Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Advertise on LowEndTalk.com
Which is more stable? Core i7-3770, Core i7-4770 or Xeon E3-1245V2?
New on LowEndTalk? Please read our 'Community Rules' by clicking on it in the right menu!

Which is more stable? Core i7-3770, Core i7-4770 or Xeon E3-1245V2?

KamalWKamalW Member

I am evaluating the old Intel server models Core i7-3770, Core i7-4770 and Xeon E3-1245V2 to run Ubuntu 18.04.

Are they equally good in terms of stability or would you suggest one over the others? Or else, are all those models not good?

Comments

  • deankdeank Member, Troll

    This is like asking which cheese is more stinky.

    Thanked by 1bdl

    I have not created a single thread. Verify it if you dare.

  • boerndboernd Member
    edited May 14

    The E3 can use ECC memory, so a server with this CPU could be more stable if the server is equipped with ECC memory.

  • SoftShellWebSoftShellWeb Member, Provider

    What are you planing to use the server for?

    Without knowing the intended usage, I would choose the Xeon E3-1245V2.

  • imokimok Member

    deank said: This is like asking which cheese is more stinky.

    Which one is it?

    Janitor @ Netflix
    CORONAVIRUS ALERT

  • berkayberkay Member

    Looking at the chips, I’m gonna make a wild guess and presume that you’re trying to pick a server from Hetzner’s server auction. If this is the case, I’ve tried both i7’s and they are both really stable, with arguably close performance (I remember this E3 to be a bit slow but I’m not sure). So, if your use case is not too mission critical, I’d say take the cheapest with the better disk.

  • Given what you said, I think I'd be making a good guess at saying you're comparing hetzner's auction servers. When it comes to raw CPU performance, the i7-4770 is slightly better in both single and multi threaded workloads. As for the Xeon E3-1245V2, (If you are using Hetzner), they usually come with ECC memory and intel NIC cards (Please check to verify this before-hand), which would be more stable in terms of network and memory. It really comes down to what you're going to do, but hopefully I helped a bit.

  • sayem314sayem314 Member

    E3 is more stable but I would prefer 4770 for extra performance.

    Make it work, make it right, make it fast.

  • deankdeank Member, Troll

    @imok said:
    Which one is it?

    They are all the same in the end.

    I have not created a single thread. Verify it if you dare.

  • KamalWKamalW Member

    @SoftShellWeb said:
    What are you planing to use the server for?

    Without knowing the intended usage, I would choose the Xeon E3-1245V2.

    Thank you.

    For many purposes including DNS, email, web, databases and so on. Particularly I am keen to get some dynamic websites and web applications to run with lesser downtimes. I am thinking about a redundant server model to have them available during system upgrades and minimize the interruptions caused by unexpected events.

  • KamalWKamalW Member

    @boernd said:
    The E3 can use ECC memory, so a server with this CPU could be more stable if the server is equipped with ECC memory.

    Thanks. I have so far not had my own ECC memory fitted server. May be I should try one this time.

  • DrFallenDrFallen Member, Provider

    @KamalW said:

    @boernd said:
    The E3 can use ECC memory, so a server with this CPU could be more stable if the server is equipped with ECC memory.

    Thanks. I have so far not had my own ECC memory fitted server. May be I should try one this time.

    Just remember raid isn’t a backup so make sure you find something off server if you want stability.

  • KamalWKamalW Member

    @berkay said:
    Looking at the chips, I’m gonna make a wild guess and presume that you’re trying to pick a server from Hetzner’s server auction. If this is the case, I’ve tried both i7’s and they are both really stable, with arguably close performance (I remember this E3 to be a bit slow but I’m not sure). So, if your use case is not too mission critical, I’d say take the cheapest with the better disk.

    Thanks. Let there be many more Hetzner like companies around!

    Thanked by 1Hetzner_OL
  • KamalWKamalW Member

    @PineappleBox said:
    It really comes down to what you're going to do, but hopefully I helped a bit.

    Thank you. "a bit" of help is not taken as "a bit".

  • KamalWKamalW Member

    @sayem314 said:
    E3 is more stable but I would prefer 4770 for extra performance.

    Thanks. This time I am after more stability.

  • KamalWKamalW Member

    @deank said:
    They are all the same in the end.

    Thanks. I wanted to get a sense of what others may have experienced.

  • KamalWKamalW Member

    @DrFallen said:
    Just remember raid isn’t a backup so make sure you find something off server if you want stability.

    Oh.... what I had been thinking for ages but not done. I promise I'll do it tomorrow :wink:

  • daozhidaozhi Member

    i7-3770 in HZ sometimes is no so stable. I just cancelled one which is always down and has to be reboot manually.

  • pikepike Member

    @daozhi said:
    i7-3770 in HZ sometimes is no so stable. I just cancelled one which is always down and has to be reboot manually.

    Instead of contacting support you just let the server go, so the next person gets a broken server from the auction. Well played.

  • If you can, add more ram. You need it if you want to maximize the power of these servers

  • daozhidaozhi Member

    Of course I report the problem and communicate with them for serveral times. Maybe just because of the libtorrent version which I'm using to torrent. Besides I'm not the only one encountering the similar problem with i7-3770.

    It's not my responsiblity to make the server working all right. You can help them. The model is SB51 with datacenter ssd 960G.

    @pike said:

    @daozhi said:
    i7-3770 in HZ sometimes is no so stable. I just cancelled one which is always down and has to be reboot manually.

    Instead of contacting support you just let the server go, so the next person gets a broken server from the auction. Well played.

  • Hetzner_OLHetzner_OL Member, Provider, Top Provider

    Hi @daozhi - It sounds like you're dissatisfied with our support team. If you have at ticket number, I would be curious to see what happened in your case and what our team could possibly have done better. Thanks in advance! --Katie

    We (Katie and Helena) will do our best to answer your Hetzner questions and pass on your feedback. Hetzner Online's not liable for any corny jokes that we make. (https://www.hetzner.com)

  • daozhidaozhi Member

    Actually, your support is quick and effective.Maybe just because some packages are not so well compatible with i7-3770 cpu or its motherboard.

    I already cancelled that server and will choose another one. Thanks anyway!

    @Hetzner_OL said:
    Hi @daozhi - It sounds like you're dissatisfied with our support team. If you have at ticket number, I would be curious to see what happened in your case and what our team could possibly have done better. Thanks in advance! --Katie

    Thanked by 1Hetzner_OL
  • serv_eeserv_ee Member

    Nobody not even going to mention 3770 and 4770 arent exactly server CPUs..

    I swear to drunk Im not god

  • Did anyone mention Hetzner yet?

  • DemoroCZEDemoroCZE Member
    edited May 15

    I would honestly go with AX-41 since it is just few extra € per month for much better performance, more memory etc.. But out of these 3, i would go with 4770 (best performance) or Xeon (ECC).

  • DrFallenDrFallen Member, Provider

    @DemoroCZE said:
    I would honestly go with AX-41 since it is just few extra € per month for much better performance, more memory etc.. But out of there 3, i would go with 4770 (best performance) or Xeon (ECC).

    Or an AX41 for best of both worlds. Performance and ECC. Don't think OP is interested in the setup fees though by the sounds of it.

  • KamalWKamalW Member

    @DrFallen said:
    Or an AX41 for best of both worlds. Performance and ECC.

    Two old ones will outperform an AMD Ryzen 5 3600 in several ways.

  • DrFallenDrFallen Member, Provider

    @KamalW said:

    @DrFallen said:
    Or an AX41 for best of both worlds. Performance and ECC.

    Two old ones will outperform an AMD Ryzen 5 3600 in several ways.

    How so?

  • KamalWKamalW Member

    @DrFallen said:

    @KamalW said:

    @DrFallen said:
    Or an AX41 for best of both worlds. Performance and ECC.

    Two old ones will outperform an AMD Ryzen 5 3600 in several ways.

    How so?

    Horizontally scaled distributed system with support for failover and rolling system upgrades. To get some of such qualities with Ryzen 5 3600, one will still need at least two of them.

  • serv_eeserv_ee Member
    edited May 15

    What the ... are you on about?

    You want stability, you list 3770 and 4770, both consumer CPU's which neither have any server grade mobos to my knowing. Neither support ECC. Both are old-ish and knowing Intel, no upgrade path what so ever on either.

