I am looking to spend $3000 to $4000 for a Sun workstation for my department as a classroom server(teaching Unix Admin) and probably Web server. I've been using the Intel boxes all along so don't know anything about newer one on the Sparc platform.
Just did a search on Sun's web catalog and found that for about $2500, I can get a Sun Ultra 5, 400MHz UltraSparc II, PGX24, 2MB L2 cache, w/ 256MB DRAM, 20GB EIDE, and a 48X cdrom,
while at the same price, I can get a Sun Blade 100 with 500-MHz UltraSPARC-IIe, 256-KB L2 Cache
256MB DIMM, 15GB EIDE, 12X DVD and a floppy, 10/100Mbps Ethernet port, serial and parellel ports.
Though no NIC port, floppy, or serial port are mentioned in the Ultra 5, I assume they should come with it.
So now the only differences are
1. Ultra uses 400MHz cpu v.s. Blade's 500Mhz
2. Ultra uses 2MB L2 cache v.s. Blade's much smaller 256KB
3. Ultra uses the older EDO RAM v.s. Blade's faster SDRAM
4. Ultra has 20GB HD v.s. Blade's 15GB.
I am more concerned with raw performance. I don't care much about graphices performance.
So which is the better bang for my money?
Please help!
daniel
Just did a search on Sun's web catalog and found that for about $2500, I can get a Sun Ultra 5, 400MHz UltraSparc II, PGX24, 2MB L2 cache, w/ 256MB DRAM, 20GB EIDE, and a 48X cdrom,
while at the same price, I can get a Sun Blade 100 with 500-MHz UltraSPARC-IIe, 256-KB L2 Cache
256MB DIMM, 15GB EIDE, 12X DVD and a floppy, 10/100Mbps Ethernet port, serial and parellel ports.
Though no NIC port, floppy, or serial port are mentioned in the Ultra 5, I assume they should come with it.
So now the only differences are
1. Ultra uses 400MHz cpu v.s. Blade's 500Mhz
2. Ultra uses 2MB L2 cache v.s. Blade's much smaller 256KB
3. Ultra uses the older EDO RAM v.s. Blade's faster SDRAM
4. Ultra has 20GB HD v.s. Blade's 15GB.
I am more concerned with raw performance. I don't care much about graphices performance.
So which is the better bang for my money?
Please help!
daniel