Cache or Speed?

Author	Message
Rustoleum Send message Joined: 19 Dec 05 Posts: 4 Credit: 76,319 RAC: 0	Message 7823 - Posted: 28 Dec 2005, 15:08:58 UTC What would be better suited for Rosetta work? I have the option of a 2.6Ghz 2Mb processor or a 3.2Ghz 1Mb processor. Any suggestions would be helpful. The OS will be Win 2003 Server. Thanks Listen 'till it Hz! ID: 7823 · Rating: 1 · rate: / Reply Quote

Christian Diepold Send message Joined: 23 Sep 05 Posts: 37 Credit: 300,225 RAC: 0	Message 7837 - Posted: 28 Dec 2005, 19:26:42 UTC What kind of CPUs? AMD or Intel? AMD with dualcore or single? Intel with HT or not? Same memory ammount and speed with both CPUs? And finally, why chose? Just use both ;-) ID: 7837 · Rating: 1 · rate: / Reply Quote

Rustoleum Send message Joined: 19 Dec 05 Posts: 4 Credit: 76,319 RAC: 0	Message 7841 - Posted: 28 Dec 2005, 20:29:48 UTC - in response to Message 7837. What kind of CPUs? AMD or Intel? AMD with dualcore or single? Intel with HT or not? Same memory ammount and speed with both CPUs? And finally, why chose? Just use both ;-) Intel Xeon, single core, I think both would have HT. Same memory amount / speed. My boss will only let me buy one server :(, so either processor is in his price range. Listen 'till it Hz! ID: 7841 · Rating: 1 · rate: / Reply Quote

Housing and Food Services Send message Joined: 1 Jul 05 Posts: 85 Credit: 155,098,531 RAC: 0	Message 7842 - Posted: 28 Dec 2005, 20:45:57 UTC - in response to Message 7841. I'd go with the faster cpu with 1mb cache. . I'm pretty sure they're faster per mhz anyway compared with the newer 2mb cache chips. ID: 7842 · Rating: 1 · rate: / Reply Quote

Christian Diepold Send message Joined: 23 Sep 05 Posts: 37 Credit: 300,225 RAC: 0	Message 7846 - Posted: 28 Dec 2005, 22:22:11 UTC Same here, I'd go with the faster one. Yes, cache is a nice thing, but with a memory footprint of about 80 MB per Rosetta instance, I doubt that the benefit from the large cache would outweigh the speed. ID: 7846 · Rating: 1 · rate: / Reply Quote

Rustoleum Send message Joined: 19 Dec 05 Posts: 4 Credit: 76,319 RAC: 0	Message 7855 - Posted: 29 Dec 2005, 0:44:36 UTC Thanks for your help! Listen 'till it Hz! ID: 7855 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

FluffyChicken Send message Joined: 1 Nov 05 Posts: 1260 Credit: 369,635 RAC: 0	Message 7879 - Posted: 29 Dec 2005, 11:59:02 UTC Why not look at the comparibaly priced AMD Opteron (maybe dual core version) ? Although, what is the server actually going to be used for (other than Rosetta) ? Team mauisun.org ID: 7879 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Rustoleum Send message Joined: 19 Dec 05 Posts: 4 Credit: 76,319 RAC: 0	Message 7885 - Posted: 29 Dec 2005, 13:43:59 UTC - in response to Message 7879. Why not look at the comparibaly priced AMD Opteron (maybe dual core version) ? Although, what is the server actually going to be used for (other than Rosetta) ? Just a file / document server. The vendor I have to deal with only offers Xeons on their servers :( Listen 'till it Hz! ID: 7885 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Paul D. Buck Send message Joined: 17 Sep 05 Posts: 815 Credit: 1,812,737 RAC: 0	Message 7906 - Posted: 29 Dec 2005, 17:11:03 UTC Nothing wrong with Xeons, I have two Dells (dual, 3.4 GHz, 2M cache) and they work quite well ... though a quad PowerMac will likely beat them ... Of course, I saw that Dell is now selling Dual, Dual Core HT Xeons; though only at 2.8 GHz. A little pricey I thought at about $4600 or so ... In any case, you really don't need that much CPU for file servers. But, the more the better for DC. ID: 7906 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

River~~ Send message Joined: 15 Dec 05 Posts: 761 Credit: 285,578 RAC: 0	Message 7908 - Posted: 29 Dec 2005, 17:15:54 UTC - in response to Message 7906. In any case, you really don't need that much CPU for file servers. but do the auditors know that? But, the more the better for DC. while waiting to serve a file; exactly ;-) ID: 7908 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote