Faster dual core or slower quad core?

kano

Member

Reaction score: 4
Messages: 23

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

Member

Reaction score: 1
Messages: 26

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

Son of Beastie

Reaction score: 707
Messages: 4,617

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

kano

Member

Reaction score: 4
Messages: 23

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.
 
OP
kano

kano

Member

Reaction score: 4
Messages: 23

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?
 

dennylin93

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 114
Messages: 783

kano said:
"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

New Member


Messages: 1

Depends on what you want to do


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

kano

Member

Reaction score: 4
Messages: 23

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

Member

Reaction score: 1
Messages: 39

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
 
OP
kano

kano

Member

Reaction score: 4
Messages: 23

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

rokpa92

Active Member

Reaction score: 8
Messages: 131

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

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 68
Messages: 340

How about now?

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?
 
Top