Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Would your run XEON or Opteron for a game server?

Last response: in CPUs
Share

which Would your run for a game hosting server?

Total: 63 votes (1 blank vote)

  • XEON
  • 18 %
  • Opteron
  • 83 %
April 13, 2006 3:46:05 PM

I hope this is the right form! :p 

I am about to drop some serious money to invest into a buddy of mine. Now I have been a loyal Intel guy. However I need some advice on picking a platform for the servers we are about to build. He is screaming that the Opteron can out preform a XEON with multi-tasking for server apps. Here are the question I have.

1.If were going to host multiple game server which would be the better of the two?

2.Which Process/Mobo build out would you recommend. Please keep in mind that money is no object here.
April 13, 2006 4:03:37 PM

Well Blizzard decided to opt for Optys... And i think that i woul go for the Optys, but i have no idea of the performance stats.
April 13, 2006 4:12:29 PM

I'm pretty sure that everyone on tomshardware will say Opterons; GO FOR THE OPTYS! :) 
Related resources
April 13, 2006 4:18:13 PM

money is no object?

i would prolly go opteron just because AMD Seems to out preform Intel everywhere, but im not sure about Xeons VS Opterons

anyways

if money is no object order Four (4) Opteron 280's and Quad Socket 940 Mobo with 8 GB of PC3200 RAM, in 1 GB modules, and get a server case

ta da :) 

man thats a sh!tload of money, but danm 8 Cores
April 13, 2006 4:22:59 PM

Quote:
money is no object?

i would prolly go opteron just because AMD Seems to out preform Intel everywhere, but im not sure about Xeons VS Opterons

anyways

if money is no object order Four (4) Opteron 280's and Quad Socket 940 Mobo with 8 GB of PC3200 RAM, in 1 GB modules, and get a server case

ta da :) 

man thats a sh!tload of money, but danm 8 Cores



How about 16GB of RAM from 8 2GB modules?
April 13, 2006 4:26:04 PM

wouldnt need th tmuch ram if u have 8 cores 1 GB per core its more than enouhg i would think, anyways 2 GB modules are harder to find, its easier to find 4 1 GB modules than 2 2 GB modules
April 13, 2006 4:28:33 PM

Quote:
How about 16GB of RAM from 8 2GB modules?

The quad socket board can use 32GB of RAM!
April 13, 2006 5:10:05 PM

Quote:
money is no object?

i would prolly go opteron just because AMD Seems to out preform Intel everywhere, but im not sure about Xeons VS Opterons

anyways

if money is no object order Four (4) Opteron 280's and Quad Socket 940 Mobo with 8 GB of PC3200 RAM, in 1 GB modules, and get a server case

ta da :) 

man thats a sh!tload of money, but danm 8 Cores



How about 16GB of RAM from 8 2GB modules? Apple has that in one of there desktops, and has four CPU's, not cores.
April 13, 2006 5:35:07 PM

Quote:
Apple has that in one of there desktops, and has four CPU's, not cores.


It's four cores; a mere two dual cores. Just look here
April 13, 2006 5:45:09 PM

Quote:
man thats a sh!tload of money,


$3,476 for the CPU's alone.
April 13, 2006 5:46:59 PM

Yup 2 dual core G5 2.5ghz CPUs (yummy)

It can actually address 4tb of RAM (!!!!!!!)
April 13, 2006 6:03:42 PM

Quote:
money is no object?

i would prolly go opteron just because AMD Seems to out preform Intel everywhere, but im not sure about Xeons VS Opterons

anyways

if money is no object order Four (4) Opteron 280's and Quad Socket 940 Mobo with 8 GB of PC3200 RAM, in 1 GB modules, and get a server case

ta da :) 

man thats a sh!tload of money, but danm 8 Cores



If you want 4 chips in one system you need to get 880s. The 890 just came around so 880s are cheap. You can deck out a quad server for just under 10K.

I just went to monarchcomputer.com and they have a quad 865 with 16 GB RAM and 1 73GB SCSI + 2 146GB SCSI (all at 10K), back plane, 700W 2U case.

Monarch Quad Custom

This rig smokes and not from overheating.
April 13, 2006 6:09:35 PM

Opteron for sure.
April 13, 2006 6:13:01 PM

Short Answers:

Right now: opteron
Later: Up in the air.
Xeon: DEAD
April 13, 2006 6:26:08 PM

Quote:
How about 16GB of RAM from 8 2GB modules?

