duals or hyper threading

Just shoot · Jul 20, 2003

I'm looking at building a data server. I was thinking a AMD dual xp2100 when I started wondering, would a intel 2.4C be a option. This would be on a network were about 30 people will access. Would be alittle cheaper than the dual and offer hyper threading.

Any thoughts??

aftermath · Jul 20, 2003

my dual never gets slow. it will do 2 major things at once and when i press the start button it just apears. Instantly.
ive not used a p4, ever. so i cant coment on how good it would be in similar situations but it would use less power and a ht p4 has been shown to out put more wu than a dual amd.
ht is not a real second cpu tho. id guess a dual would cope better with a heavy load.

BioNiKaL · Jul 20, 2003

hyperthreading aint that great according to a review from APC ( australian personal computer)

kaltag · Jul 20, 2003

Hyperthreading does not work as well as dual CPUs do. Plain and simple, one processor cannot do the work of two. If this were the case then the Xeon platform would be falling flat on it's face right now

There are many resources online that show HT is not nearly as fast as true dual procs. However, the single P4 would use less power and produce less heat if that is going to be an issue. You also mentioned that this would be used as a "data" server. If you could elaborate on this a bit it would help. Is the server going to be running scripts or applications over the network for the users or simply storing filles for retrievel. If it's only storing data. Then the P4 would be more than capable. If applications need to be run by multiple users on the server, a true dual proc system would have more benefit.

XWRed1 · Jul 20, 2003

If this were the case then the Xeon platform would be falling flat on it's face right now

Xeons had hyperthreading a year before the P4 did.

Duals or Hyperthreading? Why not both? Hyperthreading is essentially free. Go dual Xeon.

Just shoot · Jul 21, 2003

Thanks to all that responed.

At present I've already built a application server.
SPECS
dual mp2400 on a K7D master
promise sx4000 256 mb memory, four disk raid 5 configuration using WD 80 gig 8mb cache . Mainly for the 3 year warranty.
2 gig samsung pc2700
Antec 3u25 case with antec 550true watt PSU

Talk about honking fast it just screams.

At present this system is doing both application and file server but because of the size of our database, I really need to make it its own server as many more people access the file server than I realized.

I guess at this point I shouldn't really scrimp as I would be royally PO'D if the performance wasn't there once I was finished.

I realize that the HT isn't another processor nor could the single P4 offer the performance under load that the duals could perform. It just sometimes never hurts to ask the experience of others. More than likely it would be just fine being only a file server.

Xeons I can't really swing the cost of them at the moment or the boards to run them thats why I didn't even consider a Opteron. I think it would be fun to play with but.

Thanks again.

OC-NightHawk · Jul 22, 2003

Um well the DPI533 is a cheap ($290USD) Xeon mother board. There is no PCI-X, I don't think it even has 64bit PCI slots either. But if you could live with a IDE Raid controller it would be a cheap alternative. With 4 7200RPM drives in raid 0 (is this possible) 28800 RPM. Stick in some xeons and crank the multi down and the fsb up and you'll have at leat 600MHz fsb easy. Imagine a stable 2.4GHz 400MHz FSB @ 3.0gGHz 720MHz FSB. Total cost of the system would be about $710 for the motherboard and two cpus. The board fits in an ATX case and since the fsb will be cranked up you'll want fast enough ddr to pai up with it. Also the bios keeps the PCI bandwidth at normal speeds even when teh cpu bandwidth is cranked up. Something to think about if you decide on a second server.

Nebby · Jul 22, 2003

XWRed1 said:
Xeons had hyperthreading a year before the P4 did.

Duals or Hyperthreading? Why not both? Hyperthreading is essentially free. Go dual Xeon.

