1
0
Dual 5520 Quad-Core Xeon 2.26GHz with HT & Turbo(2.53 GHz) -vs- Single Quad-Core E3-1240v2 (3.4 GHz to 3.8 GHz)
I run web hosting. I'm just wondering which would be more ideal. Personally, I am thinking that the E3 would be the better choice as it pushes requests faster. I don't exactly plan to overload this server only host a few sites and plan to keep the load under 2.0 if possible 1.0 as this will be a semi-dedicated hosting.
So the question is: Unless the processor is getting maxed out or the requests are getting spread out is having more threads worthless over a faster clock?
How many requests per second are you expecting to have? – Desmond Hume – 2013-03-02T23:19:28.187
Seems doubtful this could be answered with any real confidence without actually benchmarking. But if I had to hazard a guess (ONLY a guess!) I'd go for more cores. – Nicole Hamilton – 2013-03-02T23:22:29.860
Several 100 to a few 1000 requests. I currently have a 4 core server that runs at about 1-2.0 LA and everything loads instantly. But yea, without any actual benchmarking I guess it would be hard. Running services would be Apache, nginx and MySQL. I'm thinking that as the server gets more and more loaded the more cores will come into play so twice the requests get served even though it is slower. – Rachel Nark – 2013-03-02T23:34:11.853
possible duplicate of Is a higher core count or higher clock speed more beneficial to a computer's performance?
– Breakthrough – 2013-03-03T00:13:25.5201MySQL is extremely broad, it could be very simple, instantaneous queries, or queries that each takes a few seconds to process. – vonbrand – 2013-03-03T01:25:26.200