Reply to: Dumb and Dumber 3

[suityou01]

Not when the world is full of people who don't investigate their purchases prior to purchasing...

You saw the thread title, right?

Ok, you can be dumber if you reaaaaally want to

[eek]

It's a wonder AMD are even in business then.

Not when the world is full of people who don't investigate their purchases prior to purchasing...

[suityou01]

not sure what you mean by that but the Intel is about £80 more expensive -£20 for the GPU you got = £60 more, well worth it considering the savings in power. If you consider the £40 odd you paid for the Zalman cooler and it gets even worse for the AMD

It's a wonder AMD are even in business then.

[sal]

The price differential on the site you link to is also a motivating factor.

not sure what you mean by that but the Intel is about £80 more expensive -£20 for the GPU you got = £60 more, well worth it considering the savings in power. If you consider the £40 odd you paid for the Zalman cooler and it gets even worse for the AMD

[suityou01]

Here is a nice comparison (including the power cost in albeit in $):

Intel Core i7 4770K vs AMD FX 9590

bottom line is the reasons to go for the AMD are more cores, more L2 cache, more overclocking. All amounting to nothing giving the fact that at the end of the day it's performance is lower.

If you are going to run VMs on it the amount of memory is much more important than the CPU as most applications/VMs will still consume memory but not CPU when idle. That and the storage, don't expect much performance from the VMs if you put a bunch of them on the same SATA HDD, no matter how much memory and CPU you throw at them.

Before it blew up the VMs were running very well on the same spindle (different spindle to OS).

The price differential on the site you link to is also a motivating factor.

[sal]

Here is a nice comparison (including the power cost in albeit in $):

Intel Core i7 4770K vs AMD FX 9590

bottom line is the reasons to go for the AMD are more cores, more L2 cache, more overclocking. All amounting to nothing giving the fact that at the end of the day it's performance is lower.

If you are going to run VMs on it the amount of memory is much more important than the CPU as most applications/VMs will still consume memory but not CPU when idle. That and the storage, don't expect much performance from the VMs if you put a bunch of them on the same SATA HDD, no matter how much memory and CPU you throw at them.

[eek]

Dumb and Dumber 3

Cheating and you know it! You can't take the max power consumption of 1, and the min power consumption of another to skew your figures and support your argument!

I didn't that's the max power for the Intel processor. Real life results point to it consuming 35w at max not the 45w quoted

However the point is simple. For a server left on all the time it would be cheaper to bin it and buy the Intel cup. The energy saved will pay for itself within 2 years

[suityou01]

220W (FX 9590) +30W (video card) - 45w (intel 4790T) = 205w

Oh and most of the cpu ranking sites give them equivalent performance....

Cheating and you know it! You can't take the max power consumption of 1, and the min power consumption of another to skew your figures and support your argument!

[eek]

Intel processors have built in Video?

220W - 80W = 200W

220W (FX 9590) +30W (video card) - 45w (intel 4790T) = 205w

Oh and most of the cpu ranking sites give them equivalent performance....

[MicrosoftBob]

Not all rated PSUs are the same, you tend to get what you pay for so even a cheapo 1000w psu might be next to useless in real world tests

PSUs and mobos tend to be areas people skimp on thinking that don't really matter

[suityou01]

No but they consume 45-80w instead of 220w...

Also they have built in video so that's another 30watts saved.

So yes you could save 200watts by buying an intel processor instead of an AMD radiator....

Intel processors have built in Video?

220W - 80W = 200W

[eek]

Intel's equivalent actually consumes -20W?

No but they consume 45-80w instead of 220w...

Also they have built in video so that's another 30watts saved.

So yes you could save 200watts by buying an intel processor instead of an AMD radiator....

[suityou01]

It's for a server that's on all the time. Why would you use a chip that consumes 200 watts more than intel's equivalent?

That is going to cost you (5kw/h) or 50p a day more for no benefit beyond heating your server room / garage

Intel's equivalent actually consumes -20W?

[eek]

Dumb and Dumber 3

'Twas.

HTH

It's for a server that's on all the time. Why would you use a chip that consumes 200 watts more than intel's equivalent?

That is going to cost you (5kw/h) or 50p a day more for no benefit beyond heating your server room / garage

[suityou01]

Not me. Only computers in my house are macs and a Xeon based file server that no longer running VMs (they run on a box in the states now)...

'Twas.

HTH