Agreed, dual xeon smoothness is uncomparable to anything I've seen. Not to mention seeing 4 cpu charts in task manager is spiffy also

cmcquistion · Jul 22, 2003

OC-NightHawk said:
Um well the DPI533 is a cheap ($290USD) Xeon mother board. There is no PCI-X, I don't think it even has 64bit PCI slots either. But if you could live with a IDE Raid controller it would be a cheap alternative. With 4 7200RPM drives in raid 0 (is this possible) 28800 RPM. Stick in some xeons and crank the multi down and the fsb up and you'll have at leat 600MHz fsb easy. Imagine a stable 2.4GHz 400MHz FSB @ 3.0gGHz 720MHz FSB. Total cost of the system would be about $710 for the motherboard and two cpus. The board fits in an ATX case and since the fsb will be cranked up you'll want fast enough ddr to pai up with it. Also the bios keeps the PCI bandwidth at normal speeds even when teh cpu bandwidth is cranked up. Something to think about if you decide on a second server.

4 - 7200 RPM drives does not equal 28800 RPM, it equals 4 drives, each at 7200 RPM's. The only thing that goes up is your max transfer rates. Seek times, generally, go down a small amount, due to the controller overhead. Also, two channel IDE RAID can't do 4 drive RAID 0 with any better performance than two drive RAID 0 (Master, Slave relationship.) There are a few, true 4 channel IDE RAID cards, but they would be overkill for a board with 33 MHz, 32 bit PCI slots, because the PCI bus would bottleneck the max tranfer to 133 MB's, which you can get out of two IDE drives.

You can't crank the multi down on Intel chips.

OC-NightHawk · Jul 22, 2003

cmcquistion said:
4 - 7200 RPM drives does not equal 28800 RPM, it equals 4 drives, each at 7200 RPM's. The only thing that goes up is your max transfer rates. Seek times, generally, go down a small amount, due to the controller overhead. Also, two channel IDE RAID can't do 4 drive RAID 0 with any better performance than two drive RAID 0 (Master, Slave relationship.) There are a few, true 4 channel IDE RAID cards, but they would be overkill for a board with 33 MHz, 32 bit PCI slots, because the PCI bus would bottleneck the max tranfer to 133 MB's, which you can get out of two IDE drives.

You can't crank the multi down on Intel chips.

First off its better than nothing. The DPI533 has its limits on PCI bandwidth to keep pricing down. Second I wasn't suggesting two IDE Raid controllers. I was under the impression that each IDE port can handle a master and a slave drive and if the IDE raid controller has two ports it can handle 4 drives. I may be wrong, but if I am then he can still do the mix beween raid 0 and 1.

Please don't assume things and put words in my mouth. Go back and read my first post. A IDE raid controller.

Second, no offense but don't comment on things that you don't know about. Intel Xeon cpus can have the multi go down, but not up. you can get some pics of my machine at www.geocieites.com/enderbeta to proove it. Its not a DPI533 board so I don't have control of the FSB though bios, but I do have control of the fsb through a jumper (better than nothing) and control of memory timeings, and the multi through bios. Like I said the multi can go down, but not up. In my case I can set mine anywhere from 18(or 17 whichever is the lowest multi never really looked) through 24.

cmcquistion · Jul 22, 2003

Setting RAID 0 with a Master and a Slave is a bad idea. The Master and Slave have to take turns transmitting data. That's just how IDE works (SCSI is different). In RAID 0, you need all your drives to be able to transmit simultaneously. You ~can~ make a four drive RAID 0 array on two IDE channels with 2 drives set as Master and two as Slave, but your performance will be really bad. Your performance will be good, if you just hook up to drives, both set to Master, and create a RAID 0 array out of the two of them.

There are 4 channel IDE RAID cards, that allow 4 drives to be hooked up, each to it's own channel, set to Master. These can have good performance (the expensive one's are good, the cheap one's aren't so good.) My point, above, was that a four channel RAID 0 setup is overkill, because of the bandwidth limitation of the 33 MHz, 32 bit PCI bus, which is limited to 133 MB/s, max. You can reach that limit with just two IDE drives, therefore, a four drive RAID 0 array would just be overkill. The array would be driving with the brakes on, so to speak. It would be capable of great data transfer, but it would be throttled back, by the PCI bus bandwidth.

