Desktop vs. Server farm.

[lots]

The dual socket version of the Core 2 Duo is the Xeon 51xx series. This should deliver more performance than the current Opterons from AMD. They also have 4MB shared cache IIRC, which is larger than the Opteron's 2MB (1 percore). Granted this comparison does not really give you any useful info on performance between the two. AMD generally is not effected too badly by cache sizes, unlike Intel. Thanks to HyperTransport on the AMD chips.

Many people, when thinking of servers, invision these huge powerful machines. While this is true, a server's primary goal is stability, not speed. Thus most of the parts aimed at the server market reflect this. In every case where there's a choice for speedd vs stability, the stability route is taken.

Another aspect of servers to take into account is noise. Server parts are generally not designed for quiet, as most of the time a server is stuck some place out of the way, kept cool by massive AC units in a fairly sound proof room isolated from the workplace. The fans are small, high RPM, and deep, which generates quite a bit of noise.

As for cooling, servers let off alot of heat, especially a densly packed rack. So an entire AC unit dedicated to the server room is usually needed to keep everything in working order, and at safe levels.

Power is another concern as well. Standard power out of the wall in your house will not be enough for a rack of 20 units. The room needs to be rewired for higher currents to provide enough power to all machines. You should also look into getting UPS units for each rackmount, to protect your investment from surges, and to keep the power clean (making the systems overall more stable).

All that combined, and you can quickly understand taht to set up a real server rack full of about 20 1U servers will cost a bit of money initially (several 10s of thousands at the very least), and then cost even more as time goes on, thanks to power bills (for the AC and computers). Also you need to buy a rack which is generally pricy on its own. If this is not your budget, the answer becomes clear as to what you need to get :)

In the end though, the 20U rack (assuming 20 1U nodes) will be quite a bit more powerful than 5 workstations, especially if you had it full of dual Xeon 5160s (4 cores per node). It will also end up costing a fair amount of money :)

If you had a rack with 5 systems in it, assuming the 5 systems had pretty identical specs to the 5 workstations, then expect about the same performance. Except the server rack will end up costing more (along with the nodes on the system) and therefore you have you answer again :)

The point is server equipment is expensive. If you dont have alot of money set aside for it, its not worth the investment unless you can make it up in projects, etc.

[JazzyAnimator]

Hmm, you pretty much answered my looming thoughts. Desktop is probably the better way to go. Like I said the only reason I though about the rack was sheer space. Figured i'd throw it out there and lets some pros give me some advice. And no, I wasn't going to stuff 20 1U racks in there. lol. If you knew the place I lived in you'd laugh too. (900 sq/ft carriage apt/house.) I just thought a 20U would give me upgrade space of maybe adding like 1 unit a year or something.

In your infinite wisdom, you have any comments on the Socket F 1207 AMD 64's? That 2.8 price was looking pretty nice in comparison to the Operton. Though I know why the opteron is more expensive. My only issue is there are so few F 1207 AMD 64 boards. I've only seen like one or two.

[lots]

To give you a sense of scale of a 20U rack, its about the size of a half hieght fridge. Anyway, I would aim for socket F mainly because the quad core Opterons will be appearing there. You're right about the motherboards though. There really is only one chipset to choose from, though this chipset is made into many different versions and price brackets. Tyan, Supermicro, and IWill all make a couple, along with the lower end from Asus, Gigabyte and MSI.

Tyan Supermicro and IWill all have at least two versions of the board. A smaller cheaper one, and a fully loaded one. Tyan for example, has several (around 4 variations) Each with thier own usefulness and place in the price scale.

About AMD's future CPUs. The word is that they outperform Intel's current line of CPUs, at least in one area. Which hopefully translates to better performance all around. But we'll see. If you are willing to gamble on that, then I would go Socket F. The dual socket Athlon stuff is nice, but its a very niche market part, and I dont see it lasting very long (though they could keep it around, who knows).

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.