The quad socket board can use 32GB of RAM!

it'll actually hold 64 if you use PC2100 which is available in 4GB sticks. Twice the RAM make sup somewhat for the slower speed. IWill even has an 8 socket MONSTER that hold 32 RAM chips @ 128GB.
April 13, 2006 10:09:55 PM

I dont really know anything about Xeon but I know opty's are always good!
April 13, 2006 10:24:34 PM

Quote:
I hope this is the right form! :p 

I am about to drop some serious money to invest into a buddy of mine. Now I have been a loyal Intel guy. However I need some advice on picking a platform for the servers we are about to build. He is screaming that the Opteron can out preform a XEON with multi-tasking for server apps. Here are the question I have.

1.If were going to host multiple game server which would be the better of the two?

2.Which Process/Mobo build out would you recommend. Please keep in mind that money is no object here.


You want the best and the cheapest? Get the Opteron 64's. You want lots of RAM? Get the Opteron 64's. I recommend a Dual CPU, Single-Core Solution, the ASUS K8N-DL w/ 2 Opteron 64's 246's or 248's w/ 4 GB of RAM (2 1GB DDR400 per CPU), run NUMA, and you're set.

To Wusy: YAFS!

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 13, 2006 10:41:10 PM

Quote:
*does the queer dance*


*Gawks onward at the little fetcher-man*

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 14, 2006 2:35:34 AM

see the concern I have about moving into the opteron line is their ability to multi task when massive threads are running.

IE: Will it handle 5-8 cs source servers with no problem.

My buddy used Intel Xeons with 2 gigs registered... he was able to put up 7 1.6 servers and 5 source servers with out breaking a sweat. Ofcourse he was using linux.

My plan was to go dual core, with server 2003 x64 ed.

Now I know that Opterons take Intels when it comes to personal use. But what about serving up gaming servers. Unfortunately all the top game servers are using Intel Xeon processors. IE: Griffin run, HD servers, Clanservers, Fun servers.

I just want to be sure that by going Opti, it will give me the upper hand to compete with the above mentioned. I know that Xeon's have been know for their reliablity. But as we know... Athlon had a few problems back in the XP days. First time I went athlon... and sworn to be my last. Then my prefered vendor tricked me into buying a Dual Core 830 that was half ass and lacking when it comes to gaming. My old 2.4c Smoked my current processor when it came to preformance! So that is why it is up in the air over which line to go with.

So based on running 5-7 cs servers opti will be as reliable as XEONs, with half the cost, and twice the performance. This is what everone is saying?
Or are your thoughts based on using Opti for personal use?
April 14, 2006 2:39:20 AM

Quote:
see the concern I have about moving into the opteron line is their ability to multi task when massive threads are running.

IE: Will it handle 5-8 cs source servers with no problem.

My buddy used Intel Xeons with 2 gigs registered... he was able to put up 7 1.6 servers and 5 source servers with out breaking a sweat. Ofcourse he was using linux.

My plan was to go dual core, with server 2003 x64 ed.

Now I know that Opterons take Intels when it comes to personal use. But what about serving up gaming servers. Unfortunately all the top game servers are using Intel Xeon processors. IE: Griffin run, HD servers, Clanservers, Fun servers.

I just want to be sure that by going Opti, it will give me the upper hand to compete with the above mentioned. I know that Xeon's have been know for their reliablity. But as we know... Athlon had a few problems back in the XP days. First time I went athlon... and sworn to be my last. Then my prefered vendor tricked me into buying a Dual Core 830 that was half ass and lacking when it comes to gaming. My old 2.4c Smoked my current processor when it came to preformance! So that is why it is up in the air over which line to go with.

So based on running 5-7 cs servers opti will be as reliable as XEONs, with half the cost, and twice the performance. This is what everone is saying?
Or are your thoughts based on using Opti for personal use?


If you're going 64-bit, the Xeon might perform WORSE than 32-bit Windows. Opteron's smoke Xeon's at everything, and Multi-Tasking is a breeze on the Opteron's, I've used many Opteron 64's and they are much more powerful in x64 especially. Just get the Opteron 64's, don't be brain-washed by the Ignorant.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 14, 2006 2:54:41 AM

yea.. not to mention someone else told me there is a security risk involved with HT processors... Is that true as well?
April 14, 2006 3:02:10 AM

Quote:
yea.. not to mention someone else told me there is a security risk involved with HT processors... Is that true as well?


