I wonder which services from vanilla Windows installation may affect srcds? The only service I can think of is firewall. Anything else?
On 23/10/2007, Kevin Ottalini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For running one or two srcds, you probably won't see a big difference for > 512K, 1MB or 2MB L2 cache or 533 / 800 MHz for that matter. > > 256K L2 cache will be noticeably slower though. > > If I had to rate value I would say: > > 1. P4 Northwood or newer (not Celeron) > 2. higher cpu clock rate (higher clock rates demands a better cpu cooler > like a zalman though) > 3. matched performance memory (2 sticks in Dual channel mode) > 4. more system memory (1GB minimum, 2GB best, no more then 2 sticks in > either case, 4 stick of memory = slower) > 5. 800MHz memory (PC3200 C2) > > Normal P4: 512K L2 cache (Northwood) is fine, no need to burn money on EE > P4: 2MB L2 cache > AMD 64 cpu running 32-bit OS is going to be pretty similar (forget 64-bit > OS). > > Is an AMD 3200+ as good as an Intel 3.0 P4? IMO it's a toss up. I have both > but prefer intel, Intel mobos seem to be a little more stable. > > A really good case and powersupply with good flow-through cooling is worth > the extra expense as well as a good UPS. > > As a baseline comparison, a P4 3.0GHz / 800MHz / 512K L2 machine with 2GB > memory can run 4ea SRCDS (no bots!, 300FPS) and see an average ~50% > utilization peaking occasionally at 75% (map changes) with 50 to 64 players > (hi-res timer enabled). > > CPU% is very dependent on the map and the mod though, so two or three TF2 > sessions (or CSS with bots) might max the system out. > > I'm also talking pure vanilla SRCDS here, no addons. > > Win2K3 is going to be a little better then XP Pro but disabling unneeded > services in both can make a big difference. > > If you're looking at a datacenter box, get the 3.0 P4/800/512K L2 with 2GB > memory unless $ is a big problem, it's worth the extra pennies. > > If you need to run more then 4 SRCDS on one box look into a newer core2duo > or dual AMD but be aware that 2 physical CPUs does not give you 2X the > performance, and more servers means you will need more physical memory too > ($ is going to be a lot more overall). > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <taytrrs> > To: <hlds@list.valvesoftware.com> > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 5:01 PM > Subject: [hlds] P4 vs. Celeron vs. AMD > > > > Does anyone have, or could refer me to, any SRCDS specific performance > > comparisons between Celeron and P4 processors--or same for AMD? More > > specifically, how much better for how much more cache/bus and at what > > amount > > of cache/bus does the performance curve level? Would a (P4 3GHz 800MHz > > 2MB) > > outperform a (P4 3GHz 800MHz 1MB)? A (P4 3GHz 800MHz 1MB) outperform a (P4 > > 3GHz 533MHz 256KB)? By how much? > > > > For example: What is average CPU% for (P4 3GHz 800MHz 1MB) vs. a (Celeron > > 3GHz 533MHz 256KB) given all other factors equal. > > > > Thanks!! > > Rick > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
