Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Dedicated Server : Quad Core Dual Xeon 5410 or I7 920

[sihirlinet]

Hello,

which processor is better then other for you ?

Quad Core Dual Xeon 5410
8 gb ram
2X146 GB 10K rpm

or

I7 920
8 gb ram
2X750 gb 7.2K rpm.

[XFactorServers]

I would take config #1 all day long.

[websplash]

Originally Posted by XFactorServers

I would take config #1 all day long.

Absolutely second that - I would personally prefer the dual quad core xeon over the i7 920 ... But that's just my opinion

Thanks,
Guy

[net]

It is really obvious :-) Go for Quad Core Dual Xeon.

[ControlVM Technology]

Originally Posted by sihirlinet

H
Quad Core Dual Xeon 5410
8 gb ram
2X146 GB 10K rpm

first choice....

disk reading speed also better

[MMrs]

First, 8 physical cores and faster disks.

[sihirlinet]

First option has 100 mbit connection with 3000 gb bandwidth. Its price is 144 euro. is it nice or bad ?

[ReliableServers]

Option #1 without even blinking if you do not need a lot of space.
144euro is a good price for that setup.

[CryptWizard]

i7 920. E5410 is a few generations behind and the performance would reflect it.

[hhw]

Originally Posted by CryptWizard

i7 920. E5410 is a few generations behind and the performance would reflect it.

Harpertown is only 1 generation back. 8 physical cores are also superior to 4 physical cores /w HT any day, provided the clock speeds aren't too far off. HT only gives you a 10 - 20% boost in performance, which although well worth the little silicon it does use, it's a far cry from doubling processing power.

For some rough math:
2x 5410: 8x 2.33GHz = 18.66GHz
i7 920: 4 x 2.66Ghz x 1.20(HT) x 1.20(newer gen) = 15.32GHz

So, even when using very generous considerations to the i7 (20% each for HT and the newer generation) for the differences in features/architecture, the dual 5410 will still easily outperform a core i7 920. The SCSI/SAS drives will tip the scales even further in favour of option #1, and the ECC will give you better stability to boot.

[Negizmo]

Quad Core Dual Xeon 5410 all the way.

I'm not a huge fan of desktop processors in servers for the most part, to begin with.. then, on top of that.. 8 physical cores vs. 4 physical cores.. tough choice..

[ItsJustHosting]

Originally Posted by hhw

Harpertown is only 1 generation back. 8 physical cores are also superior to 4 physical cores /w HT any day, provided the clock speeds aren't too far off. HT only gives you a 10 - 20% boost in performance, which although well worth the little silicon it does use, it's a far cry from doubling processing power.

For some rough math:
2x 5410: 8x 2.33GHz = 18.66GHz
i7 920: 4 x 2.66Ghz x 1.20(HT) x 1.20(newer gen) = 15.32GHz

So, even when using very generous considerations to the i7 (20% each for HT and the newer generation) for the differences in features/architecture, the dual 5410 will still easily outperform a core i7 920. The SCSI/SAS drives will tip the scales even further in favour of option #1, and the ECC will give you better stability to boot.

Clock frequency is clock frequency, there is no such frequency as 18.66GHz/15.32GHz and it's really a poor way of comparing performance.

The only time you can accurately gauge performance using the frequency is if the two CPUs you're comparing are based on the same platform/architecture/designation. Multiplying cores by the frequency is not how things work.

[hhw]

Originally Posted by ItsJustHosting

Clock frequency is clock frequency, there is no such frequency as 18.66GHz/15.32GHz and it's really a poor way of comparing performance.

The only time you can accurately gauge performance using the frequency is if the two CPUs you're comparing are based on the same platform/architecture/designation. Multiplying cores by the frequency is not how things work.

That's why the extra 20% concessions to the i7 were given. The comparisons also aren't meant to be precise, hence why I noted it was just rough math but it suffices in illustrating the point.

Re-read my post. If you're going to assert that HT and the architectural differences will result in more than a 44% combined improvement (already more than generous), state your reasons why. But arguing points that have already been addressed is a bit disingenuous.

[cyberhouse]

first one for sure there are very few situations where the second server would be better.