Processor Comparison

Epoch · January 2003

I can get a 1.93 GHz Athlon XP and a 2.4 GHz Pentium 4 for the same price. Either way I have to buy a new motherboard. Is there a reason that I should go with the Athlon even though it is slower than the P4? Which is the better buy?

This is in regards to a server upgrade. Currently I'm running 12 players on a 1.3 GHz Athlon T-Bird. Which one of these processors will allow me to run a 16-player server and a HLTV Proxy?

Also, my server periodically crashes (seg. faults) for seemingly no reason (even though I know there has to be). It's a Linux machine. I am running Meta Mod without Admin Mod. I'm also running Voogru's Anti-Skin-Hack plugin (thanks Voogru). Anyone have any ideas? Is it possible that I am trying to get too much out of my hardware? The machine has 1024 MB SD-RAM as well, so I don't think that is the issue.

Thanks for any comments, opinions, and advice.

cracker_jackmac · January 2003

my advice is flip a coin.

although i am an AMD guy myself. This debate will go on and on and on forever and you'll never get a good answer from anyone.

If anything i might say the p4 because the linux kernel (if recompiled) has more support for it than the AMD XPs.

but thats just my 2 cents and i'm not even going to try and say which is faster because nobody really knows as all the benchmarks i've seen are biased one way or another.

SuicideDog · January 2003

I would agree with Cracker, I like both processors, but if you are going to run linux, go with the Intel one with an intel chipset on the mobo. You will have a lot less headaches and better optimization.

Vadakill · January 2003

What kind of ram will you have to buy for that P4 to get the best performance? DDR or RDRAM? That could be a significant price difference.

r3v0luti0n · January 2003

DDR performance is slowly reaching that of RDRAM, so that's a tossup as well. for price, go with DDR. even for performance, i'd still say DDR, but that's me.

Epoch · January 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Vadakill @ Jan 16 2003, 01:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>What kind of ram will you have to buy for that P4 to get the best performance? DDR or RDRAM? That could be a significant price difference.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
It depends on the board that I purchase. I've seen boards that have 2 DDR slots and 2 SD-RAM slots. If I get one like that, I will put a 512 MB and a 256 stick of SD-RAM into it and leave it like that.

If I buy a board that only has DDR slots, I won't put more than 512 MB into it. Probably more along the lines of 256 MB, because DDR is pretty pricy, or it was, I haven't checked the prices on memory lately.

<u>Edit</u>
I'm not even familiar with RD-RAM at this point, so I guess that answers that question.

MercsDragon · January 2003

dual DDR 333 at cas2 will beat out the top end Rambus in anything except for video processing. The mother boards were pretty pricey for it last time i checked though.

Fenris · January 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epoch @ Jan 16 2003, 07:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
It depends on the board that I purchase. I've seen boards that have 2 DDR slots and 2 SD-RAM slots. If I get one like that, I will put a 512 MB and a 256 stick of SD-RAM into it and leave it like that.

If I buy a board that only has DDR slots, I won't put more than 512 MB into it. Probably more along the lines of 256 MB, because DDR is pretty pricy, or it was, I haven't checked the prices on memory lately.

<u>Edit</u>
I'm not even familiar with RD-RAM at this point, so I guess that answers that question.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
You can't mix DDR and SDRAM on those boards. You'll have to buy new DDR or RDRAM. I bought a pair of Samsung RDRAM 1066 256MB sticks for about $100 each a month ago (RDRAM must be installed in pairs). That's cheaper than high-end DDR and just as fast, but YMMV in pricing. The 2.4 Gig PIV is only about as fast on average as a 2 GHz XP (real GHz, not the + designator), so speed is a toss-up. Intel chipsets tend to be a bit more stable than most ones for the XP, but there are still plenty of good chipsets for the AMD out there - look for hardware reviews of particular motherboards. I haven't benchmarked Linux with the different processors, so I won't claim to have an opinion there. Either way, you should be nearly doubling your processor power and increasing your memory bandwidth, so 16-18 players should be no problem. I'm not sure about the HLTV proxy - I think it uses alot of bandwidth and most people have chosen not to run it on their servers.

A cheaper route (one which I have chosen) was to get a slightly lower speed processor (XP 1700+ overclocked to 1.733 GHz) and a MSI K7T Turbo2 mobo so I can re-use my 1.5 GB of SDRAM.

Arkaine · January 2003

Vadakill's NS
o AMD AthlonXP 1900
o 256MB DDR RAM
o RedHat Linux 7.3
o 12-Player

HLDS runs at around 50% CPU.

pharmacist · January 2003

come on now guys wake up... you know you cant use two different RAM types at one time....

