Fastest Linux: Xeon 3.2Ghz or Core2Duo 2.13GHz

[Frank_Rizzo]

As the title says. Which is fastest for Linux environment - mostly mysql database stuff.

The C2D is a 6400.

I don't know what type the 3.2Ghz xeon is. I think it is from a dell SC430 from around 6 months ago.

 

[mk17]

The 6400 would probably beat it at stock, never mind the typically enormous o/c headroom.

 

[lay-z-boy]

The Core 2 Duo would be faster than the xeon.

 

[Duff-Man]

The c2d all the way - even with both at stock.

 

[Frank_Rizzo]

Cheers guys. Can I try one more?

How much faster would a

Quad Core Xeon 3210 (Q6400 equivalent)

be against a

Xeon 3060 (E6600 equivalent)

Looking at Sandra's list of CPU benchmarks:

3210: 38,456 MIPS
3060: 21,685 MIPS

which is about a 75% increase but what about in real world usage?

This would be for a LAMP server. I'm getting two new servers but I think I could be better off just getting one X3210 server rather than two 3060's.

 

[Corasik]

Apache loves multiple CPU's to play with, so the Quadcore should be fully utilised on a LAMP server. If I remember correctly MySQL has to be told to thread, I believe its just a setting in the config file. If you dont care about security, and run PHP as a module, then it will run as Apache, If you take the high security route, and use mod_fcgid, then you'll be preforking PHP, which will make use of all your processors any time the server has any real load.

So all in all... Yeah the Quad core should make a worthy difference if your server is heavily loaded. On the other hand, if your only having a few hits/second then the faster Dual Core 'could' be quicker, as it will finish each task faster.

However when you consider a 450mhz Ultrasparc 2i is fast enough to handle over 4 million hits a day on to an 'average complexity' php website, then any Core 2 Duo, even the 1.83 E6300's should be very good.

 

[Frank_Rizzo]

I went with a single 3060 in the end.

This is a damn slick machine. It's around twice as fast as the old 3.4Ghz P4's I was using.