Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sofia
    Posts
    1,349

    Quad Core Xeon X3210 vs Dual Xeon 3.2

    Which is better for a dedicated server, if you have to choose one? Appreciate any suggestions, experience, reviews...

    TIA
    :: :: :: :: :: ::
    :: VDSP.Net :: Directory of virtual and dedi serv providers by location and price

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    3,696
    X3210, the Dual Xeon is old. Basically the X3210 will have about 230% of the Dual Xeon's speed.

  3. #3
    I might suggest Quad Core Xeon X3210

  4. #4

    *

    4 cores definitely!
    You know BRIGHT BOYS ?
    DETAILS HERE
    services-4U - Cheap hosting, cheap domain registration, cheap web sites, cheap email, cheap other stuff

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sofia
    Posts
    1,349
    Thank you, I've seen the scores of a Quad (more than 450) and here is the score of a Dual Xeon 3.2 HT, 8GB RAM, SCSI ultra 320

    PHP Code:
    Start Benchmark RunTue Mar  4 21:24:37 EET 2008
     21
    :24:37 up 1 day17:18,  2 users,  load average0.740.950.99

    End Benchmark Run
    Tue Mar  4 21:35:16 EET 2008
     21
    :35:16 up 1 day17:28,  2 users,  load average16.037.864.15


                         INDEX VALUES
    TEST                                        BASELINE     RESULT      INDEX

    Dhrystone 2 using register variables        376783.7 12570805.3      333.6
    Double
    -Precision Whetstone                      83.1     1068.3      128.6
    Execl Throughput                               188.3     3945.0      209.5
    File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks         2672.0    62912.0      235.4
    File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks           1077.0    23042.0      213.9
    File Read 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks        15382.0   648451.0      421.6
    Pipe
    -based Context Switching                 15448.6   150174.9       97.2
    Pipe Throughput                             111814.6   982641.7       87.9
    Process Creation                               569.3    12289.7      215.9
    Shell Scripts 
    (8 concurrent)                    44.8      769.5      171.8
    System Call Overhead                        114433.5  1035296.3       90.5
                                                                     
    =========
         FINAL 
    SCORE                                                     177.4 
    That's too much a difference, or maybe a badly configured server. See the load at the end of the test.
    :: :: :: :: :: ::
    :: VDSP.Net :: Directory of virtual and dedi serv providers by location and price

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    411
    X3210 is the best almost hosters dont have it i think...Any how give importand for other things like bandwidth, price ram ans support

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    3,696
    3210 is the best almost hosters dont have it i think
    The X3210 is about $250 and the X3220 is about $280, for $30 you get 0.27GHz/a Q6600 (basically the X3220 is a Q6600). This makes the X3220 a better choice, especially because of the Q6600 having the same specs. It makes it easier to find reviews/benchmarks.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sofia
    Posts
    1,349
    Sure 3220 is better option than 3210, but I have to choose between two servers:

    Server A:
    Quad Core Xeon X3210
    4GB DDR2 RAM
    2 x 300GB SCSI

    and

    Server B:
    Dual Xeon 3.2 HT
    8GB DDR2 RAM
    3 x 73GB SCSI

    Thank you for the feedback!
    :: :: :: :: :: ::
    :: VDSP.Net :: Directory of virtual and dedi serv providers by location and price

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    3,696
    If you don't need the additional 4GB ram (8GB vs 4GB ram) that you get with server B, I would take Server A.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    315
    Indeed. Does your application require more RAM or more CPU?

    In general I would suggest Server A between those two configurations. However, if you're doing mainly static hosting and you have a lot of "active" content then you may find better performance with Server B due to the increased RAM.
    Take 2 Hosting, Inc. - Hosting Done Right
    Fully automated setup - new servers in as little as 10 minutes
    http://www.take2hosting.com/

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sofia
    Posts
    1,349
    No active downloads and uploads. Mainly community forums and a large wikipedia with one million entries.
    :: :: :: :: :: ::
    :: VDSP.Net :: Directory of virtual and dedi serv providers by location and price

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    315
    A fair amount of database activity then? Go with the quad core xeon, imo.
    Take 2 Hosting, Inc. - Hosting Done Right
    Fully automated setup - new servers in as little as 10 minutes
    http://www.take2hosting.com/

  13. #13
    4GB should be enough, you can always upgrade if needed.

    Get Server A.

Posting Permissions

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