Yes, there is a security vulnerability, but I think Windows fixed that, but who knows, Windows is Windows.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 14, 2006 5:26:37 AM

get a dual socket 940Mobo with 2 top of th eline dual core S940 Opterons and load it with RAM, should be fine
April 14, 2006 7:03:51 AM

Quote:

Four Opteron 280's on one board! Imagine!


That won't work.

You need to move to the Opteron 800 series if you want to run more than 2 Sockets of Opterons on a single board.

http://www.amd.com

What are you looking to spend ?

How many dedicated servers are you going to run at once ?
Which ones specifically ?
Their memory requirements ?
Their processor power requirements (in MFLOPS and MIPS) ?

Have you visited: http://www.tyan.com ; yet ?
April 14, 2006 7:28:32 AM

Ya that's right.

1xx Opterons only work in 1way Socket 939 boards

2xx Opterons work in 2way Socket 940 boards.

8xx Opterons work in 4way and 8way Socket 940 boards.

Opteron memory bandwidth scales linearly as you add CPUs.

2 CPUs + 4 memory sticks = 2x memory bandwidth

4 CPUs + 8 memory sticks = 4x memory bandwidth

8 CPUs + 16 memory sticks = 8x memory bandwidth

2 Xeons = 1/2 bandwidth

4 Xeons = 1/4 bandwidth

8 Xeons = 1/8 bandwidth ( theoretical )

16 Xeons = 1/16 bandwidth ( theoretical )

32 Xeons = 1/32 bandwidth ( theoretical )

Here is a diagram which illustrates this in an 8way Opteron:



Tyan, IWill and Supermicro make decent Opteron boards.

A Linux x86_64 distribution would be the Ideal Operating system for this type of server.

http://www.linuxhardware.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/24/17...

http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2163

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q1/fx60-vs-955xe/inde...

http://www.linuxhardware.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/10/15...
April 14, 2006 7:39:16 AM

Bear in mind you can run 2 processor cores per socket too:
http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/opteron/

AMD Opteron™ Processor Frequently Asked Questions
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/...

4 cores over 2 sockets with 2x the aggregate memory throughput is fine for most gaming servers, and fits in a small rack, so adding more when money comes in later on works easily. Such a system would likely cost less, and be able to run 6 - 16 dedicated game servers. (Depends on what dedicated game servers we are talking about, and their load on the system, etc)

Look here for ideas: http://www.tyan.com/products/html/barebone_amd.html

The systems will also require Registered DIMMs, ECC is optional but highly recommended. DIMMs with a 128x4 layment are also heavily recommended over ones with 64x8 layout.
April 14, 2006 7:40:15 AM

LOL, what's funny is that those Intel Chips perform WORSE in 64-bit, lol so funny. Suppose I'll get a fanboy saying "Intel revamped the x64 extension architecturable ility of the conundrum blah blah" or some crap they pulled from their college books, but meh, the truth is the truth, and it can't be hidden...only masked.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 15, 2006 5:04:02 AM

Why do people still consider xeon as a server processor at all?. :roll:
April 15, 2006 8:20:02 AM

Quote:
Why do people still consider xeon as a server processor at all?. :roll:

And what makes you think Xeon is not cosidered a server processor?
It's the platform togather with the appropriate processor is what makes server different from workstation.

The image of dependability is really the only marketable assest though sadly.
April 15, 2006 8:31:25 AM

Quote:
Why do people still consider xeon as a server processor at all?. :roll:

And what makes you think Xeon is not cosidered a server processor?
It's the platform togather with the appropriate processor is what makes server different from workstation.

I think what he means is, is that since the Xeon performs so horribly, that it shouldn't be considered against an Opteron 64, which is true, it shouldn't. I enjoyed the convo I had with a friend comparing Opteron 64's to Xeon's, he was almost ready to jump the table at me when I told him Xeon's blew chunky noodle soup, but hey, he loves his Opteron 64's, ;) .

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 15, 2006 8:44:40 AM

Quote:
Why do people still consider xeon as a server processor at all?. :roll:

And what makes you think Xeon is not cosidered a server processor?
It's the platform togather with the appropriate processor is what makes server different from workstation.

