Dual PIII 500MHz or new Athlon XP 1600+?

[CougTek]

Hi,

I'm facing a dilemna. Someone asked me if it would worth it to buy a dual PIII 500MHz Dell used box, with a SCSI hard drive (dating of the same period as the CPUs - probably '98 or '99) and of course an Intel chipset on the motherboard (probably 440GX IIRC). RAM amount unknown, but I would be surprised if it would be less than 256MB PC-100. Sold without monitor for ~ 330U$.

The person wants to use it as a low-traffic database server. IMO, it doesn't seem like a bad deal, but I fear that the lifespan of a PIII 500MHZ, even in dual-CPU configuration, isn't going to be very long.

Do you think it would be better to spend just a bit more cash for a low-end but new computer (let's say, for 440U$ with an Athlon XP 1600+ and IDE hard drive) or to get the used dually instead? The possible buyer believes that because it's a dual-CPU configuration, it will multithread better. I think it will, but far from enough to rival a 1.5GHz modern single CPU. The fact that the hard drive in the old Dell is SCSI is appealing for a d/b server, but since it's almost sure that it's an early generation 10Krpm (or even worst, 7.2Krpm), I don't believe it will make up for the slower CPUs and memory.

I seek your advices. Am I right to think that a cheap modern box would out-performed the aging Dell dually?

 

[Mercutio]

From a reliability standpoint, I'd look at the Dell system. Light-use servers don't tend to be CPU-limited anyway. Athlons really need a lot more attention than workhorses like that old P3. For a "server" system, I'd rather not be worrying constantly that the CPU fan is working, for example.
Anyway, it costs less, and already seems pretty well-suited for a server role. Probably, by the time that machine is outgown, there will be a legitimate need for a better-than-desktop hardware, and therefore a better budget.

 

[Cliptin]

You probably have some upgradability in those sockets as well.

 

[Buck]

Let's see, wouldn't that be dual Slot-1 Katmai running with 512 KB L2 cache at half the FSB? No thanks. If you can build him an Athlon XP system for close to that amount, do it.

 

[P5-133XL]

I'm with Merc. The Dell Dual server PIII is going to be more reliable than a cheapo Athlon, costs less, and has the necessary stuff to do the job.

 

[P5-133XL]

By the way, yes a cheap modern machine will out perform the old dualie.

However, performance shouldn't be your 1st priority as long as the dualie has enough umph to do the job, it will keep on pluggin untill the job no longer needs to be done. I really can't say the same about a cheap Athlon system.

 

[CougTek]

Let's see, wouldn't that be dual Slot-1 Katmai running with 512 KB L2 cache at half the FSB? No thanks. If you can build him an Athlon XP system for close to that amount, do it.

Indead, it's probably a Katmai or a similar Xeon version. That's about the same reflection I had.


Cliptin,

Are you talking about the memory sockets on the Dual-PIII? If you are talking about the CPUs, these are slots, not sockets. I don't think it would be cost effective to buy the used Dell and then upgrade it. Even used, those slot 1 PIII are still relatively expensive. My choice would be either pick the old box like it is or build a new one from scratch.


Mercutio,

I didn't think about the reliability aspect. However, I have run many computers 24/7 on cheap hardware without problem. Even a light-duty server for several months not so long ago so I tend to believe that most modern components (at least the ones I select for my computers) are reliable enough for non-critical usage. I might be wrong and simply been lucky, but I doubt it. IMO, a socket-A Athlon with a three-notch retention clip heatsink is probably a more secure setup than anything on a slot-1 (or slot-2). Again, just my humble opinion. Would the fan fail, both the slot-1 and socket-A CPU would die I think. Did Intel already implemented an over-heating protection back in the slot-1 CPU days? I don't think so.

It might also be true that when he'll need something more powerful, he'll probably have the budget to buy something new.


Damn, I hate it when the choice isn't obvious.

 

[Mercutio]

Sorry, Coug. My gut says the P3s will do the job. Your stuff can be best-of-breed all day long, but we all have parts fail from time to time. If the P3s have made it this long, they've probably got a nice productive couple of years left in them.

 

[Buck]

Coug, also think about this: The customer may think that spending the $330.00 is a great deal (which it could be), but what is he buying? He's buying old technology, and in a year, he's gonna wonder what it would cost to upgrade his system. When he finds out how much higher speed Katmai or Xeon processors cost, he's going to wonder why he bought that ancient thing to begin with. Now, if that system would be dual Coppermines, he would be one step further ahead in the game.

This, of course, is just my opinion and the experience that I've had. Mercutio and P5 probably have much more experience with Server Administration then me, so take my words as outspoken thoughts.

 

[Prof.Wizard]

Shouldn't we think a little about the upgrade options too? By buying the 500MHz P3-system Coug binds himself with old and end-of-productive-live box.

The same doesn't happen with the Athlon XP system. Correct me if I'm wrong, but sometimes (above reliability, costs, performance) we have to think about the future too, not only the present solution.

Selecting the Athlon XP will support you better if ever your computation needs rise.

 

[Clocker]

I would not buy something that old if the person using it was basing their livelyhood on it's productivity. Maybe if you replaced the PS and the HDD, but then it would probably be cost prohibitive.

Maybe a lower level AthlonXP system with a SCSI drive and inexpensive controller (I believe they are more affordable now)....?