    You want server grade stability, get server grade hardware.

    Unless we're on Low End PC

    E: And as much as you love to downplay Ryzen, that 3600 straight out kills both of your listed CPU-s in every regard + having ECC.

    I swear to drunk Im not god

  • WebProjectWebProject Member, Provider

    in right hands all CPU are stable, without any system administration skills none of them are stable, for server based is recommended Xeon processors.

    VPS Price Match Guarantee on: All our range of DDOS protected XEN-HVM VPS Plans
    Are you looking for best price for self-managed VPS? See WebProVPS website for more details.
  • KamalWKamalW Member

    @serv_ee said:
    What the ... are you on about?

    I have a need to distribute work among many servers since a single one cannot deliver everything.

    You want stability, you list 3770 and 4770, both consumer CPU's which neither have any server grade mobos to my knowing. Neither support ECC. Both are old-ish and knowing Intel, no upgrade path what so ever on either.

    I think that's not how one should evaluate them. A better way would be to focus on what can be considered as the acceptable latency, throughput and error rate for a given system. Some other qualities can be taken into consideration too. "old-ish" or "new-ish" don't necessarily count.

    Regarding upgrades, it could be as simple as switching to a newer model offered by a provider.

    You want server grade stability, get server grade hardware.

    I don't necessarily downplay the words, but what is considered as the server grade changes over time. As said earlier, focusing on what can be considered as the acceptable latency, throughput and error rate for a given system with other qualities is a better way to evaluate hardware.

    E: And as much as you love to downplay Ryzen, that 3600 straight out kills both of your listed CPU-s in every regard + having ECC.

    I didn't downplay Ryzen. But what I said was that two old servers would outperform a single Ryzen 5 3600 server in several ways. For example, one cannot depend on a single server if a deployed website should be accessible during system upgrades. There are other considerations too. For example, one may get two of 1 Gbps network connections instead of one. Total disc I/O performance of two parallely running old servers could be higher than that of a single Ryzen 5 3600 server. The amount of storage the providers offer with each model needs to be taken into consideration too - sometimes two old servers may provide as much as twice the storage offered with a single Ryzen 5 3600 for comparable prices. So there are many ways that two old ones will outperform a single new one.

    For a certain amount of acceptable latency, for a certain amount of throughput needed, for a certain amount of acceptable error rate, for certain levels of other qualities needed, why would someone want to compare old-ish/new-ish or desktop/server grade? I would rather compare those specific parameters instead and then arrive at whether I need an old-ish/new-ish and/or desktop/server grade. For that matter, neither I prefer old systems nor I dislike new systems. Similarly, neither I prefer desktop grade nor I dislike server grade.

    In short it comes down to this: My job is to figure out the components and their relationships that deliver the required functionality within the acceptable quality levels for the least amount of money.

  • DrFallenDrFallen Member, Provider

    I mean even with two ryzens it’s better price to performance then E3s or i7s from like 5 years ago. If it’s storage that’s an issue there is the AX41 which is 2x 2TB which is the same as the offerings you’re probably looking at in the auction. The only difference is the initial setup fee.

  • KamalWKamalW Member

    @DrFallen said:
    I mean even with two ryzens it’s better price to performance then E3s or i7s from like 5 years ago.

    You are looking at a wrong parameter. I would instead look at price to needed performance.

  • KamalWKamalW Member

    Thank you all for the inputs provided! I didn't go with any of the listed models but went for an SSD vps in a bid to get the high IO performance required. Inputs you provided were considered to arrive at the current solution and will also be useful for me in future.

  • I came here expecting a comparison of the errata's for each CPU if you were comparing CPU stability. I don't think "stability" was the word you were looking for, probably "performance", which ended up being a storage need over CPU need as well.

  • KamalWKamalW Member

    @TimboJones said:
    I came here expecting a comparison of the errata's for each CPU if you were comparing CPU stability.

