Low power home server for value-minded enthusiast

[panfist]

Edit 2: So now it looks like an Allendale dual core would be my best option. What does AMD have that corresponds to Allendale? The virtualization support on the E4500 would be nice, but I don't know if it's worth a premium price over the E2160, or anything from AMD. I was unable to find anything that explained what kind of real-world benefits you get from virtualization support.

Edit: After the first few posts I saw this deal on newegg. Is this a good processor for what I need? Is it compatible with normal (i.e. not special for servers) RAM?

I'm looking to build a server in my home that will serve as the router for my network, encode movies, possibly also a media center, and hosting whatever other services I might need. I would like to consolidate any tasks like video encoding which will tie up one or both of the cores on my desktop for an extended period of time, and also apps that I would usually leave running 24/7. Then this will be the only computer in my home that's always on.

Anything quad-core is out of my price range. I also think I would rather go for less cache because I don't think I would really notice a difference on a day to day basis and it won't be worth my money. The only reason I would choose more cache is if it gives SIGNIFICANT gains in these two tasks: video encoding or VMware performance. This server will be running one or more instances of VMware which I will probably access via remote desktop.

I'm willing to splurge a little on the RAM in order to get the most out of my CPU cycles...unless this means the RAM uses that much more power? I'm not sure here...but anyway if the FSB of my processor is 1066 for example I'm willing to get 1066 RAM at tight timings. Not the tightest...because that'll probably just give me 1% more performance for 100% more cost. Is that a good example for what I'm looking for? I'm not very familiar with HyperTransport so I'm not sure what kind of RAM would match well with a specific AMD processor. I guess I'd be willing to spend like $70 or so a stick per GB and get two right away, then two more a little ways down the road after my wallet recovers.Now I think I should just focus on getting the fastest MHz RAM to max out the FSB, and if I have money left over after getting everything else I can look at RAM with tighter timings.

So with that in mind...should I go AMD or Intel? Or wait a little while?

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: panfist
I'm willing to splurge a little on the RAM in order to get the most out of my CPU cycles...unless this means the RAM uses that much more power?

Splurging on RAM will only get you more expensive RAM, it will not get you more discernable performance. If you're wanting the best performing, lowest operating cost cpu, get yourself either an E6550, or better yet, an E6750, since they're nearly the same price. And unless you plan on overclocking this server, buy the cheapest RAM you can find, as long as it's at least PC5300.

Wonder why I recommend those two processors? It's simple, they have hardware virtualization acceleration, and the cheaper E4x00 and E2x00 processors don't. IIRC, some of the newer AMD processors also have it, but I'm not sure which.

 

[panfist]

I think if I'm going to spend as much as $170 on the processor, could I consider one of the dual-core Xeon processors with SSE4? I think that could help a lot with video encoding. There are a couple on newegg under $200.

 

[tno]

SSE4? Those puppies aren't coming out for a little while longer (see the Penryn timetable thread floating around here). There's a lot of good in what you're thinking though, but remember, for now SSE4 will only net you results in certain Divx tasks that have been optimized for the purpose of showing off the new chips.

Any modern Intel proc will meet your encoding needs, so long as it's clocked beyond 2.33. The extra cache and FSB of the E6x50 class will net you more performance than cheaper chips, a bonus when you're trying to aim for lower power, plus if you're using VMware then something from this class is a must as, as myocardia pointed out, they do that whole virtualization thing really well.

As far as RAM, this is a server so get lots of it and get it cheap. But, remember the difference between those FSB and DDR numbers. FSB is a Quad Data Rate clock and DDR is a Double Data Rate clock so you don't match a FSB 1066 (actual FSB 266) proc with DDR2 1066 (actual FSB 533), you match it with DDR2 533 (actual FSB 266). These days, if you're overall system throughput is so high that cheap DDR2 800 (you can get 2GB for about $50) is your bottleneck, well then you have made yourself quite the system. Get 4 gigs for $100 and spend the extra on a mobo with all the features you need, bearing in mind that since it's low power you're after you don't need a board that overclocks well.

$0.02,

tno

 

[panfist]

The Xeon Conroe 3065 is a 2.33GHz Core 2 derivative that supports SSE4 right now for $182 on newegg. And I know that right this second maybe it's only optimized for some benchmarking stuff but I know that x264, the open source h.264 encoding program will be quick to add support for SSE4, so it will vastly accelerate my video encoding soon. Buying a processor at this stage without SSE4 would be like buying a directx 9 video card. Sure, some of them are still a pretty good deal in terms of price/performance, when there are some hot deals to be had on next gen products.

 

[SickBeast]

Man if you're going to spend $182 on a dual core, why not $250 for a quad (the Xeon 3210)? Otherwise, I would put the $100+ toward something else server-related (raid-1 maybe) and just get a 2140. The reduced cache makes it more energy efficient, and really it's a quick CPU, especially if you're willing to overclock. Since you're energy conscious, just see how high it will go on stock voltage. :beer:

 

[panfist]

Well don't quad cores use up 2x power compared to dual cores? If so, I don't think quad core is for me.

I see a 1.6GHz for $235 and a 2.4GHz for $293 and those two really don't appeal to me compared to the dual core for $182. I just don't see myself needing more than two threads that much. Yes, I could get much faster video encoding, but I still don't foresee myself putting even two cores to work that much.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: panfist
Well don't quad cores use up 2x power compared to dual cores? If so, I don't think quad core is for me.

