Is P Series Processor Good
Maryetta Worm
The three processors are very good for Photoshop and for multitasking, you should not have issues related to processor performance. If you want to know more information about the processor specifications you can access ark.intel.com.
Intel does not verify all solutions, including but not limited to any file transfers that may appear in this community. Accordingly, Intel disclaims all express and implied warranties, including without limitation, the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement, as well as any warranty arising from course of performance, course of dealing, or usage in trade.
Many web hosting companies are now offering Intel Core i3/i5/i7 processors under "cheap dedicated hosting." But my laptop has an Intel core i3 processor, which makes it more likely a desktop processor than a server processor.
When I spoke to one of the web hosting company's tech support official about this, he told me that their "i3 processor comes bundled with ECC/Registered DDR3 RAM on a server-class motherboard (socket LGA1156)." Furthermore he told me this:
"We've chosen to offer this particular CPU as our "budget" server, but in no way lowers the quality of the actual server itself. We utilize proper cooling methods and also the same fans and heatsinks that we use on our Xeon CPU's.
The main difference between the Xeon and these i3' are that the Xeon processors can support multiple CPU's on the same motherboard, while these cannot. They're also marketed to be server CPU's, while the i3's are not, but they perform just as well under the same conditions."
We see here the biggest difference between the two is often the supported motherboard rather than the CPU. That said, often those additional features from the motherboard are not needed, and you can get still acceptable performance out of an i7, or even an i5.
In this case, given that they offer registered RAM with a server-class motherboard, if you are comfortable with the performance level of the hardware then this might be a good fit. I'll add that at time of the original writing, the best Core i3 I could find on Intel's site was a dual core with hyperthreading. The worst Xeon I could find was a quad core without hyperthreading (that lined up more closely with an i5).
On a server, in addition to the processor, you want good quality, long life components as you want it to last around 5 years (average replacement cycle), you ideally want on board graphics - but just basic/not high end, you want ECC memory and other things - all of this requires a server grade motherboard, and the majority of server grade motherboards only take server grade processors.
All this being said, it completely depends on the usage pattern. For a very small company, I would rather buy an i3 machine and replace it with a similar specification machine 3 years down the line than buying a very expensive machine and keep it for longer. For hosting, unless you specifically need a high end machine, you may as well take the savings as it should be very good and powerful.
Let us take performance first. A million hits per month is such a low volume that you could use pretty much any old chip to handle that. You can run benchmarks on your laptop or desktop to see if that chip can handle your peak loads. Don't forget to populate your database with a few months worth of data first. Most likely your disk performance will be a bottleneck, not your CPU.
Then you are concerned with reliability, i.e running for months and months. Even with the most expensive systems, there are other factors than the CPU that will decide your reliability. Most important is availability of disk storage, which is the most likely thing to fail. You want to ensure you don't lose any data if disk fails. This is commonly achieved by using RAID, either mirror, rAID10 or RAID 5. Next, you want to prepare for disaster, so that you still have your data if the whole datacenter goes down. If you don't want to lose any data at all, you need to replicate your database to another site. If losing half a day or so is no big deal, just schedule backup over network instead.