C

 

[Tannin]

Point 1: Katmai PIIIs suck big-time, performance wise. Those things were OK for floating point stuff, but their integer performance was really underwhelming. No better than a K6-2, and a mile behind a K6-III.

Point 2: But there are two of them.

Point 3: This is a light-duty server. CPU integer performance just ain't going to be an issue. RAM is an issue, and hard drive access times are a bigger issue.

Conclusion so far: who cares what the CPU is - it isn't going to matter anyway.

(In fact, the best CPU for this job is obvious: clock for clock, the a K6-III+ was the best server CPU ever made, and it remains a viabe option even today, easily capable of out-performing the likes of a P-III 750 or "A" model Athlon, comfortably in the same class as a "C" model Thunderbird or P-III 1000EB, and not entirely disgraced by an Athlon XP with DDR. For squirting stuff around the network, insofar as the CPU matters at all, you need integer performance and - above all - cache. That massive triple-layer cache of the K6-III just can't be beat. But so what? We are not going to be able to stress this box hard enough for the CPU to matter anyway. So why am I taking about it?)

The key question is - what drives are in the Dell box? OK, we know they are SCSI, but which ones? This is the question you need to answer, Coug. If the Dell drives are nice enough, then the low access times will far outweigh any other factor, and the SCSI flexibility will be a nice little performance boost too. But if they are run-of-the-mill units, then you are better off going with an XP and a nice new IDE Maxtor.

 

[time]

Database servers should have:

1. Enough RAM
2. A fast storage system
3. A CPU of some sort

The only reason you need significant CPU performance is:

a) You're running something beyond a simple database server
b) You're using Microsoft products (that might get me a serve from Cas :wink: )

As Tannin says, which drives? It's a Dell, so ten to one they weren't leading edge at the time (Medallist Pro anyone? J/K). Therefore they may well be outclassed by a modern ATA drive, with poorer access times but stupendously better STF.

But in any case, I agree with Clocker and Buck. No-one should use a PC as a critical server much beyond three years unless they have major budgetary constraints. The technology just isn't that reliable.

From memory, the PIII 500 is nearly the last of the old 0.25 process, and therefore relatively hot. Presumably each CPU will have either one or two fans accordingly (depending on Dell). Statistically, after 3-4 years of 24/7, they are due for a failure, particularly after the machine has been switched off and carted around. Same goes for the power supply fan.

I realize that the guy may now proceed to prove me wrong by using the thing for five years, but I think that would be stretching probability to breaking point. It's a question of risk and return on investment.

I also take exception to the idea that there is anything wrong with using Athlons as cheap servers. Provided the motherboard and CPU fan are of reasonable quality, what is the problem? If you're arguing that the high heat dissipation shortens the life of the fan, you may be right, but only when compared with Tualatin. A Socket A cooler positions the fan to one side of the heatsink in any tower, and the amount of heat soak through the tall fins (and against the air flow) is not that dramatic, IMHO.

As of now, all motherboards are supposed to check the Athlon's on-die diode and if necessary shut down to prevent damage. However, any good motherboard already performed the same function with the in-socket sensor. The only difference is if the heatsink actually fell off the CPU (please don't remind me of THG's little fairytale).

 

[cas]

If by simple database server, you mean a file server, I agree ( dir cas* is a query, right? ). With sufficient ram a real RDBMS will quickly become compute for many types of operations. This is true of servers other than MS SQL as well

To answer Coug’s original question, I used a dual 500MHz Xeon machine as my primary workstation for a couple of years. The workstation in question was configured with a couple of early generation Cheetahs. My Athlon workstations today, equipped with ATA drives are remarkably faster than my old Xeon box. While my application was not the same, there is no question that a cheap modern box would indeed outperform the aging dually.

While I appreciate comments about better build quality and so forth, I have a hard time believing that a $330 piece of used equipment is really being considered for a mission critical database server. My vote is for the Athlon.

The gamers out there might be surprised at how stable almost all systems are without GL/DX or sound drivers installed.

(For the benefit of Tannin, my 400MHz K6-III on a P5A outperformed my 500MHz Xeon box handily with one of its processor’s disabled. Of course, even the K6-III couldn’t keep up with the dual configuration.
Fortunately the datasets for compilation tend to fit nicely in to the K6-III’s cache. I suspect that the device would not have faired so well in a database server. Despite its impressive cache hierarchy, performance dropped off quickly for applications with larger datasets. The Xeon offered almost twice the memory bandwidth.)

 

[CougTek]

Thanks you all for your input.

Just to clarify things a little bit, I'm not the seller in that story. I'm just an advisor. I would, of course, build the Athlon box if that's what he choose, but I won't make money on it (he helped me in the past so it would only be a service return).

Instead of explaining him all the current discussion, I think I'll simply tell him to come and read the points of everyone in this thread.

Thanks again.

 

[Barry K. Nathan]

(In fact, the best CPU for this job is obvious: clock for clock, the a K6-III+ was the best server CPU ever made

I've heard some people argue that the recent VIA processors are the best x86 server CPUs (if you don't need massive CPU power anyway) because they don't need fans, and that means one less thing that can fail.

 

[time]

Thanks Cas. I think I see my error: You're saying that a small database is likely to be highly cacheable, and therefore more limited by the processor than the I/O system? I have a bad habit of assuming the database will always be gigantic.

 

[NRG = mc²]

Indead, it's probably a Katmai or a similar Xeon version. That's about the same reflection I had.

If its a Xeon, it will have full speed cache. Just thought I'd point that out.