I see a 1.6GHz for $235 and a 2.4GHz for $293 and those two really don't appeal to me compared to the dual core for $182. I just don't see myself needing more than two threads that much. Yes, I could get much faster video encoding, but I still don't foresee myself putting even two cores to work that much.

Mmm...I'm pretty sure that at-idle, there will be very little difference, and I assume you won't have them under full load all that much. Don't quote me on that though; you'll have to check some reviews on the Q6600 (and there are plenty).

$182 really does sound like too much to me for a dual-core CPU. Have you considered the $100 E4500? What do you need all the cache for?

You can also always go AMD. They are slower than the C2D, but very power efficient. You can get a 3600+ for $60, but really IMO the intel 2140 for $70 is unbeatable. I've never seen such a fast CPU sell so cheap, especially from intel. It rocks the celeron.

*edit* I take it back! The quad-cores are power monsters compared to the dual-cores, at idle and at load!

Also, the AMD chips are by-and-large the most energy efficient...but probably not so much if you take IPC into account.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: panfist
The Xeon Conroe 3065 is a 2.33GHz Core 2 derivative that supports SSE4 right now for $182 on newegg.

I'm not sure who told you that any Conroe core supports SSE4, but whomever it was lied to you. The Penryn cores will be the first cores that support SSE4, and yes, it will add performance, at least in the applications that are written to take advantage of it. It won't add any performance at all with older, non-optimized code.

 

[o1die]

If you're going to run your server 24/7, then I would definately take energy usage into account. The 2350 amd dual core only uses 45 watts, and runs about $89. The 1.7 barcelona quad core uses only 55 watts, but is a server cpu so it takes ecc memory.

 

[tno]

Pfist,

Myocardia's right, SSE4 is something that's being added at the core level and Conroe hasn't been refreshed for it. Penryn will have SSE4 and if you really want to process those video files as fast as can be then hold off on your build till the Penryn server chips start rolling down the line.

As far as that proc you edited in above, that's a great processor, but you're paying a lot of money for a server chip to put into a server board and use with server RAM. And to answer your question, using an Intel server proc means using an Intel server platform with Intel server RAM. FB-DIMM's are pretty expensive so, unless you really want to put a proper server together just stick with desktop platforms. And again, either buy an out of the box performer (E6750) and rock solid mobo and lots of cheap RAM, or go with a cheaper proc (E2140) and spend money on server type needs (HDDs, Raid cards, cooling etc).

Don't go quadcore for power concerns. And frankly, if you're not going to be encoding videos 24 hours a day, the difference between getting a movie encoded in 17 minutes and 13 minutes really isn't going to matter all that much, so forgot SSE4 and just buy in to Conroe now.

tno

 

[panfist]

Alright so I don't want to wait for Penryn for SSE4, and I guess Xeon is out of the question because I don't want to go for a full-blown server platform.

Allendale E4500? E2160? AMD?

 

[harpoon84]

So what exactly is your budget for the processor? $100 and under? The E4500 is a good choice if that is all you want to spend on a CPU. It does lack native VT technology though, I'm not sure how that affects VMware performance, as I've never used such software.

You did mention you were willing to 'splurge' on RAM if needed - don't. It's not worth the extra performance. Put that money towards a faster CPU instead. At stock speeds regular DDR2-667 is enough for Core2, in fact if using an 800FSB chip like the E4x00 series it'll be more than enough for you to overclock to 3GHz+.

 

[Denithor]

If you need virtualization don't get the e4500, that feature is only available on the e6x50 series.

Beyond that factor, look at this benchmark of several C2D & AMD processors compared for media encoding and then this benchmark showing the same processors' power requirements.

AT conclusions:

The performance of the Athlon X2 BE-23xx lineup isn't particularly impressive, but that is to be expected. Power consumption is definitely down over the standard 65nm 65W Athlon 64 X2s, but not as low as the old 35W EE SFF parts were. A direct comparison to the Core 2 Duo E4300 is difficult given that we are forced to use different chipsets/motherboards, but for a high performance system you can easily build a comparably low power system out of Intel parts.
...
If you're simply looking for a high performance system with lower power requirements, possibly just to keep your office/room cooler and quieter, then the Core 2 Duo E4300 is still a better bet than either of these new X2s. You will pay about $25 more, but the increase in performance is more than tangible (not to mention the fact that you can actually get close to top of the line performance if you decide to overclock the E4300).

The e4500/e6550/etc will simply reinforce this dominant performance without significantly hurting you on power draw.

 

[Denithor]

Here are a couple ideas for consideration.

Integrated graphics: e4500 + G33 motherboard + 2GB DDR2 for $257 + shipping from Mwave

Discrete graphics: e2180 + P35 motherboard + 2GB DDR2 for $218 + shipping from Mwave and then add a Radeon HD2400/2600 or GeForce 8400/8500/8600 series card to shift the encoding load off the processor for $50-100 more

 

[tno]

Originally posted by: panfist
Edit 2: So now it looks like an Allendale dual core would be my best option. What does AMD have that corresponds to Allendale? The virtualization support on the E4500 would be nice, but I don't know if it's worth a premium price over the E2160, or anything from AMD. I was unable to find anything that explained what kind of real-world benefits you get from virtualization support.

Back to the top then, the E4x00 class does not support virtualization. You're looking for low power, VT and good encoding performance with little to no overclocking. Get the E6750 with a stable board (Cheap P35's are aplenty) and all the cheap RAM you can afford. If you're willing to lose the VT for cost, then an E4500 will do you well. And if you're willing to limit yourself to the codecs that ATI and NVidia currently support in their video cards then use those to give you a big encoding bump.

tno