4 Quad-core Cpus, And 32 Gb Of Ram

[TeslaShockwave]

I managed to find on eBay for only $300 a good condition, used Dell PowerEdge server with...

32 GB of DDR3 RAM (1 GB x 32)
4 Intel Xeon quad-core CPUs (2.4 GHz, 16 cores total)
Redundant 1500-watt PSUs

It comes with no hard drives, but god damn... that is a lot of fucking CPU and RAM for $300...

[tox]

at 2.4 Ghz?

what are we running.. windows 95?

[TeslaShockwave]

At 11/26/13 09:52 PM, tox wrote: at 2.4 Ghz?

what are we running.. windows 95?

Server CPUs usually run at lower clock speeds but have more cores and cache. Also, no... I'd be more likely to be running a NOS on it such as Windows Server.

Also... I will have you know that my laptop has a 1.7 GHz Intel Core i7 quad-core CPU in it. Low clock speed is not the same as a slow CPU. Only thing clock speed will tell you is how much faster one CPU is vs another of the same line.

[tox]

At 11/26/13 10:36 PM, TeslaShockwave wrote:

At 11/26/13 09:52 PM, tox wrote: at 2.4 Ghz?

it will also tell you how much faster one type of processor is versus another is, to complete a task, and if that task is to run the system AND a network you need a lot of power inside of the system so that you can get a command out to the other slave systems faster and more accuratly without deteration or fracture of code...

if you are using a 1.7ghz like i am also using, on an i7, like i am also using, i can already understand that the computing power is not high enough to be able to run multiple programs.
A 2.5 ghz will not do the job that you are looking for if you are trying to run lets say an operative of 20 computers... or more.. you need more power... more speed.. more memory.. more ram...

and if a computer is based in the fact that it will contain a 2.5 ghz processor, even at a quad or 8 core... 16 core... it will not be fast enough or powerful enough to be able to keep up with your demands and requirements of running a network appropriately

you cant bullshit a bullshitter

[Nebula]

I doubt you need that much RAM but what do i know?

[tox]

At 11/27/13 12:05 AM, Nebula wrote: I doubt you need that much RAM but what do i know?

thats actually kind of low.. considering that most network computers will actually be servers and those servers will have sometimes hundreds of gb of ram

[Painbringer]

Someday ordinary computers will be like this.

And they'll be able to squeeze more out of those 2.4GHz too.

[Luer]

How do you know that the seller is legit?

[supergandhi64]

ironically it sounds like a great deal. go for it if you think it's legit

At 11/26/13 10:36 PM, TeslaShockwave wrote:

At 11/26/13 09:52 PM, tox wrote: at 2.4 Ghz?

what are we running.. windows 95?

Server CPUs usually run at lower clock speeds but have more cores and cache. Also, no... I'd be more likely to be running a NOS on it such as Windows Server.

Also... I will have you know that my laptop has a 1.7 GHz Intel Core i7 quad-core CPU in it. Low clock speed is not the same as a slow CPU. Only thing clock speed will tell you is how much faster one CPU is vs another of the same line.

nevermind tox making up fairy tales in tech threads talking as if he knows anything about computers . . . he probably hasn't ever hosted a server lol

--supergandhi64

[Tony-DarkGrave]

yeah those xenon cpu's are crap. I could easily out process two of those with my i7 4770K.

[slugrail]

Take it from a programmer. Having a 16 core server with each core clocked at 2.4ghz is not going to make any difference to a 3ghz 24 core server. Why? It all depends on the software (or in your case the server software) you're running. If you're running software that doesn't dispatch processes onto new threads (read, "cores") then your 2.4ghz 16 core is not better than a 2.4ghz dual core server. In saying so, even a dual core 3.2 ghz i5 would toast it since the software itself isn't utilising 15/16th of the power of that 16 core Xeon!

The amount of RAM is variable to what exactly you're running. Again, if it's not going to be utilised then there is definitely no difference than using standard 4gb of RAM to that of enterprise level 96gb of RAM. Rather than quantity, you should be more worried about the latency. My 4gb of 2100mHz RAM is definitely superior to 32gb of standard DDR3 1333mHz. What's the point of having more RAM when it'll still be a huge bottleneck to your server? RAM does NOT speed up your computer! This is something I learnt when I was still in 3rd grade and it's really annoying when people tend to compare computer performance with raw clock speeds and RAM quantity.

TL;DR: if you can utilise all 16 cores and you're positive your RAM (and your HDD if you're not using a SSD) won't be a bottleneck then go ahead. Just know that hardware is nothing if the software cannot utilise it to it's full potential!