I think what he means is, is that since the Xeon performs so horribly, that it shouldn't be considered against an Opteron 64, which is true, it shouldn't. I enjoyed the convo I had with a friend comparing Opteron 64's to Xeon's, he was almost ready to jump the table at me when I told him Xeon's blew chunky noodle soup, but hey, he loves his Opteron 64's, ;) .

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
ROFL! Nice :twisted:

Opteron lacks one thing. None of chipsets made for Opteron has expansion I/O performance to beat the best of Intel's if one is into database/fileserver sort of thing which CPU is put as 2nd priority.
The heat from Netburst Xeon still doesn't justify tho.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that statement, can you elaborate further?

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 15, 2006 8:54:15 AM

Quote:
Intel still makes the best chipset in utilizing PCIe(not so much) and most importantly in PCI-X(where they absolutely pwnz)


Have you seen the TYAN K8WE S2985 AMD Opteron 64 Workstation board? That has semi-integrated PCI-X Tunnel, it directly connects to CPU0. It also has 2 Northbridges, nF4 Pro 2200 and 2050, each have a PCI-E x16 for 32x Total. Not sure how much more performance or utilization you can get than that.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 15, 2006 9:11:59 AM

Quote:
Yeh, that should improve PCI-X for Opteron. I think it's when PCI-X(133Mhz) is absolutely saturated that the Intel chipset shines in utilisation/efficiency with as small overhead as possible.

Oh, I almost forgot. By far the most strongest of all in Intel's chipset is their IDE and SATA performance(not to mention inclusion of Matrix RAID). That's already proven in desktop southbridge with ICHx-R series and even more pronouced in their server class SBs.


http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/matrixstorage_sb.h...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID

Pff, RAID 0+1 & RAID 50 = Intel Matrix (IMHO), so :-P

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 15, 2006 10:44:36 AM

1. Opteron for any Server
2. Depends, never needed one to decide which to buy. I guess it will be 4-way dualcore on Tyan mobo with 2GB/CPU
April 16, 2006 6:24:27 PM

Quote:
Why do people still consider xeon as a server processor at all?. :roll:

And what makes you think Xeon is not cosidered a server processor?
It's the platform togather with the appropriate processor is what makes server different from workstation.

I think what he means is, is that since the Xeon performs so horribly, that it shouldn't be considered against an Opteron 64, which is true, it shouldn't. I enjoyed the convo I had with a friend comparing Opteron 64's to Xeon's, he was almost ready to jump the table at me when I told him Xeon's blew chunky noodle soup, but hey, he loves his Opteron 64's, ;) .

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
ROFL! Nice :twisted:

Opteron lacks one thing. None of chipsets made for Opteron has expansion I/O performance to beat the best of Intel's if one is into database/fileserver sort of thing which CPU is put as 2nd priority.
The heat from Netburst Xeon still doesn't justify tho.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that statement, can you elaborate further?

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

yes please ellaborate more.. cause I will be running raid on the server. Right now the budget is set at $5000. We were orriginally going to invest in dell's power edge systems. Which unfortunately they are only offer Intel processors. The goal is to get 3 initially and then expand in the coming months after operations are all online
April 16, 2006 8:35:48 PM

Several Opteron boards actually have multiple PCI-X bridges plus a PCI-E bridge for more performance.

Like this one:

http://tyan.com/products/html/thunderk8we.html

You get 2x X16 PCI-Express slots AND 2 PCI-X bridges allowing for a lot more bandwidth 2x 4GB/sec simplex or 2x 8GB/sec full duplex + 1x64bit x 133MHz=8.512Gbps=1064MB/sec + 1x64bit x 100MHz = 6.400Gbps = 800MB/sec.

Intel cannot offer this much bandwidth because they lack hypertransport and their northbridge to FSB link @ 800MHz is a bottleneck and they have less memory bandwidth. Granted transfers would be DMA transfers but they too are limited because of the available number PCI-E lanes. Their design also involves more hops to get from the peripheral buses to the CPU or memory ( via PCI-E lanes from the bus bridges back to the north bridge ).

Matrix RAID is partially marketing, I checked the data sheets and could see almost nothing that distinguishes it from regular RAID. Besides in a heavy duty server onboard RAID is a bad idea, while a 3Ware, Areca, Adaptec or LSI hardware RAID controller is a lot more appropriate.
!