Re: Dual processor PIII 866 versus single Pentium 1.4Ghz
For multiprocessor support, intel is not as horrid as you proclaim it to
be. No question, AMD rocks. But there are not many (any at all?) dual
cpu boards out there and the support for more than one processor with AMD
is still quite immature. For mid-range and up servers, multiple CPU's can
be a big win and intell is still the best choice for that type of
solution. I'm quite pleased that AMD has pulled ahead with a faster bus I
anxiously await a solid dual AMD cpu solution. As soon as comes along I
will no doubt convert all my multiprocessor intell systems to AMD.
vector
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, John wrote:
> Ill tell you right now. DONT GET INTEL CPUS. they are horrid now-a-days. AMD
> chips are based off of newer architecture, have 33% more on-chip chache, and
> can run at even 266mhz system bus, as opposed to only 133mhz p3. Athlons also
> have 3 Floating point pipelines, as opposed to p3's 1.
>
> all of that, and AMD chips are WAY cheaper.
>
> On Wednesday 20 June 2001 06:29, mdevin@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> > This is not a debian specific question, but I know there are some
> > hardware experts out there that may be able to help me and I would much
> > appreciate it :-)
> >
> > I am considering upgrading our server at work. I don't fully appreciate
> > the performance advantage / disadvantages of dual processors and SCSI
> > hardisks.
> >
> > Here is what I have been recommended to get:
> > 2x Intel Pentium III 866 Mhz
> > Intel TUPELO (STL2) Motherboard Dual Processor capable
> > Adaptec AIC-7899 dual channel SCSI controller
> > 2x 512 Mb Intel Certified ECC Registered Memory
> > 2x Cheetah Seagate 36Gb LVD Hard Disks
> > + network cards, floppy, CDROM, etc.
> >
> > Basically, my question is: What would the difference in performance be
> > between this configuration versus say a single P4 1.4Ghz?
> >
> > This server will unfortunately have to run Windows NT (as the
> > proprietary software requires it). It is basically a database server
> > with 8x 486s acting as essentially dumb terminals. They will run a
> > basic version of the proprietary software and all the processing will be
> > done by the server.
> >
> > 1. What do people think about whether it is worth spending the extra
> > money for dual processors? Does Win NT fully utilise dual processors?
> > It is nearly $1500 (Aus) for the motherboard! But a P4 1.4 GHz is much
> > the same price (I think), but the mother board would be cheaper then.
> >
> > 2. Is it worth spending the extra money on a SCSI controller and hard
> > disks?
> >
> > Here is what the specs say on the SCSI HD:
> > Formatted Capacity: 36.4GB
> > Interface: 68-pin
> > Ultra2/SCSI
> > Data Transfer Rates: 160MB/s
> > Average Seek Times: 5.4ms
> > Buffer Size: 16MB
> > Rotational Speed: 10000rpm
> > Height (inch/mm): LP (1.0/25.4)
> >
> > Here is the specs on a 40Gb Western Digital IDE 7200 RPM:
> > WD CaviarTM 40GB EIDE Hard Drive WD400BB
> > Transfer mode: 100 MB/s
> > Average Read seek: 8.9ms
> >
> > So the SCSI spins faster and has lower average access times. I suppose
> > this means that it would be of benefit when you are talking about a
> > large database server with multiple terminals connected.
> >
> > It is just hard to work all this out from the specs. Can anyone speak
> > from experience on these issues? Especially regarding the dual
> > processor versus single but faster processor.
> >
> > Thanks for help.
> > Mark.
>
>
>
Reply to: