On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:55 PM, James <[email protected]> wrote: > Grant <emailgrant <at> gmail.com> writes: > > >> I've only ever used systems with a single CPU. I'm looking for a new host >> for > a dedicated server (suggestions?) and it looks like I'll probably choose a > machine with two or four CPUs. > > NUMA is specialization, imho: > http://pubs.vmware.com/vsphere-4-esx-vcenter/index.jsp?topic=/com.vmware.vsphere.resourcemanagement.doc_41/using_numa_systems_with_esx_esxi/c_what_is_numa.html > > The more cores the better. 6 and 8 are readily available. > The 6 core AMD near 4 GHz is the sweet spot, imho. > Here is a 4 core on sale at Newegg: AMD FX-4170 Zambezi 4.2GHz
That depends greatly on the applications he's running. If the application(s) is(are) memory bound or I/O bound, more cores doesn't necessarily mean better performance. > If you run a feature rich desktop (kde, gnome, etc) then the more cores the > better. Compiling code is much faster and you can still have a snappy > desk top. Most gentoo folks compile quite a bit of code, depending on your > updates and how often you experiment with new features or software. > > I'm setting up some new FX-8350 machines, but fully flushed out, there > around a 1K (USD). Surely you can replace a mobo with a quad and as much ram > as > will fit, and get a fine machine. CPU speed, for me, is the dominate feature, > when you are only doing a few things for a snappy workstation. Lots of cores > and > low CPU speed and low ram, sucks, imho. Max amount and max speed of the RAM > is the killer performance edge for most workstations, imho. MHO and experience is that you need a balanced system, IOW: if you have a whole bunch of cores and GHz but crappy drive ... say bye to performance, you'll be getting iowaits and your cores will be idle :( > It boils down to a personal decision. The world of software > is migrating to multi-threading, so the more cores, the > more future-proof, imho. MHO: it boils down to the software he's running ;) Rafa
