Fast cores vs many cores?

[Thebinaryman]

I have some hardware around that I was planning on using for a VMware ESX server, however, I'm thinking to use it for a new workstation instead. I have a Socket F MSI Speedster server board, and 16GB (8x2GB) DDR2 667MHz ECC Registered RAM.

I have yet to purchase CPUs though. I'd like to spend around $100 for two USED Socket F AMD Opteron CPUs. I have many choices, but I've narrowed down to a few options:

a) 2x Dual core 2.6GHz (~$80 total) <--- faster than my current athlon?
b) 2x Dual core 3.0GHz (~$105 total) <---better for desktop than 2.2 quads?
c) 2x Quad core 2.2GHz (~$80 total) <---this is what I was planning to use for ESX

I'm looking for bang for the buck.

This workstation would be my primary desktop for home use. Some of my applications are muti-threading but some are single. I don't want any individual process to run slower than my current Athlon X2 2.6Ghz will run. Apart from the desktop activities everyone does, I process RAW images on my computer using UFRaw, GIMP, Cinepaint, etc, and would like that to be fast. Will buy LightZone in the future (multi-threading).

I do play some games (Quake4, and misc older FPS), but I'm not in this for gaming performance, however, I would like to have decent frame rates.

Due to my lack of an ESX server, I'll be running multiple VMs on this desktop (windows server and linux) for testing, education, and practice (a lab environment). Probably at least one VM running at a time, up to four or so. I don't care about the speed of the VMs, but I do not wish for them to slow down my host machine. I'll be using virtualbox or VMware server.

Am I crazy to consider using this server hardware for a desktop? For these purposes, would it really be better for me to spend more, and build both an ESX server and new desktop (Phenom Quad 3.4GHz). Or, might a the phenom be powerful enough for these purposes? Then I'd attempt sale of the hardware I already have.

FYI, I'll likely be going with SAS drives and hardware RAID5 on a new desktop.

In short, would this make a good desktop (better than phenom?) and would fast Duals be better or would slower Quads? What's your thoughts? Thanks for your time.

[pete_1967]

More cores, more CPUs you can allocate for virtual machines.

[diamond_ramsey]

Thebinaryman, thank you for your post.

Good questions, here goes:

Originally Posted by Thebinaryman

...This workstation would be my primary desktop for home use. Some of my applications are muti-threading but some are single. I don't want any individual process to run slower than my current Athlon X2 2.6Ghz will run...

If you stick with this requirement then the Quads will be out.

Originally Posted by Thebinaryman

...Due to my lack of an ESX server, I'll be running multiple VMs on this desktop (windows server and linux) for testing, education, and practice (a lab environment). Probably at least one VM running at a time, up to four or so. I don't care about the speed of the VMs, but I do not wish for them to slow down my host machine. I'll be using virtualbox or VMware server...

Professionally, I would prefer the VMware server. I have had a couple times that the virtualbox was not the best for my fedora systems.

With "...at least one VM running at a time, up to four or so..." do you expect more than four VMs? If you have four or more, then I would choose the Quads...minimum of one core per VM...I run two cores per VM.

Off-hand, want to make sure, what will be your host operating system and possible VMs' operating systems?

Originally Posted by Thebinaryman

...Am I crazy to consider using this server hardware for a desktop? For these purposes, would it really be better for me to spend more, and build both an ESX server and new desktop (Phenom Quad 3.4GHz). Or, might a the phenom be powerful enough for these purposes?...

No problem, with using server hardware for a desktop, answer is, "Depends" on what you are going to use it for and what you plan in the future to use it for.

In time, the Phenom Quad 3.4GHz pricing will decrease, depends on your timeframe.

Originally Posted by Thebinaryman

...In short, would this make a good desktop (better than phenom?) and would fast Duals be better or would slower Quads? What's your thoughts?...

I concur with pete_1967, more cores in essence you can allocate for virtual machines.

Initially, I would stick with the slower Quads and in time, hopefully faster Quads...may/should be available. Again, answer is, "Depends."

Hope this helps.

[Thebinaryman]

Originally Posted by diamond_ramsey

Thebinaryman, thank you for your post.

Good questions, here goes:



If you stick with this requirement then the Quads will be out.



Professionally, I would prefer the VMware server. I have had a couple times that the virtualbox was not the best for my fedora systems.

With "...at least one VM running at a time, up to four or so..." do you expect more than four VMs? If you have four or more, then I would choose the Quads...minimum of one core per VM...I run two cores per VM.

Off-hand, want to make sure, what will be your host operating system and possible VMs' operating systems?



No problem, with using server hardware for a desktop, answer is, "Depends" on what you are going to use it for and what you plan in the future to use it for.

In time, the Phenom Quad 3.4GHz pricing will decrease, depends on your timeframe.



I concur with pete_1967, more cores in essence you can allocate for virtual machines.

Initially, I would stick with the slower Quads and in time, hopefully faster Quads...may/should be available. Again, answer is, "Depends."

Hope this helps.

Thank you, that does help.

At this point, I think I'm decided on faster dual cores, as four cores total should be sufficient. The VM's I'll run will be non-critical, so I guess I'm more concerned with single threaded performance, and I don't think I'll *need* more than four cores. I guess with so many CPUs available on the used market, I can always get quad cores later, hopefully when they catch up to 3GHz or higher.

I'll probably sleep on it and/or think about it for a few days. Still open to opinions.

Host OS will be fedora, but I may test (and switch too) gentoo if the system can compile quicker than my patience. Guest OS will be various linux distros and windows server 2008 (practice for MCITP Enterprise Admin cert).

Essentially I'm attempting to save money by having one very powerful desktop instead of a quick desktop and ESX server.

[diamond_ramsey]

Thebinaryman, thank you for your posts.

Originally Posted by Thebinaryman

...At this point, I think I'm decided on faster dual cores, as four cores total should be sufficient. The VM's I'll run will be non-critical, so I guess I'm more concerned with single threaded performance, and I don't think I'll *need* more than four cores. I guess with so many CPUs available on the used market, I can always get quad cores later, hopefully when they catch up to 3GHz or higher....

Very logical idea. I think that based upon your requirements for speed and thread that makes sense.

Originally Posted by Thebinaryman

...I'll probably sleep on it and/or think about it for a few days. Still open to opinions....

Cool! Here's some after thought, that I have in the following...

Originally Posted by Thebinaryman

...Host OS will be fedora, but I may test (and switch too) gentoo if the system can compile quicker than my patience. Guest OS will be various linux distros and windows server 2008 (practice for MCITP Enterprise Admin cert)...

Make sure to review the VT capability of the CPU is my after thought.

Intel® Virtualization Technology List -

http://ark.intel.com/VTList.aspx

Originally Posted by Thebinaryman

...Essentially I'm attempting to save money by having one very powerful desktop instead of a quick desktop and ESX server.

I think that is a good option for speed, money and combined "two birds with one stone" concept.

Hope this helps.