ripken204 Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 (edited) 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, 2007 by ripken204 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zxian Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puntoMX Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zxian Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puntoMX Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 Gues what, it´s a single core CPU and it´s not a Windsor...ripken204, update your posts please! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ripken204 Posted November 14, 2007 Author Share Posted November 14, 2007 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puntoMX Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 Only in Holland, ATN-networks has good services... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ripken204 Posted November 14, 2007 Author Share Posted November 14, 2007 lol, that's helpful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puntoMX Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 err... hmmm, I have to tell them to translate it in English... or learn Dutch . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ripken204 Posted November 15, 2007 Author Share Posted November 15, 2007 so that cpu i was talking about before is an:"AMD Athlon 64 3200+ Orleans 2.0GHz 512KB L2 Cache Socket AM2 Processor" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zxian Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newsposter Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zxian Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 Considering that both are "bottom of the barrel" systems, I think that'd be a problem either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ripken204 Posted November 15, 2007 Author Share Posted November 15, 2007 well i can get a raid conroller and raid0? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puntoMX Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now