Intel Celeron compability with NT and 2000 servers
Posted 30 June 2001 - 03:36 AM
I want to have two servers (one NT 4.0 and one 2000) for testing my C++ applications (NT Services and stuff like that). I don't want to invest in Pentium III so I am considering Celeron processors.
I don't need speed, what I need is compability with an acceptable performance for application test.
Posted 30 June 2001 - 07:18 AM
There's no problems running the Celeron, but all Celeron's run at a 66MHz bus speed except for the 800 which has a 100MHz bus, whereas the the Pentium III, Duron, and Athlon all run at least a 100MHz bus speed.
If you want a cheap system, go with a Duron based system--seriously. The Celeron is being replaced with the Tulitan Pentium III, and the fasterest Celeron runs at 800MHz. The Duron's are cheaper and stomp the Celeron all over the place. A 600MHz Duron performs very close to a Celeron 800.
There are no issues with the Celeron itself, but I would say it's not a good way to spend the cash if you're a cheapskate.
AMD is just as good as Intel, but if you have to go Intel get the Pentium III instead.
Posted 30 June 2001 - 11:11 PM
Just what I see posted. No flames from the AMD crowd please.
Posted 01 July 2001 - 12:57 PM
If you have purchased W2K Advanced Server, why would you wanna use a multi processor OS in a Celeron which has in the best 128KB of L1 cache! Get a P3, even better get XEON, or even better get Itanium.
I am all for the AMD for home PC's of 14-20 Yrs old group to play quake but with my experience AMD chipsets does not cut it as server in the reliability.
And it is always good to watch what IBM, HP, Compaq are doing with their servers.
Has anybody seen an AMD Netfinity server lately with AMD patch installed if i might add!!!
Posted 01 July 2001 - 10:20 PM
+ Large memory (> 2GB) support
+ > 4 CPU support
+ Clustering support
+ Licencing hooks for certain products such as SQL 2000 Enterprise
+ It sounds kewler if you war?z AS
I've also heard that AS runs with decreased performance if you have less than a gig of RAM. Can't verify that.
Anyway, there's very little good reason to run Advanced Server over Server on standard types of hardware.
Posted 01 July 2001 - 11:59 PM
I like both AMD and Intel, but I have to say, I've had far more Intel-based machines than AMD, and I always have this inkling of a greater reliability with Intel.
Again, very good points here.
The best choice for anything mission critcal is whatever is the most reliable.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users