Which Processor for a Server?

[JackSpadesSI]

I?m looking to build a Windows Home Server-based system in the near future. I understand that WHS has fairly low system requirements, but I?d be willing to upgrade the CPU by a little (if the cost was reasonable) if it meant significantly better system performance.

I?m considering either the Intel E1400 at ~$49.99, or the Intel E5200 at ~$72.99. Is it worth the extra $23.00 in a server-only system to make that upgrade? The performance of the server is more important to me than $23.00, but if the benefits are negligible then I?d just as soon save my money.

Thanks, in advance, for any help!

 

[Andrew1990]

What exactly will you be using the server for? If it is just a file server, I would go for the E1400. If it needs more horse power, get the E5200.


$23 is worth it only if you use the processing power. The E5200 should also use less power.

 

[ShockwaveVT]

Just for reference, I'm planning on using a Pentium 4 (Prescott, single-core) 3.0 GHz in my WHS box. It will be serving files locally and running a TF2 server. I think you'll be fine with the E1400, but the 5200 will be a better value and give you more options in the future (like overclocking, resale value, etc)

 

[JackSpadesSI]

The system will be running Windows Home Server. It will serve both as a file server for 4 other computers, as well as performing nightly system backups of those computers.

Naturally, being a server, there wouldn?t be any gaming or anything that I (an admitted novice) would consider requiring heavy ?horsepower?. However, since I just admitted that I?m a novice, I don?t really understand how much processing a server really does.

The bulk of the files on the server would be music, pictures, and movie files (by that I mean short home clips ? this isn?t intended to be an HTPC with many ripped movies, or anything).

I won?t worry about resale value since by the time I?m done with this processor (I?d guess a 2-year lifespan) I?m sure that the value would have depreciated to below $20, anyway. Also, I don?t really see what overclocking gains me in a server system.

 

[Insomniator]

Originally posted by: Andrew1990
What exactly will you be using the server for? If it is just a file server, I would go for the E1400. If it needs more horse power, get the E5200.


$23 is worth it only if you use the processing power. The E5200 should also use less power.

I don't know how much less power, but how is $23 not worth it for better performance and power savings? Even if it takes 3 years to make up the difference in energy... you still had 3 years of better performance vs saving 20 bucks today.

 

[Stoneburner]

I just got an amd 65 x2 4850e for my file server with a gigabyte micro atx board. This is probably overkill for the machine.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Power consumption will be very much negligible for the type of usage this server will see, so I don't see him making up his money when this server is going to be idle most of the time. I also don't see how the E5200 will have any extra benefit either. I'd say just get E1400.

 

[JackSpadesSI]

That?s what I was assuming (that processor power was pretty unimportant). The system backups from the other computers would occur at night while I?m asleep, so I?m not terribly concerned with how long that will take.

The only thing I wouldn?t want to be waiting on is while accessing a file stored on the server from my desktop. Would that be HDD limited or CPU limited (it?ll be on a gigabit Ethernet connection so I doubt that could be a bottleneck)? I?m assuming (albeit not based on much) that transfer speeds are HDD limited so that?s why I sought the E1400 as the cheapest Intel dual core processor.

 

[Spivonious]

Theoretically it would be limited by the ethernet as 1Gbps is less than the 3Gbps SATA II, but in reality, yes, the hard drive would be the limiting factor.

I have Windows Home Server running on my old P4 2.4GHz machine with 1GB of DDR RAM and ATA/66 hard drive. I notice no speed problems. I wouldn't worry with the E1400. I also wouldn't put more than 1GB of RAM in it, as it's really just sending files down the network to another machine.

 

[Andrew1990]

Originally posted by: Insomniator

Originally posted by: Andrew1990
What exactly will you be using the server for? If it is just a file server, I would go for the E1400. If it needs more horse power, get the E5200.


$23 is worth it only if you use the processing power. The E5200 should also use less power.

I don't know how much less power, but how is $23 not worth it for better performance and power savings? Even if it takes 3 years to make up the difference in energy... you still had 3 years of better performance vs saving 20 bucks today.

Well I know I myself never usually keep a processor for more than a year or so, so the energy isnt much of a factor for some.

Also, the the performance wouldnt matter as much is a simple file server where the Hard Drives are the greatest bottleneck. That $20 would be better put into a better Hard Drive than a better processor.


Also the E1400 is no slouch when it comes to simple task like this.

 

[dbcooper1]

Just for reference, I'm running WHS on an Atom 330 with Gb Ethernet and a couple 1TB drives with 2GB RAM and it works just fine. It's less powerful than either of the processors you're considering so you can't go wrong.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I'm still "contemplating" my own server-build with WHS as I accumulate the parts for it.

Currently I'm using an old Win2K-Pro license on a P4 socket-478 FSB 533 system (with the long-extinct RAMBUS memory 1GB-worth). My best judgment says I should do this, because the OS boots from a RAID0 that has been running for five years 24/7/365. I'm "safe" for my multiple backup strategy under a second array that is RAID5 under a hardware controller, but "it's about time." I could probably find a NAS or some other option, but I've already got the OEM WHS OS, hard drive replacement(s), DDR2 RAM and a GA-EP45-UD3R motherboard. And I'm going to configure it to double up as a print-server for an old parallel-printer DeskJet 1000C. For this, I've found a PCI single-LPT expansion card.

And I've got a choice of two "spare" processors -- an E8400 and an E6600. It only makes sense for me to use the E6600 and hold the E8400 for another workstation-build for a family member.

Here's something someone could answer definitively here, but I thought I read posts about it: WHS will only work under a dual-core processor, which eliminates use of a quad-core as an option. While this probably belongs on the "Software->OS" forum, I thought I'd point it out here -- politely inviting any correction if I'm wrong.

Back to the point, though: I'd say any low-end C2D will be fine, and even a Prescott single-core would do . . . . just fine.

Personally, what I'm hoping for is the ability to make the system go to sleep and wake up with network access. With the old system, we're burning up 90W of power continuously to keep the thing on constantly, and these "wake-up" features were not adequately implemented on the vintage 2002 motherboard.

 

[rudder]

My server uses a 35w celeron 420. These sell for barely of $30. Single core, but for a file server and a few other things the server does... it is all I need.

 

[dbcooper1]

Originally posted by: BonzaiDuck
I'm still "contemplating" my own server-build with WHS as I accumulate the parts for it.

Here's something someone could answer definitively here, but I thought I read posts about it: WHS will only work under a dual-core processor, which eliminates use of a quad-core as an option. While this probably belongs on the "Software->OS" forum, I thought I'd point it out here -- politely inviting any correction if I'm wrong.

WHS sees all four cores of my Atom 330 (two cores plus hyperthreading- four logical cores) so I would think it would see all four of a quad core, although what it would use them for is less clear. It can only back up one system at a time as far as I know and I don't have mine doing much else except serving music etc. I've seen CPU usage over 75% at times on my admittedly weak processor.