<$2000 Business Computer

[DaveSimmons]

Can anyone answer this, why is it that most companies run intel based servers? If AMD is so much better (which is shown by the benchmarks) why are they still using all Intel?

AMD used to be hobbled with less reliable Via chipsets, while intel's own have almost always been rock-solid (with rare exception like the lousy P3 Rambus mobos).

AMD chips used to run hotter and require more power than Pentiums, which also made it harder to create rock-solid business servers.

It's mostly inertia now, together with some companies like Dell having special deals with intel to get chips and motherboards at below market prices. But even Dell is starting to consider AMD.

 

[Mr Bob]

Once again, Dave helps clear my thoughts.

I figured AMD wasn't as reliable as Intel, which sounds to be true (with the hotter chips). It is funny to see just about everyone here get uneasy about the entire intel/amd fiasco.

I think when time comes, we will go with the amd 64 bit.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: dguy6789
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. AMD has ALWAYS made better buisiness processors. Go Athlon 64. AMD has been better in gaming and buisiness apps for I dont know how long, and how these people have missed that is beyond me.

The ONLY reason businesses dont use amd, is they "know and trust" Intel. Many people havent even heard of amd.

Give factual reasons, not opinions. Please be able to back that claim up.

These are not opinions. These are facts. The Athlons have ALWAYS OWNED any Pentium 4 in business app.


http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...oc.aspx?i=2275&amp;p=6

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=1834&amp;p=6

Im surprised you didnt know that. It is COMMON KNOWLEDGE that Athlon XPs/64s are better than P4s in business apps.

Except when that business app is a video editing suite. Intel has an edge on some of the core functions in video editing.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

I also recommend and AMD over Intel, better performance and cheaper. I've have used AMD's for years in business environment with zero problems.

For a case I like the Thermaltake Tsunami, very clean and professional looking, great cooling and roomy.
They come in black or silver, and with or without clear side panel. Personally I don't see the use for a clear side panel in a business machine.

I would recommend a quality power supply for a business machine. Something from Antec, Fortron, PC@C. I'm not impressed with the Aspire PS's. Power supply is the most critical component for stability and dependability. Too many people go for watts, not quality in a PS.


Why do large companies use Intel? My $.02

1. Intel has been in the game since the beginning and up until 8-10 years ago, they most definately had the fastest, most reliable machines. Most IT professional now understand AMD is a better platform, but with hundreds of machines in service they remain with Intel for platform consistency. Not many are willing to mix Intel and AMD machine across their businesses and networks. And no large businesses do a wholesale upgrade of all their machines at one time.

2. Intel still has a huge advantage in percieved quality due to their massive marketing machine. Count the number of Intel commercials you see versus AMD commercials. This has a tremendous effect on less tech savvy boardroom types who generally make the capital investment decisions.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: Mr Bob
Googer- I did get the e-mail, thanks for taking the time to write that up. These guys decided they want to wait 1-2 months before they go make their purchase. After all this work...

They wanted to spend $2k with a 19/20 lcd flat panel monitor.

"AMD has ALWAYS made better buisiness processors. "
- Mostly factual

"Many people havent even heard of amd."
- Clearly opinion, most businesses will a hire a knowledgeable IT admin that will build the company's computers. Never have I once seen a company with AMDs, never once. I'm not talking about a small business someone runs from their house. I am talking about an actual business. Everytime, their servers were intel as well.

Can anyone answer this, why is it that most companies run intel based servers? If AMD is so much better (which is shown by the benchmarks) why are they still using all Intel?

Well most of the Intel Servers that are in use today, were purchased many years ago long before AMD 64 was avalable. At that time Intel offered BETTER multi-processor server performance than AMD.

All of this has changed with the Introduction of AMD 64 technology, that offers superior performance in the server market against Intel Xeon. AMD is gaining ground and ANANDtech.com has chosen to replace their old Intel based servers with AMD OPTERONS. (I will search for the article later) T.T.F.N.



ps For buisness purposes he does not need a case costing more than $40 without a PSU. Show some respect for his choice here, so stop bugging this guy about his choice of case, it is so very trivial.

And there is no need for a $300 Lian Li case that won't help his produtivity one eye ota.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Mr Bob
Once again, Dave helps clear my thoughts.

I figured AMD wasn't as reliable as Intel, which sounds to be true (with the hotter chips). It is funny to see just about everyone here get uneasy about the entire intel/amd fiasco.

I think when time comes, we will go with the amd 64 bit.

Note that should be AMD wasn't as relaible for business use in the past. 2004 was a real turning point for AMD, with A64 CPUs that ran both cooler and faster than P4s, and some good A64 chipsets from nVidia.

My current computer has a P4 3.2C, but I bought it in late 2003 when A64 was still bleeding edge. If I were buying a computer today it would use an A64.

I don't follow server parts enough to know whether I'd buy Opteron or Xeon, I haven't had enough interest to do the research there. But I'd certainly look into Opteron before deciding.

 

[Googer]

Opteron Parts are generaly better than Xeon for SMP servers, because each processor has thier own FSB, Unlike Xeon where memory bandwith is cut in everytime a processor is added to the system. With opteron each processor gets 100% avalable bandwith no matter how many are attached, and becnhmarks prove it is better.


PS great post Dave Simmons. You said it better than I could.

 

[Mr Bob]

Thanks Googer, I think I would rather spend another $50-$100 to put towards more ram, or a better cpu, than an unnecessary case.