Gelantious · January 2003

Get the P4 and a granite bay mobo because it has dual channel DDR support.

Then get two sticks of Corsair 512MB DDR PC3200 CAS 2
or 256MB but you need two of the same module too use the Dual Channel.

<a href='http://www.asus.com/products/mb/socket478/p4g8x-d/overview.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.asus.com/products/mb/socket478/...-d/overview.htm</a>
The mobo that I would get if I would go for a Dual Channel solution.

Single Channel, then its ABIT's IT7 MAX2 Version 2.

SuicideDog · January 2003

Gelantious.. thats about the setup I use.. but I use a GigaByte mobo.. it's has some really nice features.. and was really easy to overclock.

<a href='http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-Details.asp?sku=G451-1025' target='_blank'>http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/se...p?sku=G451-1025</a>

cracker_jackmac · January 2003

Crackers Equipments

***** pic here*

hahaha, jk

AMD 2000xp+
640 SDram
ECS K7S5A mobo Chipset (single bridge, it was cheap <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='wink.gif'>)

Epoch · January 2003

Thanks for the comments guys. Currently I have an MSI K7T Turbo Lite motherboard that is supposed to support 1.2 GHz Athlon and above. So, I am considering keeping the same motherboard and buying an Athlon XP 2600 (333 FSB) or an Athlon XP 2400.

My only concern is this: Whatever I buy, it must be able to support 16 players. Forget about the HLTV Proxy, I'm not sure I have the bandwidth for that anyway. I see that cracker jackmac is using an XP 2000+ and runs 15 players on his server, but how well does it run 15 players? What's the CPU usage?

Do you think an XP 2600 or an XP 2400 can keep the CPU usage on a 16 player server under 75%?

Once again, thanks for the input guys.

<u>Edit</u>
Oh, I forgot about this:
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (pharmacist @ Jan 16 2003, 03:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>come on now guys wake up... you know you cant use two different RAM types at one time....</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I don't think I made myself clear. Here's what I said:
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epoch @ Jan 16 2003, 01:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It depends on the board that I purchase. I've seen boards that have 2 DDR slots and 2 SD-RAM slots. If I get one like that, I will put a 512 MB and a 256 stick of SD-RAM into it and leave it like that.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
What I meant was, put 512 MB of SD-RAM <b>and</b> 256 MB of SD-RAM in it, not 512 MB of DDR and 256 MB of SD-RAM.

Max1 · January 2003

Personally I use pentium over athlon for servers. and with hyper threading starting, thats just another reason to use them. For gaming machines or just general use machines I use athlon.

Fenris · January 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epoch @ Jan 17 2003, 04:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Thanks for the comments guys. Currently I have an MSI K7T Turbo Lite motherboard that is supposed to support 1.2 GHz Athlon and above. So, I am considering keeping the same motherboard and buying an Athlon XP 2600 (333 FSB) or an Athlon XP 2400.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I don't think a K7T can support that fast of a processor. I have a K7T Turbo2 and the max it can support is an XP 2000+. Remember, those specs were written before XPs greater than 2000 were announced. At the time, it could support all XPs, but not anymore. I found mine has a maximum multiplier of 13x. If you up the FSB to 166, you could run at up to 2500+ speeds, but it might be difficult to find SDRAM that runs that fast, and buying new memory would negate the purpose of keeping that mobo, and the chipset may not like being run that fast. If you really want that speed, I recommend going with a new mobo and new memory. I play on CrackerJackMack's server - it has great pings. There are occasional lag spikes, but that happens on every server. He runs about 14-15 people at all times. I'm sure an XP 2000+ can handle 16 players.

verbose · January 2003

Hyperthreading isn't that cool. It's been around for about 9 months in the P4 Xeons, and nobody I talk to cares. For the guys who need parallelism, they either have custom apps on top of a cluster, or an n-way box (where n is greater than 2; we're not talking about hobbyists). Hyperthreading in itself is a good way to get better utilization of a given CPU, but it's not some magic technique that makes your system twice as fast. The ideal applications seem to be in the areas where the P4 already excels: multimedia junk. If that's your bag, you're probably already buying intel. Good news for you, since you'll soon be getting more bang for your buck, and with Intel's premium prices, you'll need it.

The P4 is crippled in some areas. Crypto is one, as the P4 can't do a shift or a rotate in less than 4 clock cycles. If you're building that RC5 cruncher, buy an AMD so you have a decent bit-barrel.

