The question is which is better than 6 vCore or 2 cores :->

Discussion in 'Performance Tweaking' started by Carl0Jonshon, Sep 13, 2020.



  1. vCore

    5 vote(s)
  2. Core

    8 vote(s)
  1. Here I do not understand what is the meaning between them? If I take an i9 with vCore, will it be better or worse for the server?
    I summon all reasonable villagers

  2. And the question is interesting. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. From my understanding vcores are virtual cores that run inside of a single core. So a portion of it. So vcores are worse than actual cores if you'd do the ideal comparison.

    1 vcore is a portion of a core, how much of said core is unknown. 6 vcores could be equal to 1 actual Core, so theres really no way to answer your question without knowing how the setup is done.

    That's my understanding of it from doing a quick google search.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  4. interesting! But it is hard to decide either. If they are the same actual core I would prefer 2 cores as 6 vCore can be visualized using 1 or 2 cores which depends on the setting:)
  5. I agree with @Diamond_X and in my practice I also think that core is better
  6. 4 is best
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. For a modern server (1.14>) I would recomment atleast 4 cores for any types of server.
  8. Minecraft is still single threaded at the end of the day so only "add" cores if you're needing them. Therefore I would start a VPS with dedicated vCores OR a Hybrid Server (typically they are affinity at equivalent threads so it's about half a "real" core). Then upgrade said services as needed.

    "normal" VPSes however as mentioned can allocate them how ever since CPU cycles are shared.
  9. Okay now i am really confused, because we can't always get that many cores. For a quality VPS that's at least 42 dollars (or more) so what do you do when you don't have this budget to work with? As wouldn't be using a shared host uses a lot older processor for the job and that your sharing with other servers as mentioned there wouldn't be a worst option?
  10. Minecraft server hosting is expensive. Paying 100+$ is normal.

    If you want slave labor prices, you won't get the best results.
  11. If that what it really cost to run a Minecraft server, very few would be doing it and be having fairly good success. Even ARMA 3 servers rarely goes more than 36 bucks for about 20 slots and that game takes the cake for resources' needs.
  12. shared hosting divides price of machine over multiple customers, with the hope that not everyone is using their server at the same time.

    If you want a dedicated server where you guarantee its performance, yes you're going to be paying. and yes many do it because when you run a store and get income, this is a business.

    Server expense = deduction.

    When you are running a hobby server, yeah you can just deal with imperfection in performance to save money.
  13. Exactly, shared hosting could be adequate if managed properly though most companies do not do this as it usually "cost optimized" instead of performance optimized due to clients' demands (just try getting anyone to pay like ten dollars per GB, almost no one will).

    Right because everyone does that lol. I don't know many non major servers that runs this as business (registered, paying payrolls, etc). They may have shops but they are normally "side projects" for "Starbucks' Money" or just to cover costs. Not to put a roof over your head, put dinner on the table and etc.

    It's only tax deductions, who cares. You would save more of not over investing. Having too much hardware for the loads in question is reality. If a smaller hardware commit could do it why invest much more than that?

    You can get the best of both worlds. You can still get "good performance" without paying through the roof for it.