Daniel,
Benchmarks represent typical desktop workloads. This means they fail to leverage extra cores to full benefit because desktop applications are (usually) not designed to take advantage of multiple cores.
In your case, for a thin client server: a six-core cpu will generally outperform a 4-core cpu since more tasks will be trying to run at the same time.
A 4-core 1Ghz cpu will beat a 2-core 4Ghz cpu any day when it comes to workload. But in benchmarks the 2-core will always win.
With 32 clients this will be very pronounced as you will have 50% more jobs that can run at the same time on a 6-core vs 4-core. The tiny bit of speed gained on the intel would not match the extra overhead of 50% more workload switching.
Finally, you want to make sure you have enough ram and disk bandwidth. If you underbuy disk or ram, the cpu won't matter.
And yes, I've implemented this in practice.
Bart.
On Oct 10, 2010, at 9:10 AM, Daniel Howard wrote:
Thanks Tim, that confirms what my gut felt, that even though 6 cores
from AMD is more, architecturally the 4 cores from Intel are a
better performer. But it really depends on how the software uses
the multiple cores, so that's why I'm hoping someone may have
actually tried it.
Alternately, if someone has used a single quad core effectively for
serving 32 simultaneous clients in a lab setting, then it's just a
cost thing.
Best, Daniel
On 10/10/2010 3:01 AM, j. Tim Denny wrote:
Daniel
Someone did all the work for us...
seems the 4 core Intel is a better deal contrary to the
price/benchmarks I previously posted.... on that page they
show a $199 quad core intel beating a hexa core AMD at $285
T
__________________________________
j. Tim Denny, Ph.D.
Consultant - International
Development, Education and ICT
SKYPE - jtdenny Googletalk - denny.jt
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jtdenny
https://www.avuedigitalservices.com/VR/id130765695
.....
"People generally quarrel because they cannot argue."
Gilbert
Chesterton (1874-1936) English writer
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 2:24 PM, j. Tim
Denny <johndenny@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Daniel
very interesting question as it brings up so many
issues.... you are asking to compare two CPUs for the
same purpose and then want to know which one is
more appropriate..
I was just browsing CPU benchmarks...not knowing which
chips you are comparing I can only take a guess...
here is what I see...
So if
benchmarks mean anything then the AMD listed is 25%
faster and 20% cheaper.... but what about power draw
and any other issues that may come to play....
you then ask
how about LTSP performance... I wonder... is the OS
optimized for multicore usage? or does that matter?
But then what
about GPU? are thin client environments dependent on
GPU performance or does that not matter cause each thin
client has it own mainboard?
Tim
__________________________________
j. Tim Denny, Ph.D.
Consultant -
International Development, Education and ICT
SKYPE - jtdenny Googletalk - denny.jt
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jtdenny
https://www.avuedigitalservices.com/VR/id130765695
.....
"People
generally quarrel because they cannot argue."
Gilbert
Chesterton (1874-1936) English writer
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 10:04
AM, Daniel Howard <dhhoward@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Anyone have any experience comparing performance of
a 6 core AMD CPU-based thin client server to an
Intel quad core based server? I'm looking for a new
32-client computer lab server. I lean to the quad
core since it's at least a generation ahead
architecturally, but wonder if 6 cores gives better
LTSP performance when students are really just doing
OpenOffice and Firefox/Chrome 99.9% of the time.
Best, Daniel
|