[l4ulwtlln]

which of these two would be more suitable to host a dedicated counter-strike type server? (and for arguments sakes, lets say about 4 servers at 20 slots each)

[slmclarengt]

Originally Posted by l4ulwtlln which of these two would be more suitable to host a dedicated counter-strike type server? (and for arguments sakes, lets say about 4 servers at 20 slots each)

Why are you wasting time asking this question? Dual Xeons were developed for servers sake so obviously dual xeons, they are meant to handle multiple high capacity processes at once.

AND IF and ONLY IF you have a choice, go Barcelona...

Slmclarengt

[l4ulwtlln]

well i wasn't sure how the dual xeon would compare with the core 2 quad since it was newer and highly rated for multi tasking

[slmclarengt]

Originally Posted by l4ulwtlln well i wasn't sure how the dual xeon would compare with the core 2 quad since it was newer and highly rated for multi tasking

1) As well as Core 2 Quad performs for multi-tasking, that is mainly for consumer type applications not hardcore gaming processes.
2) Xeons are purposely meant to work extremely hard all the time under heavy loads while still functioning; few CPUs consumer-grade can keep up with that.
3) Like I said before, if you have the money/haven't bought anything yet, go with AMD Barcelona as it outperforms Xeons quite well especially when considering memory bandwidth and games are quite memory bandwidth intensive.

Slmclarengt

[l4ulwtlln]

ty for this information


"Barcelona" is "Opteron", correct?

[slmclarengt]

Originally Posted by l4ulwtlln ty for this information "Barcelona" is "Opteron", correct?

Correct.

Slmclarengt

[l4ulwtlln]

so then would a "Dual Opteron (2 x 246)" be strong enough to run 4~6 servers with 20 slots running a big plugin like gungame (and lets say they are all full at the same time) or would a "Dual Xeon (2 x 2.80)" be better?

[slmclarengt]

Originally Posted by l4ulwtlln so then would a "Dual Opteron (2 x 246)" be strong enough to run 4~6 servers with 20 slots running a big plugin like gungame (and lets say they are all full at the same time) or would a "Dual Xeon (2 x 2.80)" be better?

Well from the research I Just found, anandtech, webhosting forums and game server hosts all agree and show that Dual Opteron 246 burns Dual Xeons 2.8Ghz in 32 bit by a fair amount and in 64 bit, Opterons outperformed Intels so bad, the comparison is just not fair. The Xeons actually processed WORSE in 64 bit than they did in 32 bit, sad. Also, Opterons run cooler in the case so I think it's a no-brainer, AMD for the win!

Slmclarengt

P.S. If you care to look at the search results I found: LINK

[BAILOPAN]

slmclarengt I find some of what you're saying to be misleading, or anecdotal at best.

As far as x86 goes, consumer grade CPUs are really almost the same as you'd find in servers. My server and my desktop both use the same Core 2 Duo CPU. There isn't a huge amount of difference in the Xeons (unless you compare them with, say, the mobile or Celeron line).

The "quad-core is for multi-tasking" argument doesn't make sense. A game server is a multi-tasking program, it has multiple threads and, although one is primary, you will be running around five to six on one box. You're thinking of client side games, where you are running one at a time and thus you want all power devoted to that game. The opposite is true on a server, where the more symmetric processing power you have, the better.

My recommendation is to go with whatever has more multitasking potential. If you go with anything Intel, make sure it's on the Core 2 line, and not the older P4s (like Netburst).

You don't need a very powerful server to run Counter-Strike 1.6. We have boxes two years old still running 5 instances of CS 1.6 without a problem. Each instance only uses around 20-30% of each CPU. The game is over eight years old, after all.

[hlstriker]

BAILOPAN, about how much memory usage are those 5 instances using? On CS 1.6 I noticed that I run out of memory a lot faster than CPU usage.