i cant find any info on how these two cpus compare. i would have to guess that the celeron is a faster cpu but i have no proof of that.

the cpu will be used in a webserver, primarily for php+mysql work. so if one is better at that type of thing then let me know.

Edited November 15, 200718 yr by ripken204

I honestly can't say much about the Windsor CPUs, but the E2100 series isn't that much more expensive than the 420, and you'll get more cache and a second core to boot. Are you trying to go for an ultra-ultra cheap setup for web-development?

It seems ripken204 is going to rent a server so they gave him some options.

If we compare both CPUs, then the AMD will win. Remember that at stock speeds AMD still is the best solution for its price when you don’t look at power usage.

If we compare both CPUs, then the AMD will win.

From what I can tell, the Windsor is a dual-core CPU, meaning it can handle better concurrent requests than the single-core Celeron. Ultimately, if you're going for web-hosting, the main concern is how much load they put on their servers rather than the specific hardware. The Celeron 420 with a single user will be much faster than the AMD with 100 users (obviously).

Gues what, it´s a single core CPU and it´s not a Windsor...

ripken204, update your posts please!

well that's what they told me, they first told me it as an athlon64 3000 and i asked what core it was, they said windsor.. they do have some X2's also that is prolly where they got that from..

the amd is $5 more per month. im going to be getting a cheap dedicated server.

do any of you have some good recommendations on hosts?

Only in Holland, ATN-networks has good services...

lol, that's helpful

err... hmmm, I have to tell them to translate it in English... or learn Dutch .

so that cpu i was talking about before is an:

"AMD Athlon 64 3200+ Orleans 2.0GHz 512KB L2 Cache Socket AM2 Processor"

If that's the only difference, I'd go for the cheaper of the two. The main question again comes down to load. With a low-traffic site, you won't notice any major difference in a properly setup website between the two servers. I'm assuming that we're going to be dealing with fairly "standard" web services here, and nothing where a single request would require a large amount of resources.

Go for the cheaper - if you're finding that you're lacking on speed, then you can deal with something else.

On the other paw, if the 'cheap server' is really cheap, you can expect bottom-of-the-line network and disk interfaces. Usually that means that most of the functionality of those interfaces is handled at the os/driver level instead of in hardware.

So in this instance, a dual-core will potentially go a long ways toward taking care of driver-related OS stalls.

Considering that both are "bottom of the barrel" systems, I think that'd be a problem either way.

well i can get a raid conroller and raid0?

You will not get much out of RAID in your webserver. You could do it for safety, that’s true, but a backup with FTP every day would be better. I presume that the data size isn’t that big?