AMD vs Intel: Which has better SRCDS preformance?

[cryotek]

You won't see any improvment with the AM2, probably not until the K8L comes out, unless AMD releases a different type of core.

Offtopic: baked cheetos SUCKS!

[ak_47_boy]

I choose Intel because of the stablity. If you run folding@home or rosetta you would know. Intels are currently far ahead in preformance and cost, it is likely to stay like that well into 2008. The core2duo is expected to scale like crazy, expecialy when intels turns 45nm in 07. We already see 100% overclocks on the core 2 duos.

cryotek Wrote:Offtopic: baked cheetos SUCKS!

Anything baked sucks

[[Toast]]

Core2duo is ahead right now, but the differences aren't huge. Remember, AMD didn't get slower, Intel only got faster. Even though Intel is faster, I'm loving my Opteron 1212 (Dual core, 2Ghz) overclocked to 2.9Ghz stock volts.

[xtjoeytx]

Intel is beating AMD -- the same way Nvidia is beating ATI ( which has merged with AMD )

Meh.. I think it's time to upgrade my 3500+ amd athlon.. damnit =(

Anyone have recommendations =o? ( without buying a whole new motherboard.. =/ )

[Drocona]

Well if you want to upgrade to Intel you'll need a new mobo, just listen to the sockets

[xtjoeytx]

Drocona Wrote:Well if you want to upgrade to Intel you'll need a new mobo, just listen to the sockets

I've been happy with AMD, I'll probally see if I can handle a dual core processor stuff =o

[fragem]

Hi!

I am kinda new here. I just started a gameserver company, and I bought my own Opteron 146 Dual Core (@2GHz). It's got 1GB of 400MHz DDR RAM, runs CentOS.
Some numbers I collected for my own stats:

(TV=SourceTV-bot activated)
Players: CPU(%): MEM(%): LOAD:
3 7 7.3 0.03
7 33 7.6 0.14
9 18 21 0.35
12 (TV) 31 20.3 0.38
13 (TV) 33 19.3 0.40
16 (TV) 40 21.1 0.55

I am not 100% sure about the values and it needs some more testing.
Several other things to improve performance can also be taken, but I am still in test-mode.
Test-ip: 85.92.145.45 (100mbit connection)

I hope this was a good first post

[power-frag]

Im running my servers off 1.8 core2duos with 2gig of ram. your looking at 125-200 slots running off that with a reset once a day at 4am. They havnt let me down yet! I Built each one for about £400-450 - so that about $800-$900.

Thats running Centos 4.4 on it with a custom 1000hz kernel.

[bluestreak101]

Ok, I dont know if this post is still sticking to its title but i wanted to add my opionion.

If your looking for a server that will be able to run an application at speed, i would suggest looking into a multi-cpu platform with as many 15K rpm hard disks you can afford in a stripped RAID config (forgotten the number!).

With regards to AMD vs Intel, to be honest you probably wont see much of a difference these days on the server hardware aspects.

Looking at it from a desktop point of view AMD CPUs to me appear to perform very well in all aspects where as the Intel CPUs are more focused with regards to applications that you are using at the time.

32GB of RAM I would say is over kill in a games server. 16GB would be enough, as long as you have the same amount of RAM per CPU! Look for a CPU with lots of cache memory.

Hard disks, now dont bother with SATA in server hardware yet. I have not yet seen a 15K SATA hard disk most i have seen is 10K (WD Raptors, which are limited to the SATA-150 interface). Some 36.7GiB 15K would be ideal.

[ouchi]

I googled "AMD vs INTEL on srcds" and found this topic thread. After reading very silly statements about NVIDIA vs. ATI and supposed assumptions of what they are for, I was frankly shocked. Just comes to show how some people know so little, and talk so big. Later I wasted my time over reading the whole thread and it's bafoonlike flames. Only to find one relevant comment on the actual TOPIC here. Is there anyone out there, who has actually tested a single or even multiple srcds instances on Intel and AMD machines, boosted to 500fps and 100tick source servers??

[Ice Nine]

All I can speak to is my experiences....

I have a quad core Q6600 with 8GB of RAM on a D975 board. I'm using a 20/20 FIOS symmetrical line for bandwidth.

With 107 players playing across 5 servers, CPU utilization under Ubuntu64 was roughly 8% total and even LOWER (2-4%) under windows Server 2003 x64 Enterprise. 1.6GB of total RAM was in use at the time. I'm running 66 tick on my TF2 servers (and not setting the fps rate). I had run it at 100 tick previously, but believe it or not it didn't move cpu utilization at all, nor did anyone notice any differences in game. Looks like TF2 doesn't benefit much from a high tickrate.

That's all I know at the moment, I'm not a CSS player.

[Muppet]

Ice Nine Wrote:Looks like TF2 doesn't benefit much from a high tickrate.

Correct.. because it doesn't support 100 tick

Plus to keep on topic (even on an old thread), right now, Intel is definately the chip to use - until we see what crap AMD comes out with next

[Ice Nine]

For what it's worth - a pic of bandwidth usage, memory usage and cpu usage for our servers at Railbait.com:

C2Q 6600 (no OCing or anything), Server 2003 X64 Enterprise (courtesy of work), and 8GB of ram, with 4 "full" servers running TF2 on a verizon FIOS 20mbit symmetrical pipe. Note, an idle DOD and COD4 server was also running in the background:

[andersonmat]

Drocona Wrote:

hexitnow Wrote:Literally pull the heatsink off basically any processor and it will melt itself to the MOBO, smoke and all. Pull the heatsink off a pentium and it lags hardcore but it will NOT melt itself to the mobo and continue to function.

yeh lol i saw that little movie clip on toms hardware guide

awesome

Yup, that's absolutely insane!

[SpikeDude]

I saw the video, it was ok. I see a lot insulting etc on this topic, what a shame, It sounded like people said AMD was the way to go with the server, I personally think Intel would be better since its not going to be processing video.