Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Home server upgrade meanderings

<< < (3/4) > >>

Shades:
Recently I had to rebuild my CVS server. It´s motherboard with AMD Athlon 3000+ processor burned up...actually the SATA controller burned up.

So I take a look at the prices from the biggest local PC shop and I was able to buy an Asus mobo with triple core AMD processor and 2GByte of RAM for less than buying an intel procesor (lower than i5 I´m not considering to be a replacement for anything) for a motherbard (1156 socket) that was given to me.

Almost 90 USD difference for these 3 parts alone. So I went for the AMD solution. Keeping the CVS server in the AMD family did make my life a lot easier too. Just swapped mainboards, reconnected all its 6 drives and it booted up just as if nothing happend at all.

So far I am pleasantly surprised about the performance of that server.

Personally I like to compare Intel and AMD with candles. Intel burns brighter, but not as long as the AMD´s do.

f0dder:
Personally I like to compare Intel and AMD with candles. Intel burns brighter, but not as long as the AMD´s do.-Shades (September 30, 2012, 09:46 AM)
--- End quote ---
Hm, dunno about that - I've had some really long-lasting intel boxes (like the current ~5 years old passively-cooled celeron), and I've had some AMD machines that didn't last too long (that was back in the K6 days, though). I'd wager any reliability problems, these days, would have more to do with bad motherboards (cheap & unreliable capacitators, bad voltage regulation modules) or flaky PSUs, rather than the choice of CPU.

Also, price isn't the most important issue here... but I don't feel like paying the premium for a Xeon, either :). I did a little (superficial!) amount of research on current AMD CPUs, and it seemed that the current crop sucks up a lot more power than comparable intel counterparts, which I'm not really interested in. But perhaps I've missed some of their CPUs? I could live with lower performance than the i5-3550, especially the combined cpu+mobo ends up with  substantially lower consumption... but the platform does have to be fast enough to handle >100MB/s AES256 (on a single core) - and afaik AMD doesn't supper AES-NI until the crappy Bulldozer cpu?

40hz:
For vanilla file & print servers, web servers, and media streaming, I'd definitely lean towards the savings an AMD chip can provide.

For VMs or heavy-duty database and computation intensive applications (or encryption) I tend to prefer Intel chips. I also prefer using Intel products for Windows Servers since Microsoft and Intel work hand in glove when it comes to that. Not that AMD doesn't work well for Windows. I've deployed several Windows servers equipped with AMD CPUs. It's just with Intel there's one less opportunity for surprises when it comes to the BIOS and chipsets.

YMMV. 8)

Stoic Joker:
+1 for Intel ... But I'd spring for at least one of the 6 core Xeons.

I've got two 3.0 Xeons in my (6yr old) home server ... 'cause I'm nutz basically.  :D

40hz:
I've got two 3.0 Xeons in my (6yr old) home server ... 'cause I'm nutz basically.  :D
-Stoic Joker (September 30, 2012, 12:26 PM)
--- End quote ---

Two Xeons? Two?  :huh:

Muy macho! I like!!!  :D

(BTW: Xeons in a home server?  :tellme: You are crazy. But you're my kind of crazy,,,) ;D :Thmbsup:

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page