Dual Core Pentium D vs. Dual Xeon Servers

[owensdj]

Are there any reviews that compare the dual core Pentium D to two Xeon processors in a file server? I was wondering how a 3GHz Pentium D would compare to two 3GHz Xeons. I know the two Xeon server would cost at least $300 more, but are they worth the extra cost?

 

[dguy6789]

A 3Ghz PD would be cheaper and very competitive performance wise. I would say the chipset would determine performance differences more than the fact of being one or two processors would. The Pentium D has the same bottleneck the Xeons have, they share FSB.

To answer your question: No they are not worth the extra cost. You will see no tangible difference performance wise between a 3Ghz Pentium D and dual 3Ghz Xeons(Unless you factor in Hyper Threading, which could yield some serious performance in multitasking with 3 or more programs)

Is the price difference worth Hyper Threading? That is up to you. To me, the answer is a firm no.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: owensdj
Are there any reviews that compare the dual core Pentium D to two Xeon processors in a file server? I was wondering how a 3GHz Pentium D would compare to two 3GHz Xeons. I know the two Xeon server would cost at least $300 more, but are they worth the extra cost?

Not to make it another AMD/Intel thread, but why in the world would you use a current Intel processor for any kind of server? (unless you're locked in to a Dell contract?)

 

[jiffylube1024]

I also don't get why you'd ever use the Pentium D in a server. Is this a home server or used in a business environment? If you're going to cut costs and get any mainstream dual core solution for a server, why not get the (much faster performing) X2?

 

[owensdj]

Viditor, most of the server manufacturers I've seen seem to only use Intel processors. Do you have any AMD processor servers you could recommend, or any AMD processor server motherboards?

jiffylube1024, it's for an Active Directory DC file/DNS/DHCP Windows Server 2003 machine for a 15-20 client office network. The Pentium D is used for some of the entry-level servers from companies such as Dell. The processor speed requirements for this server really aren't very high. It mostly needs a fast SCSI RAID setup to handle the multi-user database file sharing. It won't be running an SQL server for the databases.

 

[Markfw]

HP DL385 is a dual-core opteron processor based server.

 

[Markfw]

Actually HP has 3 lines with the dual-core Opterons, the DL145 series (1U, 2 sockets), the DL385 series (2U 2 sockets), and the DL585 series (4U, 4 sockets).

 

[Viditor]

In addition to the HP AMD servers, Sun now has a very wide range of them. The Sunfire 146 starts at $745.
Sun only carries AMD and their own Ultrasparc now, they no longer carry Intel (in fact they have a Xeon trade-in program).
As to which one, some questions first...
1. how many users?
2. Do you need a tower or is a rack system useable in your shop?
3. How big do you need the array to be?
4. How many NICs?
5. How much expansion can you expect down the track?

Those answers should help...

 

[asSpenNy]

I know that this is resurecting an old thread, but I have been tasked with finding which of these processors would be better suited for our setup. Due to our companies guidlines we will are not interested in AMD's(my peronal fav), just Intel.

We have a small group of users that work with large graphic maps using the ArcGIS software. We currently have them using duel Xeon workstaions, I need to find out if they could get the same performance out of duel D's.

Any help or opinions would be greatly appreciated. These are for users workstations and not servers.

 

[thirdlegstump]

Is the server doing nothing other than serving files and no database? If so, a PIII may all be that's necessary....

 

[ahock]

In fairness to Intel's offering the server side, they have other features that some of us are not aware which in my opinion makes the Xeon attractive even though they performance sucks compared to AMD. I'm no fanboy on either companies just plain end user benefits but I remember sometime I have querries regarding the RAS feature that Intel have as compared to AMD and nobody even answered..... I also asked about Intel's iAMT whether AMD have those features on their platform and no response either.... With this somehow makes me conlude that performance wise as processor to processor clearly AMD wins including performance per watt. But overall features on the platform, I think Intel have the edge.

This is just my opinion......

 

[kyleb]

I have a dual 2.4ghz Xeon server with 2GB of RDRAM that is amazing for file/database work. I'm actually selling it too, so if you're interested, just let me know (it's an IBM Intellistation M).

 

[cryogenic666]

Actually I was just reading an article on Tomshardware and they made a passing comment that dual Xeons basically put the dual core Pentium 4 Extreme Edition to shame because the Xeons have more L2 cache and don't have the single-CPU benchmark penalty that the dual core P4's carry. Apparently they're also a bit cheaper, too. The P4-D would probably be closer in price but loses hyperthreading in comparison to dual Xeons or a single XE. Basically, I wouldn't go trading in those dual Xeons just yet unless you're trading them in for dual core Opterons.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/...ther_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/page9.html

 

[asSpenNy]

thnx for the info. I also found that artical on Tom's.

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: asSpenNy
I know that this is resurecting an old thread, but I have been tasked with finding which of these processors would be better suited for our setup. Due to our companies guidlines we will are not interested in AMD's(my peronal fav), just Intel.

We have a small group of users that work with large graphic maps using the ArcGIS software. We currently have them using duel Xeon workstaions, I need to find out if they could get the same performance out of duel D's.

Any help or opinions would be greatly appreciated. These are for users workstations and not servers.

Compared to older Xeons they may be ok, but a current dual xenon system should do better. The Pentium D machines are relatively hard to cool in an office environment and performance won't be as good as a dual xenon machine with Hyperthreading. Also, if your users are doing work of any real importance, it may be worth having a machine with ECC RAM capabilities.