OC-NightHawk · Jul 22, 2003

Yeah your probaly right about the bandwidth a measly PCI bus being shared no less would probably be bottlenecked from the word go with 4 drives going at it syncronised. Its too bad that the DP533 can't offer the FSB option through bios.

Sorry I snapped at you I'm a little frustrated with Director right now. the stupid thing doesn't even want to reconginze one of its built in variables. I can't believe its getting hung up on the word me. ACK!! ..... Excuse that little out burst.

cmcquistion · Jul 22, 2003

OC-NightHawk said:
Yeah your probaly right about the bandwidth a measly PCI bus being shared no less would probably be bottlenecked from the word go with 4 drives going at it syncronised. Its too bad that the DP533 can't offer the FSB option through bios.

Sorry I snapped at you I'm a little frustrated with Director right now. the stupid thing doesn't even want to reconginze one of its built in variables. I can't believe its getting hung up on the word me. ACK!! ..... Excuse that little out burst.

No problem. I meant no offense, either. I was just offering some advice.

OC-NightHawk · Jul 22, 2003

Still It would make for a great workstation .... provided the owner doesn't go ape **** and overclock it past its limits. As a part of the network, since it just has IDE drives I'd use it for the CPU intensive tasks as a helper for the server and have it retrieve the data from the networked machine handleing the database.

bulk88 · Jul 23, 2003

Hyper-threadng is keeping 2 threads open, but the processor still only works on one at a time. Basically 2 caches. It just reduces overhead in applications of task switching. It takes task switching from windows kernal to the processor.

XWRed1 · Jul 23, 2003

The Windows kernel is still switching between threads, it just that the processors can store the states for two threads rather than one, can process one thread while it is waiting on the other in order to more effectively use the cpu's resources.

soundfx4 · Jul 25, 2003

Dual Hyper threading!

amd opteron dual system hehe, that would kill both those options in speed! But that is also expensive seeing as the CPU's are about 800 bucks each. So I will have to say dual deffinitley. I have never used Dual, but I am sure that a dual proccessor system would be faster then a HT CPU. I could be wrong but I don't think I am.

Molybdym · Jul 25, 2003

soundfx4 said:
Dual Hyper threading! amd opteron dual system hehe, that would kill both those options in speed! But that is also expensive seeing as the CPU's are about 800 bucks each. So I will have to say dual deffinitley. I have never used Dual, but I am sure that a dual proccessor system would be faster then a HT CPU. I could be wrong but I don't think I am.

Not to mention the freaking boards!

That Asus is like what +$500? AND the registered memory(although the upsurd 32Gigs or whatever the max is, is really cool) The Opterons are totally an Enterprise thing right now.

But building a duallie with modded XP's, or MP's for that matter, is always overlooked by the coperate world. When the bank likes me a little better, it's duallie time.

David · Jul 25, 2003

I would go with the dual CPUs.

Even dual 1.67GHz CPUs (XP1700+) would probably beat a 2.4C with HT. If it was 1.2GHz MPs vs a P4 3.2C with HT then the P4 might win it, but if you get a pair of decent XPs or MPs then it will perform better at multithreaded apps than a P4 w/ HT.

cmcquistion · Jul 25, 2003

You have to consider that a HT P4 @ 2.4 GHz, acts like two P4's at 1.2 GHz. Your total processing power is 2.4 GHz.

A true SMP machine, like a dual AMD system @ 2 GHz, acts like two CPU's at 2 GHz. Your total processing power, here, is 4 GHz.

duals or hyper threading

Member

Member

Registered

Senior Member

Senior Member

Member

Member

Registered

IT Director Senior

Member

IT Director Senior

Member

IT Director Senior

Member

Member

Senior Member

Member

Member

Forums Super Moderator

IT Director Senior

Similar threads