On Thu, 4 May 2000, Mitch Vincent wrote:
> > > Ok, the production server is a Celeron 433, 512 MEgs of PC100 ECC RAM, 2
> 18
> > > Gig Ultra 160 SCSI drives (only running at 80 megs since we dono't have
> a
> > > 64-bit PCI slot).
> > >
> > > There is a big upgrade planned for this box when the motherboard we're
> > > waiting for comes out..
> > >
> > > The development server is a PII450, 128 Megs of RAM and Ultra 2 SCSI
> > > drives.. However it's running several other things other than the
> database
> > > and webserver so it has a small load.
> >
> > Wait, correct me if I'm wrong, but the more powerful CPU is in your
> > development server?
> >
> > My understanding is that a Celeron is a chop'd up PII ... my first
> > recommendation here is that if you are running a *server*, get rid of that
> > Celeron ... from what I've been told about the difference, Celeron is a
> > great, cheap chip for using in a desktop environment (its what I use at
> > home), but shy away from it in a server environment, as the speed
> > reduction of the reduced cache alone will hurt things ...
>
> Ooooooooooh you're preaching to the choir. I know, I'm argueing with someone
> about this as we speak.
>
> A Celeron is basically a PII with 128k of full-speed cache. NOT a
> server processor, I know but sadly I can't do much about it at this
> point.. It's my understanding that "we" want to wait for an AMD board
> that has a 64-bit PCI slot because "we" don't like the i840 chipset
> for some reason "we" can't understand.
Can someone out there that understands CPUs help me out here? My
understanding is that Intel vs AMD has benefits depending on
use. Unfortunately, I don't recall how it goes ... as a server, Intel is
faster, and for graphics processing, AMD is ... or something like that?