For the average workstation, mild server, or gaming box, CPU brand doesn't have much impact on your performance. AMD currently offers more bang for your buck, so if you're penny-pinching, this is a no-brainer. If you have more pennies than you can count, buy a decent SCSI controller with lots of cache (most take regular joe memory of type X, so you can buy a no-cache or low-cache and drop in a big stick of Corsair to save bones), and a nice disk or two; you''ll notice that.

I run the tech side of an ISP. Lots of AMD, some intel. FreeBSD, Linux, Win2k. No problems under any platform with either chip brand. Got some old boxen of both types, still chugging. Never had a chip burn up or fail. Reliability from my experience is therefore even across the brands. Don't get me started on power supplies though...we stock spares, if you get my drift.

For what I do, the Pentium has nothing to offer me over an AMD, so I let my pocketbook do the speaking.

verbose · January 2003

Since it may not have been clear from my post, I should add that TLP (thread-level parallelism) is a good thing, and I'm all for it. I just see no reason to bin your money on the hottest P4 unless you're a media cruncher. If you are, your shop is probably already throwing money at every new chip that comes out, so you're just getting a good amount more bang for your dollar this time 'round.

cracker_jackmac · January 2003

My pings NEVER climb over 150ms (unless you connect with 150ms to start).

cpu on hera (with map optimizations) is 80% steady.

btw, i run 14 players...the 15th slot is a kicking reserve.

anything < xp2000 will easily support 16 players (because you said you wana run AMD instead of intel). my only advice is TUNE YOUR SYSTEM! new kernel, new modules, dual nics (one for LAN one for HLDS, and yes i know it doesn't take much but it really helped my setup), and tuning your server.cfg.

I run a heavy OH system.

Metamod:
LogD
AM
KillingSpree AM/LogD plugin
KnifeKill AM/LogD plugin

Apache running static webpages:
Main page.
psychostats 1.9 @ 7:15am.

So in essence, running a very LIGHT system you can support 16 players easy on an XP2000 provided you tune a few maps (or just wait for 1.04)

Epoch · January 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Fenris @ Jan 17 2003, 01:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I don't think a K7T can support that fast of a processor. I have a K7T Turbo2 and the max it can support is an XP 2000+. Remember, those specs were written before XPs greater than 2000 were announced. At the time, it could support all XPs, but not anymore. recommend going with a new mobo and new memory.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
That's what I was afraid of. I don't have a problem buying a new motherboard with my CPU; I just don't want to spend more than $300 on them. My only concern was I found a P4 + motherboard combo for the same price as an XP 2400 + motherboard combo, and the P4 ran at 2.4 GHz and the Athlon ran at 1.93 GHz. Both combos were about $225, so that still leaves money for me to buy some DDR memory with.

To me, that seems like quite a speed difference, and if both CPUs can handle a 16 player server, I'd be concerned that the P4 can handle a 16 player server better. Since CPU usage seems to be what "lags" players, I'd take the CPU that could run 16 at 50% over the one that could run 16 at 75%.

I'm not concerned with hyper-threading and whatnot, and I don't plan to recompile my kernel, so that doesn't influence my choice.

Also, I am under the impression that the actual clock speed is lower than the advertised clock speed. For example, my current CPU advertised as 1.3 GHz. Is it true that it probably runs around 1 GHz?

So I guess the question now is, will that 5 GHz speed difference really affect the server's performance?

Epoch · January 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>cpu on hera (with map optimizations) is 80% steady.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
How do you optimize your maps?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>anything < xp2000 will easily support 16 players (because you said you wana run AMD instead of intel). my only advice is TUNE YOUR SYSTEM! new kernel, new modules, dual nics (one for LAN one for HLDS, and yes i know it doesn't take much but it really helped my setup), and tuning your server.cfg.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I have dual NICs for that purpose as well. I haven't recompiled my kernel though. Any reccommended settings there?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I run a heavy OH system.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
What does that mean?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So in essence, running a very LIGHT system you can support 16 players easy on an XP2000 provided you tune a few maps (or just wait for 1.04)</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Gotcha. Thanks!

verbose · January 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cracker jackmac @ Jan 17 2003, 03:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>dual nics (one for LAN one for HLDS, and yes i know it doesn't take much but it really helped my setup)</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Dear me, what prompted that? I beat NICs up every day with data, and the only I reason I add a second one is for a secondary physical network (isolated management). Crappy NIC? My primary NICs are Intel's, which have excellent drivers under all platforms. For my secondary networks, I (*gasp*) use Linksys cards. I get 'em real cheap, and they work well because they're DEC/Intel based or clones <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='smile.gif'> Netgear 310's are similiar; 311's and up are Natl. Semiconductor, with mixed results.

Epoch · January 2003

I have two NICs because one connects to my internal network and the other connects to the modem. My Linux machine/server also functions as a router, using IPTABLES to forward packets between the two NICs.

verbose · January 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epoch @ Jan 17 2003, 03:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>My only concern was I found a P4 + motherboard combo for the same price as an XP 2400 + motherboard combo, and the P4 ran at 2.4 GHz and the Athlon ran at 1.93 GHz. Both combos were about $225, so that still leaves money for me to buy some DDR memory with.

To me, that seems like quite a speed difference</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
If you're comparing AMDs to P4's, use AMDs NNNN+ numbers. They approximate the comparable Intel very well. That XP 2400+ will perform at about the same level as a P4 2.4GHz. MHz is not the whole story, as Cyrix showed clear back in the 486 days. We could talk NexGen as well, but then I'd get nostalgic <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='smile.gif'>

Epoch · January 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (verbose @ Jan 17 2003, 03:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If you're comparing AMDs to P4's, use AMDs NNNN+ numbers. They approximate the comparable Intel very well. That XP 2400+ will perform at about the same level as a P4 2.4GHz.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Excellent! That's just what I needed to know. Now I'll go with whatever is cheaper. Thanks!

verbose · January 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epoch @ Jan 17 2003, 03:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I have two NICs because one connects to my internal network and the other connects to the modem. My Linux machine/server also functions as a router, using IPTABLES to forward packets between the two NICs.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Nothing wrong with that. Cracker didn't mention any routing or NAT though, so I was curious why he recommended dual NICs.

verbose · January 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epoch @ Jan 17 2003, 03:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (verbose @ Jan 17 2003, 03:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If you're comparing AMDs to P4's, use AMDs NNNN+ numbers. They approximate the comparable Intel very well. That XP 2400+ will perform at about the same level as a P4 2.4GHz.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Excellent! That's just what I needed to know. Now I'll go with whatever is cheaper. Thanks!</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Holy benchmarks, Batman!

<a href='http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1746&p=14' target='_blank'>http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1746&p=14</a>

cracker_jackmac · January 2003

I have a linksys that is on my cablemodem.....with 3 users on the builtin switch. that uplinks to the server (HLDS, webserver, internet gateway).
thats my 192.168.1.0 net.

from the server to an 8port Fullduplex switch and from there to a free cisco switch (its old school, 24x10mb with 2x100mb uplinks + 1 Generic) is my 192.168.2.0 net. which also accesses my samba stuff (highly tuned). so during lan parties i get maximiun throughput on my nic while keeping that traffic off my my 192.168.1.0 network.

the lan parites are hosted on the 192.168.2.0 net exclusivly with the server acting as a hop between it and my linksys. eventually i am going to enable and configure QoS on my system (and clients) and give HLDS packets maximium priority as so Kazaa (that is getting sued), porn, and other things don't lag up my internet connection. I only ASSUMED that Epoch is running a cable/dsl server so thats why i suggested the Dual NICS. so he could filter and Optimize traffic.

verbose · January 2003

Ah. I made the incorrect assumption that you had 2 NICs on the same net, which didn't make a lot of sense, unless your server served up massive amounts of data <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' valign='absmiddle' alt='smile.gif'>

Epoch · January 2003

Heh, I figured he had a setup similar to mine. Yes, my server is on a cable connection.

lyndak · January 2003

ATHLON!!! ATHLON!!! *chants!*
muahahaha!!
*phsyically rolls on the floor lauging!*

MUAAHAHA ATHLON PWNS J00!!!!!!!!

/me wakes up from his histerea...

ehh? where am i? who are you?! and why's the toaster laughing at me?!

server mobo w/ AXP 2100+
<a href='http://usa.asus.com/mb/socketa/a7v333/overview.htm' target='_blank'>http://usa.asus.com/mb/socketa/a7v333/overview.htm</a>

MY mobo w/ 2 x AMP 2100+
<a href='http://usa.asus.com/mb/socketa/a7m266-d/overview.htm' target='_blank'>http://usa.asus.com/mb/socketa/a7m266-d/overview.htm</a>

<img src='http://lyndak.servebeer.com/misc/dualprocessors.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
<img src='http://lyndak.servebeer.com/misc/procaffinity.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image'>

Processor Comparison

Comments