Can anyone give me some perspective on this celeron vs p4 issue?
For equivalent ghz, what's the difference likely to be *from the perspective of webserving*?
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:31:09 -0800, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Can anyone give me some perspective on this celeron vs p4 issue?
For equivalent ghz, what's the difference likely to be *from the perspective of webserving*?
Dunno, but quote from http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8700: "Now, with the P4 Celly, Intel has managed a processor that sometimes can't even touch 70% of the P4's performance. Truly an engineering marvel. All of this doesn't mean the Celly doesn't have its uses, but it does guarantee that enthusiasts will be steered towards the P4 line rather than the Celeron, as most of the tasks the P4 stomps the Celeron at are multimedia/gaming based."
On Jan 9, 2004, at 12:31 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Can anyone give me some perspective on this celeron vs p4 issue?
For equivalent ghz, what's the difference likely to be *from the perspective of webserving*? _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Well, it has more cache and a faster bus speed. These two make a huge difference in the overall speed and responsiveness of a computer (especially as far as integer operations go, which is what web serving is). Percentage wise, it depends on the speed of the CPUs, but I would hazard a guess of around 25%.
-- Nick Reinking -- eschewing obfuscation since 1981 -- Minneapolis, MN
my reccomendation is to use either AMD CPUs or Pentium 4's. I would never use Celerons. they have less cache memory, and I consider cache as very important in a Web Serving setting.
When I will have a little time I may give better justification, but this is my opinion.
However, when there is a shortage of money and great performance is not needed, Celeron (or AMD Athlon) is ok.
--Optim
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
Can anyone give me some perspective on this celeron vs p4 issue?
For equivalent ghz, what's the difference likely to be *from the perspective of webserving*? _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Jimmy Wales wrote:
For equivalent ghz, what's the difference likely to be *from the perspective of webserving*?
Very little. Simple web serving is just reading crap from a disk and putting out through the network. There's not a lot of complex computation involved.
--Ricky
Ricky Beam wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Jimmy Wales wrote:
For equivalent ghz, what's the difference likely to be *from the perspective of webserving*?
Very little. Simple web serving is just reading crap from a disk and putting out through the network. There's not a lot of complex computation involved.
--Ricky
Not necessarily when the server concerned is running the PHP script. Celerons are crippled by design: don't use them.
-- Neil
Not necessarily when the server concerned is running the PHP script. Celerons are crippled by design: don't use them.
-- Neil
I participate in [[GIMPS]], a [[mathematical]] [[research]] project which uses [[software]] to perform some math calculations. Generally speaking we tend to use [[Pentium 4]]'s (because of their SSE2 extensions) or [[AMD Athlon]]s. (damn, I am obsessed with wikification)
SSE2 extensions are not useful in web serving, as far as I can understand.
I would suggest either AMD Athlon MP or AMD Opteron for webserving. if one wants to use Intel, only I would say it's better to use Xeons or high-end Pentium4's (with 800mhz FSB), but not Itanium2's. The Pentium4 EE with three caches is seems yummy too, if it is reliable. Of course my personal preference is AMD (even my laptops are AMD and I haven't purchased any Intel system from PentiumII's days).
It is true however that for very-low-traffic web sites even a Pentium 150MHz will do the web-serving job very well.
It is better *not* to use desktop CPUs and prefer the server editions. The reason is that desktop CPUs are often not reliable. One of the AMD Athlons I bought in last summer was unable to do mathematical research, although the CPU was working without problems for 2 months in a 24x7 server environment and never showed any problems until I tried to use all of its power! My point is, I am not surprised when I head about flacky desktop chips. The same applies to cheap IDE/ATA disks (but not on SerialATA ones). In general, whatever is cheap has a higher probability of being flacky because of inadequate Quality Assurance policies of the manufacturer.
with wishes for peace profound --.'.Optim.'.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
Ricky Beam wrote:
Very little. Simple web serving is just reading crap from a disk and putting out through the network. There's not a lot of complex computation involved.
I agree.
If we are talking about straightforward web serving, CPU is of little importance, AIUI particularly if bus mastering on the NIC is available.
If you are running PERL, then this changes things substantially. Interpreted languages are CPU intensive. I have found the AMD athlon processors twice as powerful with equal Ghz to Pentium III. I have not tried with P4. I have written a test suite to act as a comparison but not yet run it on P4.
As we already know, database apps benefit from lots of memory and I/O speed. CPU not really important.
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org