Performance: Opteron 150 v.s. Athlon 64 x2 4400+ for LAMP server?

Hi

I'm thinking about building a LAMP server. It will mainly run a CMS
and a wiki for two sites, and it will run a 64 bit Linux, possibly
Ubuntu.

I'm thinking of either an
* AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ 2.3GHz 1 MB or an
* AMD Opteron 150 2,2 GHz

Both are about the same price and clock frequency

The Athlon gives me obviously two cores, each with 512k of dedicated
L2 cache
The Opteron gives me one core but 1 MB L2 cache

Question: In the real world - what alternative would give me the best
performance?

Peter wrote:
Hi

I'm thinking about building a LAMP server. It will mainly run a CMS
and a wiki for two sites, and it will run a 64 bit Linux, possibly
Ubuntu.

I'm thinking of either an
* AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ 2.3GHz 1 MB or an
* AMD Opteron 150 2,2 GHz

Both are about the same price and clock frequency

The Athlon gives me obviously two cores, each with 512k of dedicated
L2 cache
The Opteron gives me one core but 1 MB L2 cache

Question: In the real world - what alternative would give me the best
performance?


You must already have the socket 939 motherboard? If so consider an
opteron 165 for around $6 more, dual core and 1MB L2 per core. At 1.8GHz
stock you won't notice the speed difference and if your board allows you
to overclock then so much the better. Read the newegg reviews:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103588
If you don't have a motherboard yet consider the more modern socket AM2.
Components such as memory, etc. generally cost less for AM2.

Many thanks!

You must already have the socket 939 motherboard?
No, considering AM2

If so consider an
opteron 165 for around $6 more, dual core and 1MB L2 per core. At 1.8GHz
stock you won't notice the speed difference and if your board allows you
to overclock then so much the better. Read the newegg reviews:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103588
That seems like a nice choice - so, in reality you can basically
overclock to +/- 3 GHz rendering official clock frequency ratings a
mere baseline value :-). I'll try it!
And given that, more L2 cache is always better, I agree

If you don't have a motherboard yet consider the more modern socket AM2.
Components such as memory, etc. generally cost less for AM2.
OK, I'll do that.

To what extent will I be able to utilize the two cores in a LAMP
environment would you think?
Did anyone try virtualization here?

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 12:00:44 -0700, Peter wrote:

Many thanks!

You must already have the socket 939 motherboard?
No, considering AM2

If so consider an
opteron 165 for around $6 more, dual core and 1MB L2 per core. At
1.8GHz stock you won't notice the speed difference and if your board
allows you to overclock then so much the better. Read the newegg
reviews:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103588
That seems like a nice choice - so, in reality you can basically
overclock to +/- 3 GHz rendering official clock frequency ratings a mere
baseline value :-). I'll try it! And given that, more L2 cache is always
better, I agree

If you don't have a motherboard yet consider the more modern socket
AM2. Components such as memory, etc. generally cost less for AM2.
OK, I'll do that.

To what extent will I be able to utilize the two cores in a LAMP
environment would you think?
Did anyone try virtualization here?

AMD Processors don't have much margin, if you want to overclock you
should use Intel. The Core2 processors have a lot of headroom. The Core2
processors are also 30% faster then AMD processors on a clock for clock
basis. My recommendation would be a 6750 which is priced at $212 on
Newegg. I'm running my 6800 at 3GHz with stock cooling. It's been running
24/7 since last November without a problem.

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 01:11:46 +0000, General Schvantzkoph wrote:

AMD Processors don't have much margin, if you want to overclock you
should use Intel. The Core2 processors have a lot of headroom. The Core2
processors are also 30% faster then AMD processors on a clock for clock
basis. My recommendation would be a 6750 which is priced at $212 on
Newegg. I'm running my 6800 at 3GHz with stock cooling. It's been running
24/7 since last November without a problem.

AMD holds the top 11 spots in the price/performance index, and 14 out of
the top 16. the top spot is held by AMD X2 3800+, and there isn't a core
2 duo chip in the bunch. All AMD X2 cpu's top all the core 2 duo chips
except one. The E4300 beats only the X2 6000+ in this chart. As for
overclocking, the AMD X2 3800+ will overclock close to 50% if not do it.
And running your 6800 at 3GHz isn't much of an overclock since it's
default speed is 2.93 GHz to start if I'm not mistaken and sells for about
$900. And I don't know where you came up with that 30% faster per clock,
but that's just pure BS.

--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
HD Tivo S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm

On Aug 12, 7:08 am, Wes Newell wrote:

AMD holds the top 11 spots in the price/performance index, and 14 out of
the top 16. the top spot is held by AMD X2 3800+, and there isn't a core
2 duo chip in the bunch. All AMD X2 cpu's top all the core 2 duo chips
except one.

That's pretty impressive !

Now, what would be the best way of utilizing the two cores in a LAMP
environment? Using a single instance of OS hoping for it to use the
two cores efficiently or somehow with virtualization run two instances
of the OS on the same hardware? Would anyone have a clue? Experiences
to share? :-)

Best Regards
Peter

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 05:08:30 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 01:11:46 +0000, General Schvantzkoph wrote:

AMD Processors don't have much margin, if you want to overclock you
should use Intel. The Core2 processors have a lot of headroom. The
Core2 processors are also 30% faster then AMD processors on a clock for
clock basis. My recommendation would be a 6750 which is priced at $212
on Newegg. I'm running my 6800 at 3GHz with stock cooling. It's been
running 24/7 since last November without a problem.

AMD holds the top 11 spots in the price/performance index, and 14 out of
the top 16. the top spot is held by AMD X2 3800+, and there isn't a core
2 duo chip in the bunch. All AMD X2 cpu's top all the core 2 duo chips
except one. The E4300 beats only the X2 6000+ in this chart. As for
overclocking, the AMD X2 3800+ will overclock close to 50% if not do it.
And running your 6800 at 3GHz isn't much of an overclock since it's
default speed is 2.93 GHz to start if I'm not mistaken and sells for
about $900. And I don't know where you came up with that 30% faster per
clock, but that's just pure BS.

I've benchmarked GCC compiles, Xilinx place and routes, and NCVerilog
simulations. The Core2 is minimally 30% faster then the Athlon 64 X2 on a
clock for clock basis, on NCVerilog it's twice as fast. These are real
applications not bull**** synthetic benchmarks or graphics heavy games.

Peter wrote:
On Aug 12, 7:08 am, Wes Newell wrote:

AMD holds the top 11 spots in the price/performance index, and 14 out of
the top 16. the top spot is held by AMD X2 3800+, and there isn't a core
2 duo chip in the bunch. All AMD X2 cpu's top all the core 2 duo chips
except one.

That's pretty impressive !

Now, what would be the best way of utilizing the two cores in a LAMP
environment? Using a single instance of OS hoping for it to use the
two cores efficiently or somehow with virtualization run two instances
of the OS on the same hardware? Would anyone have a clue? Experiences
to share? :-)

Best Regards
Peter

I know nothing about LAMP but maybe you could find out he
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22du...lamp+server%22

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 11:53:39 +0000, General Schvantzkoph wrote:

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 05:08:30 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 01:11:46 +0000, General Schvantzkoph wrote:

AMD Processors don't have much margin, if you want to overclock you
should use Intel. The Core2 processors have a lot of headroom. The
Core2 processors are also 30% faster then AMD processors on a clock for
clock basis. My recommendation would be a 6750 which is priced at $212
on Newegg. I'm running my 6800 at 3GHz with stock cooling. It's been
running 24/7 since last November without a problem.

AMD holds the top 11 spots in the price/performance index, and 14 out of
the top 16. the top spot is held by AMD X2 3800+, and there isn't a core
2 duo chip in the bunch. All AMD X2 cpu's top all the core 2 duo chips
except one. The E4300 beats only the X2 6000+ in this chart. As for
overclocking, the AMD X2 3800+ will overclock close to 50% if not do it.
And running your 6800 at 3GHz isn't much of an overclock since it's
default speed is 2.93 GHz to start if I'm not mistaken and sells for
about $900. And I don't know where you came up with that 30% faster per
clock, but that's just pure BS.

I've benchmarked GCC compiles, Xilinx place and routes, and NCVerilog
simulations. The Core2 is minimally 30% faster then the Athlon 64 X2 on a
clock for clock basis, on NCVerilog it's twice as fast. These are real
applications not bull**** synthetic benchmarks or graphics heavy games.

I went through about 10 of the benchmarks on tomsharware and none of them
came even close to 30% faster. You can go through the charts here. C2D and
X2 both at 3000MHz.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_20...72&char t=435

--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
HD Tivo S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 02:51:18 -0700, Peter wrote:

On Aug 12, 7:08 am, Wes Newell wrote:

AMD holds the top 11 spots in the price/performance index, and 14 out of
the top 16. the top spot is held by AMD X2 3800+, and there isn't a core
2 duo chip in the bunch. All AMD X2 cpu's top all the core 2 duo chips
except one.

That's pretty impressive !

Now, what would be the best way of utilizing the two cores in a LAMP
environment? Using a single instance of OS hoping for it to use the
two cores efficiently or somehow with virtualization run two instances
of the OS on the same hardware? Would anyone have a clue? Experiences
to share? :-)

Best Regards
Peter

Funny, I'd never heard (or don't recall) anyone using LAMP before. I'm
basically running the same thing here plus a few more servers in this box.
The linux kernel handles the use of the dual cores. Nothing in LAMP
stresses the cpu much that I'm aware of. OTOH, when my mythtv server is
commercial flagging (running mythcommflag) up to for HDTV programs it's
recording at the same time, both cores go close to 100% load. For those
that don't know, LAMP is an acronym for Linux, Apache, Mysql, and PHP.

--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
HD Tivo S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm