Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Dedicated Server : Q6600 vs E6850

[constantine]

Hello,

Which cpu will you take for a cpanel hosting server?

Run PHP/MYSQL for provide share hosting .

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4 GHz 8M
Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 3.00GHZ 4MB

[j2m2]

i think e6850 is the older generation of the e8400. I would personally grab an e8400. See the only difference between the C2Q and the C2D is the cache. I would take the quad because it has more cache and the CPU to cache ratio for both are the same.
4 x 2MB
2 x 2MB

[cristibighea]

Oh, the cache is the difference... the 2 extra cores are just for show.

Take the Q6600, it's much better than the e6850.

[Prolime Servers]

Originally Posted by constantine

Hello,

Which cpu will you take for a cpanel hosting server?

Run PHP/MYSQL for provide share hosting .

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4 GHz 8M
Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 3.00GHZ 4MB

q6600 is one of the best and highly used cpu for hosting

im would definitely recommend you to go with q6600

[slawek22]

Oh, the cache is the difference... the 2 extra cores are just for show.

Can you explain?

[Prolime Servers]

Oh, the cache is the difference... the 2 extra cores are just for show. i don't think its for show lol

core 2 quad 6600 had 2.4 ghz x 4 with with 8 m shared

and core 2 duo has 2x3ghz cores

so this dosent mean that q6600 cores are for show:-D

[cristibighea]

I was being sarcastic. The Core2Duo has two cores, while the Core2Quad has 4 cores. You will see that even on a benchmark the performance difference is quite large between the two(http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html), and in a hosting environment the difference will be quite noticeable too.

[tehsu]

I laugh at the people who missed the sarcasm

[constantine]

Originally Posted by cristibighea

I was being sarcastic. The Core2Duo has two cores, while the Core2Quad has 4 cores. You will see that even on a benchmark the performance difference is quite large between the two(http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html), and in a hosting environment the difference will be quite noticeable too.

Your link doesn't work .
page not found

[cristibighea]

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html

The link in my previous post added an extra bracket to the end of the URL.

[slawek22]

I laugh at the people who missed the sarcasm

Thought he's hosting on windows and ms put some license limit on the number of cores so 2 of 4 would be idling anyway ;]

[constantine]

Originally Posted by cristibighea

I was being sarcastic. The Core2Duo has two cores, while the Core2Quad has 4 cores. You will see that even on a benchmark the performance difference is quite large between the two(http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html), and in a hosting environment the difference will be quite noticeable too.

E6850 has 1333 mHZ FSB and Q6600 has 1066 mhz FSB .

Some users express an opinion E6850 has better performance than Q6600 because of faster clock speed and more bus .

Thanks for cpu benchmark link .

Also this link is useful :
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/24...peed-quad-core

[cristibighea]

You're reading opinions from gamers, based on how well it performs in video games. For a hosting environment you will see that Apache and MySQL scale beautifully across multiple cores, as opposed to video games which might not support multiple cores.

[Jamie Edwards]

Originally Posted by cristibighea

You're reading opinions from gamers, based on how well it performs in video games. For a hosting environment you will see that Apache and MySQL scale beautifully across multiple cores, as opposed to video games which might not support multiple cores.

cristibighea is absolutely correct; more cores the better in a web server. However, although the Q6600 does do brilliantly in a server environment, it is predominantly a desktop-class chip.

Take a look at some of the new Xeon Harpertown chips, with a higher native FSB and much more cache to boot; they're not much more than a Q6600. The one I am talking about is the E5405. It runs at 400MHz less than the Q6600, but has 4MB more cache and a more efficient core architecture.