Re: Quad or Dual Core CPUs??
And even better: The cache coherency protocol (MESI) is ways faster on a
single die instead through the lame FSB between two sockets. In case of four
Dual-Cores, the infamous RFO message gets sent from one socket to the three
others, and the acks will come back, everything through the lame FSB. With
two Quad-Cores you'll reduce this traffic to 1/3, that can make a big
difference! Get the two Quads with the highest FSB rating!!!
-jolt
"Hank Arnold (MVP)" <rasilon@aol.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:uCbpEDAEJHA.5280@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> TP wrote:
>> Hi Hank,
>>
>> It makes more sense (in most cases) to get 2 Quad Cores. Often the price
>> for a quad is the same or close to the price for a dual. One example,
>> you can buy a Dell 2950 III with two 2.0Ghz E5405 1333Mhz FSB Quad Cores
>> for the same price as one with two 1.86Ghz E5205 1066Mhz FSB Dual Cores.
>> The quad has a higher thermal load (80W versus 65W, for a total of 30W
>> more each server), but you are only talking about 2 servers not hundreds.
>>
>> Now, this does *not* mean that you will be able to load twice as many
>> users, but you *will* have much greater CPU capacity if you need it.
>> Each core acts as poor man's CPU throttler for applications that like to
>> consume lots of CPU. This means that you can have nearly eight
>> CPU-misbehaving application instances before a CPU-triggered slowdown is
>> noticed.
>>
>> For example, in certain versions and circumstances Word may max out the
>> processor (for no good reason), and cause a slowdown for other
>> applications that need CPU time. What you will see is that it will
>> typically max out *one* core, leaving the other seven available to be
>> used (or maxed out) by other applications. I'm just using Word as an
>> example here, there are *tons* of other applications that will misbehave
>> as well.
>>
>> The more users/applications/instances you have on a server at one time,
>> the more likely you will have sustained CPU usage spikes. More cores
>> allow you to handle more of these spikes without a noticable slowdown or
>> having to run CPU-throttling software.
>>
>> I would purchase the fastest Quad cores your budget allows, taking into
>> consideration other important hardware features like RAM, 15K RPM HDs,
>> hardware RAID 10, redundant power supplies, 4-hour warranty, etc. Only
>> you know how much RAM, CPU, disk I/O, and network bandwidth is needed for
>> your environment. Of course 64-bit is preferred now if possible.
>>
>> If you can go 64-bit my guess would be you could run all of your users on
>> a single server if desired. This would likely lower your costs both
>> upfront and ongoing, however, buying a server with redundant components
>> and a fast-response warranty become more important, as well as your
>> backup/recovery procedures.
>>
>> -TP
>>
>> Hank Arnold (MVP) wrote:
>>> I will be ordering two new servers for a new/replacement farm. It will
>>> be running Windows 2003, PS 4.5, have50 concurrent licenses (our peak
>>> seems to be around 35 concurrent users). We will run Office 2003
>>> (including Outlook), a database client (Misys HomeCare) and Corel
>>> WordPerfect Office 2000 (mostly legacy files).
>>>
>>> I'd appreciate opinions on whether it makes more sense to get 2 Quad
>>> core CPUs or Dual core CPUs....
> Excellent feedback. Thanks.
>
> 64 bit is not in the cards until at least next year. The database vendor
> (Misys Homecare) will not support 64 bit for the client until at least
> Spring 09. That is the single most critical we run, so 32 bit it is.
>
> I'm definitely leaning toward the quad core since that would also give me
> more flexibility when I have to replace the servers.....
>
> --
>
> Regards,
> Hank Arnold
> Microsoft MVP
> Windows Server - Directory Services