Faster dual core or slower quad core?

[kano]

Hi all,
I'm in the process of building a new server and I'm not quite sure which processor to order.

"Intel Xeon X3220 Kentsfield 2.4GHz 105w (Quad core)"
vs.
"Intel Xeon E3110 Wolfdale 3.0GHz 65w (Dual core)"


I'm leaning towards the quad core so far. The server will be mostly general purpose, running Apache, MySQL, postfix, dovecot, pureftpd, openfire, etc. I'll more than likely also being running several jails, one of which will be doing (automated) compiling on a regular basis.

Server will have 8gb of ram and a 1TB RAID1 array.

[desnudopenguino]

Well you could look at it like this... You're getting the dual core (2x3.0GHz) with 6 GHz of processing power or the quad core (4x2.4GHz) with 9.6 GHz of processing power. Also more processors means more multitasking. And the quad core is only $30 more on newegg & has free shipping (so take $5-10 off of that cost). so you're essentially getting another 3.6 GHz + 2 cores for ~$25 more.

[graudeejs]

ON other hand 105W-65W=40W extra for Quad core => higher electricity bills + warmer room (when compiling), I'd still take quad

[kano]

Power, heat, and noise wont be a concern as it will be colocated. The only thing im worried about is if the quad will be cooled enough in a 1U case.

[kano]

And also, the dual core is the newer one (on 45nm). The quad core is on the older 65nm platform. Would this really make any difference in a server environment besides heat output?

[SirDice]

Well you could look at it like this... You're getting the dual core (2x3.0GHz) with 6 GHz of processing power or the quad core (4x2.4GHz) with 9.6 GHz of processing power.
It doesn't work that way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-core

[dennylin93]

"Intel Xeon X3220 Kentsfield 2.4GHz 105w (Quad core)"
vs.
"Intel Xeon E3110 Wolfdale 3.0GHz 65w (Dual core)"


A lower clock speed doesn't necessarily mean that it's slower. Compare a P4 3.0 GHz and a Core 2 Duo 2.40 GHz processor, or a Pentium D 3.4 GHz and a Core 2 Duo 2.66 GHz processor.

The X3220 should be faster than the E3110 though.

[Gretzky09]

Depends on what you want to do


Faster Dual Core = Gaming (until games begin to utilize 4 cores)
Slower Quad Core = Video editing / rendering

[kano]

I think I've decided to go with the quad. I won't be doing any gaming with it, as it's a 1U server that will never have a monitor plugged into it. :p

[VictorM]

what 1u chassis are you using? just got the new Supermicro dual-server in - two single-quad boards in a single 1u chassis, beats the blades on cost hands down

[kano]

It's just some ASUS barebones that I picked up on newegg.

[rokpa92]

In intel?
faster C2duo.
look the frontbus and cache.
if you can a "C2D Extreme" GREAT!
i use C2D e8400.
And becarefull with some c2quad, because some don´t have virtual mode.

in AMD?
for server opheron.
for other... mmm... intel?
i don´t have good history with amd.

[Uniballer]

I can make buildworld -j5, and it makes a big difference (kernel compiles, too), but many ports still build single streamed (and fail if you try to parallelize the build). So how many cores are worthwhile for a system that mostly sits doing nothing until I want to rebuild world, kernels, and all ports, let's say, twice a week? An AMD Athlon II X2 250 gets through buildworld and kernels in well under an hour, but some of the ports still take many hours. Is it substantially better with more cores? Or should I just push for higher clock rates?

Where do you think the sweet spot on the price/performance curve is right now?

Where do you think it will be in 6 months? A year?

[Carpetsmoker]

From http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php

CPU Type Passmark CPU Mark (higher is better)
Intel Xeon X3220 @ 2.40GHz 3095
Intel Xeon E3110 @ 3.00GHz 2294

Of course, this is just a rough measurement, but it should give you an idea ...