If your host goes down, either because teh power supply blows, network card, memory , cpu cooing fans or other components fail, you need to have some sort of failover mechanism. This is generally achieved by running in a cluster, where 2 or more systems are hooked up to the same storage. To set up a cluster, you simply define file systems, ip adresses, and applications start/stop/monitoring scripts, and when your server blows, the cluster will ensure that the end user wont even notice. I'd say investing $1k or more for an expensive Xeon does not give you any more reliability. Use the money on buying a 2nd server for standby instead. Or if the hosting company is providing the HW, familiarize yourself with what High availability solutions they offer. If they are professional, they would have this type of support down to a science, including off-site backups, and quick recovery from a server failure. As long as the system options they offer has sufficient performance, then you should be able to sleep at night. If they don't offer any of these features, but only sell standalone server with internal storage, then you should write your own solution, and back up the full OS and application config once, and grab a copy of your DB frequently, so that you can redeploy at same site or different site, quickly. Spending extra dollars on powerful chips does not give you any of the piece of mind you are seeking. Replacing a chip in a server is done in a few minutes, trying to recover from disk failure if you have no backup/recover strategy would take you days, or knock you out forever, or in the case of a business bring them to the brink of bankrupcy. Either your data and uptime is so valuable that you would invest the extra time and money to ensure continuous uptime, or you can go with cheaper solutions such as hoping for the best, but have frequent backups. n Define your requirements, and how much you want to spend, and if that is not enough, pick what features are most important to you. If you set up everything yourself, and run the servers on your own network, you could be up and running with a 2 used desktops or laptops un a cluster for $2-300, plus whatever you need for storage. You can even use internal storage, and make frequent replication from server 1 to server 2 and not even have to get a NAS or other shared storage.
Your usage of the server should tell you if a desktop processor is what you need. Judging from your last question, however, it sounds like you have a very shady company anyway and I would look for other options for servers if I were you. In reality, desktop processors are fine for little test servers, but any server used in production has no reason to not use server-grade parts.
For instance, I got a desktop windows machine at Hetzner with a Ryzen Cpu, which I found later to be really bad in Linux Centos. So I cancelled the server, however I have a machine with 128 Gb of Ram and a xeon processor and 4 SSDs which is performing just fine.
1: It most certainly is a desktop processor. The only iX processors to even touch Xeon tier would be the nicer 2011, 2011-v3, and 2066 i7's and i9's... but even then, they are basically just really nice "workstation desktop" CPUs.
If they are implying that they have X socket (say 1156) motherboards and that the only difference between the Xeon options and this is that the "iX versions don't have multiple processors" on the board then that is big, big, BIG red flag.
Yes, most of them are afterthoughts, designed for office desktops and laptops that will spend most of their lives rendering 2D images to a single monitor. But when integrated graphics push forward, it can open up possibilities for people who want to play games but can only afford a cheap desktop (or who have to make do with whatever their parents will pay for, which was the big limiter on my PC gaming experience as a kid).
The 8000G chips use the same Zen 4 CPU architecture as the Ryzen 7000 desktop chips, but the way the rest of the chip is put together is pretty different. Like past APUs, these are actually laptop silicon (in this case, the Ryzen 7040/8040 series, codenamed Phoenix and Phoenix 2) repackaged for a desktop processor socket.
Intel Processors provide the performance you need for essential tasks like web browsing. At an affordable price, these processors are a good choice for those who anticipate only light computing needs.
AI features may require software purchase, subscription or enablement by a software or platform provider, or may have specific configuration or compatibility requirements. Details at www.intel.com/AIPC.
In our series of Best CPU guides, here's the latest update to our recommended Gaming CPUs list. All numbers in the text are updated to reflect pricing at the time of writing. Numbers in graphs reflect MSRP.
As the second quarter of 2024 is soon set to unfold, there are many things to be excited about, especially as Computex 2024 has been and gone. We now know that AMD's upcoming Ryzen 9000 series desktop processors using the new Zen 5 cores will be hitting shelves at the end of the month (31st July), and on top of this, AMD also recently slashed pricing on their Zen 4 (Ryzen 8000) processors. Intel still needs to follow suit with their 14th or 13th Gen Core series processors, but right now from a cost standpoint, AMD is in a much better position.
Since the publication of our last guide, the only notable CPU to be launched was Intel's special binned Core i9-14900KS, which not only pushes clock speeds up to 6.2 GHz but is the last processor to feature Intel's iconic Core I series nomenclature. The other big news in the CPU world was from Intel, with a statement issued about pushing users to use the Intel Default Specification on Intel's 14th and 13th Gen processors, which ultimately limits the performance compared to published data. We're still in the process of