Better cpu for a home server?

[Bryf50]

What would be a better cpu for a file/dhcp/whatever else linux server.
I have both a Skt 478 Pentium 4 2.0ghz Northwood 400fsb 512 cache and a Celeron 2.6 ghz northwood with i think 128kb cache. I already have both and nothing to do with them so whatever performs better ill drop into the server.

 

[Keysplayr]

Being that it's only a file/dhcp server, I would say the Celeron would be fine. My Windows 2000 server has a 2.6 Celeron in it. It is a:
Web Server
FTP server
DHCP server
Print Server
DNS server
Symantec Antivirus Master Server
File Server

And has no want for a faster CPU. I would use the Celeron if you do NOT intend to run any sort of database server. If you do, then use the P4 with the extra cache.
But the 600MHz faster clock on the Celeron should compensate for the cache deficiency. IMHO.

 

[lowdownshame]

im running P4 2.0ghz cpu for my home server and it certainly gets the job done.... IMHO P4 is more stable/reliable than celeron regardless of clock speed...good luck

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: lowdownshame
im running P4 2.0ghz cpu for my home server and it certainly gets the job done.... IMHO P4 is more stable/reliable than celeron regardless of clock speed...good luck

Umm, that Celeron IS a P4 with less cache. I know it's only your opinion, but how exactly is a P4 more stable/reliable than a P4 based Celeron?

 

[Conky]

I'd go with the P4 if I were you especially since it's a Northwood. I run a Willamette P4 1.9ghz 400fsb in my fileserver/backup machine and it more than gets the job done. :thumbsup:

Despite my preference for the P4, that Celeron would also be fine for a fileserver so you might want to flip a coin. :laugh:

 

[GimpyFuzznut]

I run my file server on Win 2k3 with a P3 @ 733. I don't think you will have much trouble running a file server with either one of those chips. I'm guessing the extra clock speed of the Celeron would help. That being said; you can probably easily OC that P4 to 2.6 to match the Celeron and get better performance..?

 

[htne]

Back in the day when those two cpus were close to being current, a P4 at 1.8 ghz would run circles around a 128k Celeron overclocked to 3.0 ghz. The P4 REALLY needed a large cache, and those old celerons with 128k cache were dogs. Yes, it should be fine for a file server, as GimpyFuzznut pointed out, a P3 at 733 will suffice for a file server. But the 2.0 P4 is a MUCH better cpu than the celeron 2.6.

 

[yuppiejr]

Tough call... I would probably lean toward the Pentium 4, 2.0a since it's going to run cooler, dissipating 54.3w (P4) versus 62.2w for the Celeron. (http://balusc.xs4all.nl/srv/har-cpu-int-p4.php) At 2 ghz I don't think you are going to starve the O/S for CPU time so I'd say the cache will have a bigger impact on performance, particularly I/O, than an extra 600 mhz in clockspeed.

 

[superHARD]

Originally posted by: htne
Back in the day when those two cpus were close to being current, a P4 at 1.8 ghz would run circles around a 128k Celeron overclocked to 3.0 ghz. The P4 REALLY needed a large cache, and those old celerons with 128k cache were dogs. Yes, it should be fine for a file server, as GimpyFuzznut pointed out, a P3 at 733 will suffice for a file server. But the 2.0 P4 is a MUCH better cpu than the celeron 2.6.

^^what he said^^

 

[Bryf50]

Ok thanks everyone i guess ill stick with the p4.

Originally posted by: GimpyFuzznut
I run my file server on Win 2k3 with a P3 @ 733. I don't think you will have much trouble running a file server with either one of those chips. I'm guessing the extra clock speed of the Celeron would help. That being said; you can probably easily OC that P4 to 2.6 to match the Celeron and get better performance..?

Ill be using a Intel made motherboard i already have so no ocing is going on.

 

[piasabird]

I would not spend more than say $100.00 for a P4 Processor. Celeron is just fine for something like this. I have been using a 1.2 Gig Celeron Tulatin Core Processor for around 5 years. Celerons are not less stable than a P4. That is pure baloney.

 

[GFORCE100]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: lowdownshame
im running P4 2.0ghz cpu for my home server and it certainly gets the job done.... IMHO P4 is more stable/reliable than celeron regardless of clock speed...good luck

Umm, that Celeron IS a P4 with less cache. I know it's only your opinion, but how exactly is a P4 more stable/reliable than a P4 based Celeron?

Comments like his always give out a clear message, the person who wrote them isn't an IT enthusiast or maybe, he used the wrong words to describe his thoughts hence the subpar ilogical outcome.

 

[f4phantom2500]

Originally posted by: superHARD

Originally posted by: htne
Back in the day when those two cpus were close to being current, a P4 at 1.8 ghz would run circles around a 128k Celeron overclocked to 3.0 ghz. The P4 REALLY needed a large cache, and those old celerons with 128k cache were dogs. Yes, it should be fine for a file server, as GimpyFuzznut pointed out, a P3 at 733 will suffice for a file server. But the 2.0 P4 is a MUCH better cpu than the celeron 2.6.

^^what he said^^

Originally posted by: piasabird
I would not spend more than say $100.00 for a P4 Processor. Celeron is just fine for something like this. I have been using a 1.2 Gig Celeron Tulatin Core Processor for around 5 years. Celerons are not less stable than a P4. That is pure baloney.

? He's not debating whether to buy a P4, he already has both and is trying to decide which to use in his server.