    I don't have data for all types, but here's some for an i7-3770 system where the cause for the instability is not known:

    System startups:    196   since   09:22:00 AM 04/25/2019
    System shutdowns:   77 ok   ->   118 bad
    System uptime:      99.69 %   -   1 year, 23 days, 11 hours, 31 minutes and 43 seconds
    System downtime:    0.31 %   -   1 day, 5 hours, 16 minutes and 51 seconds
    System life:        1 year, 24 days, 16 hours, 48 minutes and 34 seconds
    
    Largest uptime:     10 days, 7 hours, 16 minutes and 14 seconds   from   02:57:16 AM 02/18/2020
    Shortest uptime:    20 seconds   from   04:14:42 PM 11/26/2019
    Average uptime:     1 day, 23 hours, 34 minutes and 8 seconds
    
    Largest downtime:   7 hours, 36 minutes and 49 seconds   from   04:50:00 PM 12/27/2019
    Shortest downtime:  41 seconds   from   04:32:52 AM 04/26/2019
    Average downtime:   9 minutes and 1 second
    
    Current uptime:     7 hours, 39 minutes and 10 seconds   since   06:29:59 PM 05/18/2020
    

    I don't think "stability" was the word you were looking for, probably "performance", which ended up being a storage need over CPU need as well.

    If you look at the above, you will see that there's a stability issue. Since not all the websites running on the system require equal level of uninterrupted operation, what I did was factoring out a part of the whole to run on an SSD VPS. It solves the stability issue to a certain degree while boosting the performance at a fractional cost.

    I'll still be looking for another dedicated server to accommodate future demands that are being planned. The inputs the community provided will be useful in making a final decision.

  • @KamalW said:

    @TimboJones said:
    I came here expecting a comparison of the errata's for each CPU if you were comparing CPU stability.

    I don't have data for all types, but here's some for an i7-3770 system where the cause for the instability is not known:

    System startups:  196   since   09:22:00 AM 04/25/2019
    System shutdowns: 77 ok   ->   118 bad
    System uptime:        99.69 %   -   1 year, 23 days, 11 hours, 31 minutes and 43 seconds
    System downtime:  0.31 %   -   1 day, 5 hours, 16 minutes and 51 seconds
    System life:      1 year, 24 days, 16 hours, 48 minutes and 34 seconds
    
    Largest uptime:   10 days, 7 hours, 16 minutes and 14 seconds   from   02:57:16 AM 02/18/2020
    Shortest uptime:  20 seconds   from   04:14:42 PM 11/26/2019
    Average uptime:   1 day, 23 hours, 34 minutes and 8 seconds
    
    Largest downtime: 7 hours, 36 minutes and 49 seconds   from   04:50:00 PM 12/27/2019
    Shortest downtime:    41 seconds   from   04:32:52 AM 04/26/2019
    Average downtime:     9 minutes and 1 second
    
    Current uptime:   7 hours, 39 minutes and 10 seconds   since   06:29:59 PM 05/18/2020
    

    I don't think "stability" was the word you were looking for, probably "performance", which ended up being a storage need over CPU need as well.

    If you look at the above, you will see that there's a stability issue. Since not all the websites running on the system require equal level of uninterrupted operation, what I did was factoring out a part of the whole to run on an SSD VPS. It solves the stability issue to a certain degree while boosting the performance at a fractional cost.

    I'll still be looking for another dedicated server to accommodate future demands that are being planned. The inputs the community provided will be useful in making a final decision.

    126 restarts for a server in a year? Dude, you have defective hardware that needs to be swapped out.

    You also need to do a modicum of troubleshooting, such as when does it happen, what things are running at the time, how hot things are, errors in logs, whether it reboots to apply updates, etc.

  • KamalWKamalW Member

    @TimboJones said:
    126 restarts for a server in a year? Dude, you have defective hardware that needs to be swapped out.

    You also need to do a modicum of troubleshooting, such as when does it happen, what things are running at the time, how hot things are, errors in logs, whether it reboots to apply updates, etc.

    Rather than restarts, they are complete freezes. But the high uptime is due to system resets triggered by an external monitoring tool automatically.

    Freezes randomly, even when the system is idling, even when temperature is normal, with no errors in logs and not due to the application of updates.

    No problems have been identified by visual inspection. Thorough checks have not been done since the long downtimes are not acceptable.

    Critical systems are being moved out and modified to be accessible even when this system fails. After a bit more of that, time will be available for longer downtimes and hence for thorough checking.

Sign In or Register to comment.