick @ steadfast.net | AIM: CatalanoNick

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Solar Star system
    Posts
    183
    Intel have fare more overheating issues then almost any AMD cpu out there at the moment.

    Only platform that dont have overheating issues for intel is centrino.

    N.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    North Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    4,163
    XP 2400+ hands down.

    As temperature has been mentioned, I'll say now that Athlon 64's actually run at around 50-60% cooler than P4's of the same speed rating. In terms of heat, AMD are now well ahead of the game, that's how they're managing to do dual core easily.

    Dan

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Tor-NY-BJ
    Posts
    330
    Originally posted by RazorBlue - Dan
    XP 2400+ hands down.

    As temperature has been mentioned, I'll say now that Athlon 64's actually run at around 50-60% cooler than P4's of the same speed rating. In terms of heat, AMD are now well ahead of the game, that's how they're managing to do dual core easily.

    Dan
    I have heard the high end CPU, AMD is much cooler, but for XP 2400, as others said those "Low End XPs" have over heating problems. I heard they are constantly above 63C.

    I am not sure if xp 2400 is "low end" XP or XP is low end in general.

Posting Permissions

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