The server CPU, (eg AMD's Opteron and Intel's Xeon), come with 8, 12,
16, 32, etc cores per CPU, which are useful with multithreaded
applications design to serve multiple local and internet users accessing
the application concurrently. Also, the design of the motherboards,
using server CPUs, often come with sockets to handle multiple CPUs.
This allow the server computer to push much more bandwidth out than the
typical desktop computer, given the same scenario.
Regards,
LelandJ
#-------------------------------
Excerpt
The server CPU
<http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/350660-28-server-desktop-gaming-performance#>
and desktop CPU are designed with two different targets in mind. Server
CPU's are meant to handle many tasks simultaneously and efficiently so
that multiple users can operate from it with adequate performance.
Desktop CPU's are meant to handle a couple of simultaneous tasks quickly
so that one user can operate with good performance.
Without getting into CPU architecture
<http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/350660-28-server-desktop-gaming-performance#>,
for a person using a desktop for normal desktop operations (word
processing, internet browsing, media playback, gaming, etc) a desktop
CPU is what you want; however, if you run virtual sessions, have
multiple users accessing your computer running terminal services or if
you have large databases stored on your computer which are being
accessed routinely then you most certainly want a server CPU.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/350660-28-server-desktop-gaming-performance
#-----------------------------------
#---------------------------------------
Excerpt
The differences between desktop and server CPUs:
1. Lifespan and duty cycle. Server CPUs are rated to run for longer
periods of time at 100% sustained loads, whereas desktop parts are rated
for less (although they will often run darn near forever.) I know AMD
rates their Opterons for 5 years at 100% load 24/7 versus three years
for the desktop chips.
2. Price. A server chip that is essentially identical to a desktop chip
will cost somewhat more.
3. The ability to handle server-type platform features like
error-correcting memory (although all of AMD's desktop CPUs with the
possible exception of the Semprons have ECC support as well) and
registered memory.
4. Some server chips can be run in multiple-CPU setups, whereas all
desktop CPUs have been strictly single-CPU-only setups for quite a few
years. They have this ability either through additional I/O links that
desktop CPUs lack or have disabled.
5. Server CPUs frequently use different sockets than desktop CPUs.
Server CPUs running in two-CPU setups sometimes use different sockets
than desktop and server CPUs for four-CPU and higher servers always use
different sockets than desktop.
6. Server CPUs frequently have more cores than desktop CPUs, since
server workloads are much more multithreaded than most desktop
workloads. AMD sells 8 and 12-core server CPUs and Intel sells 8-core
server CPUs, while none of them sell more than 6-core CPUs for desktops.
Server motherboards are considerably different from desktop
motherboards. Server motherboards are built for reliability and
stability, not for flashiness. They use generic green PCBs with simple,
unadorned heatsinks
<http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/298442-28-desktop-server#> and have
absolutely no overclocking options whatsoever. They almost all have a
rudimentary onboard graphics chip that hangs off the PCI or PCIe bus
rather than sitting in the northbridge. They also have serial ports,
PS/2 ports, generally have at least two gigabit Ethernet ports, rarely
have onboard sound, and frequently have only a couple of USB ports. They
also frequently have many more RAM slots than desktop boards, multiple
CPU sockets, SAS controllers, and are often larger than desktop boards.
Oh, and they also cost quite a bit more than a desktop board that is
otherwise similar.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/298442-28-desktop-server
#-----------------------------------------
Regards,
Lelandj
On 06/18/2013 02:12 PM, Kurt Wendt wrote:
I agree w/Ted! For me - powerful CPU is SUPER Useful - since I do 3D
graphics and now slicing of 3D files for rapid prototyping. But, for server
stuff - I always figured through put of data - like Fast HD's, and internet
connection is better bang for Buck. I never personally did RAID Arrays -
but, that's supposed be another big deal for Data Servers - which Ted didn't
touch on. And, I am in NO WAY an expert on HW (although - I personally built
my last 3 or 4 Workstations) - nor an expert on RAID (never implemented it
myself). I have just heard that if you do RAID (at least the one kind) - the
data can literally be pulled off TWO Drives at the SAME time - which should
give a Significant boost to data serving applications!
And - yeah - always throw as much RAM at the system that you can...
Happy Computing!
-K-
-----Original Message-----
From: ProfoxTech [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ted
Roche
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 3:02 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [NF] Intel i5 vs. Xeon CPU for a data server
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Mike Copeland <[email protected]> wrote:
Any opinions, facts as to whether a Xeon CPU would SIGNIFICANTLY,
NOTICEABLY outperform an Intel Core i5 on a box that is a CentOS running
MariaDB dedicated data server? I'm sure the Xeon would run cooler, fewer
cycles, etc.
Requisite consultant answer: It depends.
There are pretty much three potential bottlenecks on a database server:
bandwidth going in and out of the box (if you're moving big batches of
data, or have slow internet speeds), speed of moving data on and off the
disks -- are you using a fast disk array? -- and processing power to turn
the packets into SQL into data requests into disk I/O. Something is always
the bottleneck, and if it keeps up with customer demand, there's no need to
worry about it.
I've been using a Core i5 in this configuration for a year or so and while
watching the % of "busy" on the server, it rarely exceeds 5% on any core,
any parameter.
So, you do have data! This doesn't sound like a computing-intensive
application, then. If the CPU isn't even breaking sweat under this
(similar, right?) load, there's no need to bring in more horsepower.
imnsho, of course.
Do you have memory usage data? IME, throwing more RAM at big data servers
is usually the least expensive, highest return investment. Remember,
retrieving data from RAM is THOUSANDS of times faster than reading it off
fast disk arrays.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message:
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