That's true Dave, most servers were built awhile ago, and thus AMD at the time wasn't that wise of a choice. I have already noticed a lot more AMD servers out there, just not too many yet. It sounds like the tides are turning pretty quickly now with the entire intel vs amd deal.

I wonder what intel will be doing to pick up the slack.

I'll check back when these guys are ready to spend the money, hopefully then I will be able to use this great information. I always learn a lot on this board.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Mr Bob
Once again, Dave helps clear my thoughts.

I figured AMD wasn't as reliable as Intel, which sounds to be true (with the hotter chips). It is funny to see just about everyone here get uneasy about the entire intel/amd fiasco.

I think when time comes, we will go with the amd 64 bit.

Fone, but don't sicount the facts.
At the moment, Athlon64 and Opteron chips are far cooler running than their Penitum4 counterparts.
They haven't been hotter since the AthlonXP hit the streets. Before that, I wouldn't touch a business PC with them. You could fry the chip, and they ran as hot as new ones do, with crappy heatsinks.

Post-KT266A VIA chipsets have been quality. SiS chipsets, starting with the 745, are high quality, especially the drivers. Definitely server-ready (in fact, I know quite a few critical servers running on 748 chipsets--previously 745, but with potential for blown caps, got new mobos). NForce is mixed, but plenty fine for a desktop. Much like older VIA, NVidia sees it as more important to get to market than get there a bit later with a solid chipset.

Intel is tyring to catch up, and succeeding. Make no mistake: AMD has exceeded expectations this time, but still has an uphill battle for market share. The new Xeons, despite being insane power hogs, are quite impressive performance-wise, and the Pentium-M current beats everything for power. Beyind that, Intel has mroe slack, and can give away more for supercomputers and such, and unlike AMD, has a real marketting machine.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: Mr Bob
Googer- I did get the e-mail, thanks for taking the time to write that up. These guys decided they want to wait 1-2 months before they go make their purchase. After all this work...

They wanted to spend $2k with a 19/20 lcd flat panel monitor.

"AMD has ALWAYS made better buisiness processors. "
- Mostly factual

"Many people havent even heard of amd."
- Clearly opinion, most businesses will a hire a knowledgeable IT admin that will build the company's computers. Never have I once seen a company with AMDs, never once. I'm not talking about a small business someone runs from their house. I am talking about an actual business. Everytime, their servers were intel as well.

Can anyone answer this, why is it that most companies run intel based servers? If AMD is so much better (which is shown by the benchmarks) why are they still using all Intel?

Well most of the Intel Servers that are in use today, were purchased many years ago long before AMD 64 was avalable. At that time Intel offered BETTER multi-processor server performance than AMD.

All of this has changed with the Introduction of AMD 64 technology, that offers superior performance in the server market against Intel Xeon. AMD is gaining ground and ANANDtech.com has chosen to replace their old Intel based servers with AMD OPTERONS. (I will search for the article later) T.T.F.N.



ps For buisness purposes he does not need a case costing more than $40 without a PSU. Show some respect for his choice here, so stop bugging this guy about his choice of case, it is so very trivial.

And there is no need for a $300 Lian Li case that won't help his produtivity one eye ota.

You guys are all Idoits, you don't know jack about hardware. You think that a processor is somting you mom chops your baby food with and Ram is somthing you find on a farm. So go buy a Mac, because they have nice cases and better looking cases mean faster computers right? :disgust:

http://www.newegg.com/app/View...=11-180-024&amp;depa=1

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: Mr Bob
Once again, Dave helps clear my thoughts.

I figured AMD wasn't as reliable as Intel, which sounds to be true (with the hotter chips). It is funny to see just about everyone here get uneasy about the entire intel/amd fiasco.

I think when time comes, we will go with the amd 64 bit.

Fone, but don't sicount the facts.
At the moment, Athlon64 and Opteron chips are far cooler running than their Penitum4 counterparts.
They haven't been hotter since the AthlonXP hit the streets. Before that, I wouldn't touch a business PC with them. You could fry the chip, and they ran as hot as new ones do, with crappy heatsinks.

Post-KT266A VIA chipsets have been quality. SiS chipsets, starting with the 745, are high quality, especially the drivers. Definitely server-ready (in fact, I know quite a few critical servers running on 748 chipsets--previously 745, but with potential for blown caps, got new mobos). NForce is mixed, but plenty fine for a desktop. Much like older VIA, NVidia sees it as more important to get to market than get there a bit later with a solid chipset.

Intel is tyring to catch up, and succeeding. Make no mistake: AMD has exceeded expectations this time, but still has an uphill battle for market share. The new Xeons, despite being insane power hogs, are quite impressive performance-wise, and the Pentium-M current beats everything for power. Beyind that, Intel has mroe slack, and can give away more for supercomputers and such, and unlike AMD, has a real marketting machine.

Cooler Running chips only matter when you are running a server farm, where hundreds of CPU's are in operation at one time. They are desirable so you can keep things like Sever energy and AC costs down.

I know many IT departments that do not build there own systems because they are way too buisy for that, instead they order from dell, compaq, gateway, hp, or IBM. For several reasons it is cheaper for the company they work for to do it that way.

Untill recently the only CPU's avalable from major vendors like dell, compaq, gateway, hp, or IBM was Intel, so that is why you see so many corporate machines employing them. With one exception that is no longer used and that is ALPHA.