New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Nexusbytes's 6 threads fair share (E5 @ 2.4GHz) vs BuyVM's 1 thread dedicated (3900X @ 3.8GHz)
Hello guys,
I'm comparing Nexusbytes's ENTRY-12G vs BuyVM's SLICE 4096. Despite the difference in RAM and storage, which one should offer more CPU power?
Nexusbytes offers me 6 threads fair share of a Xeon E5-2630L v2 @ 2.40GHz and on the other side BuyVM offers me 1 thread dedicated of a Ryzen 9 3900X @ 3.80GHz. Nexusbytes plan is called ENTRY-12G and costs $15/mo (when paid annually) and BuyVM's plan is called SLICE 4096 and costs the same $15/mo without the need to pre-pay for 12 months.
Again, forget about RAM and SSD, which one should perform better strictly speaking about CPU power? The usage of this VPS would be to install DirectAdmin and host Wordpress sites.
Thanks!
Comments
Singe thread/code => Ryzen.
Multicore/thread => Xeon.
This works only in this case.
I'm sorry I don't understand. My usage would be to install DirectAdmin and host Wordpress sites. So which one would win?
Both of them will do exactly the same. There won't be any noticeable difference overall. Unless you do not wanna host 100 of wp sites plus you have a lot of traffic, hehe. But personally, i would recommend @seriesn. Using it for production stuff. Was comparing with BuyVM and @seriesn were better for my needs and design.
Thanks man. I know both are top providers and they both respect each other however I would like to hear their opinion too @Francisco @seriesn
If these both really perform the same in terms of CPU, then I think the advantages of NexusBytes would be having more RAM and SSD whereas the advantages of BuyVM would be having dedicated CPU so no "CPU Usage Warning" limitations, unlimited bandwidth and also being more affordable ($15/mo without having to pre-pay for a year).
Thanks for the mention and consideration boss
.
Php will always perform well when combined with multiple core. Distributing load across multiple cores could be beneficial and the occasional burst can be useful with that many vCores in the event when you need it (influx in traffic for example)
We offer ryzen lineup as well if that’s something you fancy and those bad boys are fast too
.
With that said, this is a debate of single core vs multiple core and unless you plan to chew through these cpu excessively, you should be good with multiple shared cores
Is there a specific reason for using Direct Admin? How many sites or configuration? For Wordpress
Webinoly ot
WordOps
Are more than adequate
I'll not go into provider thing here, but for wordpress or any heavy CMS with plugins go with one with higher clock speed, that is 3.80GHz better than the slower 2.40GHz. You'll feel the difference. I was with 'BS' old E5 and when they upgraded nodes to ryzen 3.8+ I saw instant boost in wordpress loading speeds. So you can go with provider offering anything beyond 3.40 GHz IF you are going to use it for wordpress with MANY plugins (10-20), expecting good amount of traffic, etc.
But if its just single wordpress install and like 5k to 10k posts, with minimal plugins (5 or 6) then go with any Intel e5.
one of my car-forum (based on phpBB) is perfectly loading fast on intel e3 3.4 GHz v/s when it was on intel e5 with same provider.
Echoing the above, I've seen on multiple occasions when websites go from being on an E3-1230v6 4c/8t at 3.5GHz / 3.9GHz boost to an E5-2620v3 6c/12t for example with 2.4GHz / 3.2GHz boost and loading times have worsened.
note: these were pretty visitor heavy sites so for general shared hosting / many-sites then opting for more cores at lower speeds would be just fine.
You should probably be fine with either. Depending how many plugins and other things you have, you could even consider using @seriesn shared or reseller hosting
E3-1230 v6 is 30% faster on single core compared to E5-2620 v3, but on the multicore e5 is 5% faster.
Between the Ryzen 3900 and Xeon E5-2630L v2 you have to do benchmarks on your use case scenario with the limitations set as your providers. I think the e5 is the better way because you have all six cores available, even if it's shared.