> Maybe so, but they also accomplish the same performance at lower clock >speeds. > >-Simon
This has nothing to do with a server application. For a server, you want it to run as cool as possible, and in todays 1u applications, case space comes at a premium. Less fans means more room for HD's, Gig-E cards and the like. Let us also not forget what one of the main enemies of solid state electronics is. HEAT. Heat speeds up the degradation process and is the primary factor in electronics failures. Don't believe me? Take the Fan off of your AMD and see what happens. Yeah, that smoke is a direct result of things getting to hot. How do you think the capacitors and diodes on the motherboard react to the elevated ambient temperatures over a long period of time? I know I still have PIII-500's humming away in a datacenter that are almost 5 years old now, and they're running fine. AMD didn't even launch the Duron/T-bird series until (late?)2000, and the first year or so was spent mostly exchanging processors for ones that didn't have crushed cores. Intel has proven the test of time. Not saying today's AMD's won't or can't, but they just haven't been around long enough yet. So yes, while they "accomplish the same feats at the same clock speed", they do it at the cost of added thermal energy. As someone who's helped to run a very large datacenter, I can tell you that the difference in temperature between an Intel and an AMD might not seem like a lot, until you've got 800 of those machines. Also, Xeons aren't really that expensive anymore. Go check Pricewatch and do some comparisons. Intel is really pushing Itanium as its die-hard server solution, and Xeons are at a mid-point performance wise, with the price reflecting that. I can build a Dual Xeon 3.06 Ghz (Hyperthreaded, of course) server for cheaper than I can buy a Single AMD Opteron 248. (Dual Xeons + mobo cost between 900-1100 dollars depending on mobo, Single Opteron + Mobo costs between 1200-1400 dollars depending on the motherboard) Yeah, go look for yourself, Xeons are cheaper. AMD might have something with Opteron, but right now, it's really too early to tell. Most Linux distros don't take advantage of it, and 99% of your standard binaries and utilities aren't compiled with support for it either. So running an Opteron is more for coolness factor than anything else. You can talk about "What's coming out next week/month/year" all you want, but the fact is, its not here yet. There might be some marginal gains to be had with running an Opteron, but nothing awesome. This could change with time, but only time will tell. =) AMD has some good ideas, and some cool applications, but for right now, in my opinion, the only way to go for server applications like what we're doing with HLDS is Intel. Hyperthreading is VERY cool on a Linux based HL server. Like when I can watch top, and I can see my gameservers bouncing between 4 cpu's and other tasks being offloaded on the fly, not having to wait, or fight for CPU time, this makes me and my players happy. I firmly expect to see the AMD fanboys riled up and give me 23432432 different reasons as to why AMD is better because they read on xxx review site that it just is, but I've run both platforms, and seen the difference for myself. Given the choice between processor x, which is less expensive, has proven track record spanning years of reliability and is fully supported by an OS I put on it, or Processor Y that is slightly more expensive, about as fast as the other processor, runs hotter, and doesn't have ANY extensive datacenter testing yet, I know which one I'd go with. My .02. Chris _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
