Inrix

What do you plan to do with it, keep in mind that 1U is going to sound like a jet and will be horribly inefficient on your energy bill. If you're going for a NAS, there are other options.
 
I would recommend barebones Debian or CentOS. 
I would follow one of DigitalOceans wonderful tutorials on server setup. 
Then you may want to look into how to port forward and what that is.
 

Yes its possible.
There isnt really a better brand generally.
If your getting a older or 2nd hand rack server its probably not all that energy efficient. 
As for the os, you will need to make a install drive for whatever os you need, google is your friend.
For remote, if you decide linux use ssh, for windows use remote desktop.
For beginner stuff you might want to go **EDIT** Windows though as it would be the easiest.
 
I don't recommend a 1U or that server, its pretty shitty for just a nas and as @MarieKirya just said its going to sound horrendously loud. Make a cheap desktop with a i5 or i3 and buy some hdds, it will work MUCH better for you and give you a bit more upgradability and flexibility than any rack server would.
 

Dedicated servers are nothing more than desktop that runs specific server grade tasks.

They normally have the same stuff inide, so ecc on all of them, sas on all. All that happens is that you get a bigger box, so its quieter. They also normally can fit in a 5u rack(but don't buy them to rack mount it)
 
Your using this as a nas right?
 
Buy something like this https://www.amazon.com/Synology-DiskStation-Diskless-Network-Attached/dp/B005YW7OLM 
Its a much better box for a nas
 
For linux remote control there is ssh, and for file transfer there is smb/cifs, nfs, and iscsi.

^ Thats not how it works, but yea if you got a small tower or something you could host a website.

with a hardrive the speed will not be worse with 3gbits as that old harddrive will be the bottleneck. but with an ssd it will bottleneck
 
But why buy such an old hardrive? Its probably alot slower than the one using newer sata 6gbits

You can, but its a pain as you either need a custom psu with 19v and 12v or a a boost converter(finding a high current 19v will be hard.
 
You also need to make all the circuits that tell the laptop what psu it is and how much power it can output.
 
So, not easily.

They are (roughtly) equally demanding on the graphics card, but 120 Hz requires more CPU power than 60 Hz.
 
For a given game and settings,
CPU demand scales with frames per second
GPU demand scales with pixels per second
 
1440p 60 Hz and 1080p 120 Hz are roughly equal number of pixels per second (since 1440p 60 Hz is half as many frames, but the frames are twice as many pixels each), but the higher framerate at 1080p will require more CPU power.

Really intresting  Just did another two benchmarks on GTA but this time was watching the gpu usage... On both tests noticed identical CPU usage (Around 80%) But the 1080p one has slightly lower gpu usage... Good to know that cpu's are such big bottlenecks.... One can only hope that in the coming years, cpu's like the 7700k might catch up ;P. Ill attach the images aswell.
 
1440p:

1080p:

Just did a few more tests... Sadly cant do any on bf1 right now since my friends acc is logged out...
 
It appears that the fps gap between 1080p and 1440p is smaller with more intensive games for some reason (Atleast for me, though I dont have many of the new titles)
 
But with Ark Survival Evolved (Really hard to run) in 1440p I get 45 and 1080p I get closer to 60...
 
But in older games like Bioshock Infnite The difference is wayy bigger and more what I would have expected with 1440p averaging 180fps and 1080p averaging 233fps....
 
If I get the chance to benchmark bf1 then I will but I would probably expect a similar result to the other more intensive games... But who knows, It appears to vary alot per game.

Just did some benchmarks in GTAV using 1440p and 1080p, Ill attach both the raw outputs but I found that there was only a average of 10fps increase between 1080p and 1440p (Max settings minus msaa)... I might look into if the same happens with other games. But quite interesting...
 
1080p Average: 89fps
1440p Average: 84fps
 
1080p Max Average: 144fps
1440p Max Average: 125fps
 
1080p Min Average: 45fps
1440p Min Average: 46fps
 
Quite weird results... I also tried running the tests with 1080p on my 165hz 1440p monitor and 60hz 1080p monitor with the same results ¯\_(ツ)_/¯...
 
Anyway more details are in the attached files... Ima go look into some other tests perhaps
1440p.txt
1080p.txt

^ If you havent seen it, I think the above should give you a good idea of what to expect
 

I'm gonna go ahead and close this thread up then. Thanks for all the help. Have a good night!

why not to x99 6-core since pricing is similar but there's the extra 2 core and 4 thread?

5820K or 6800K might be a good upgrade.

Just a suggestion, dont try wipe a thread. It could be useful to others who are searching for a solution to a similar problem. Instead mark whatever message you think best explains the solution as solved so that others can use the information to help if need be. The solved thing is the giant tick you can click on any message.

^ Id only go for the 7700k if gaming was more of the focus which it dosn't appear to be. X99 All the way for your kinda work

I had a similar want, But I doubt your ever going to find any cheap 1440p gsync panel that is ips. Generally they start at 1k and only go up (I bought mine for around 1.3k nzd)
 
But what I can say is that if you have the money and the hardware the power it THEY ARE SO WORTH IT. But yea dont expect to get any 1440p gsync panels with ips for a decent price. Though if your on a tight af budged you could probably go down to TN, its not toooo bad.
 
Also I would personally prefer **Edit** GSync over getting IPS, I think gsync just makes everything feel sooooo nice

I'd recommend you stay within Pascal architecture, since your main card is a 1080. Go with a 1050, 1050TI or 1060. (But see if you can borrow any of these first to try like zMeul said, this could slow your main card down unless you find a perfect match for it.)

I JUST FOUND THE ISSUE! When EVGA Precision X OC is open on one of my other monitors, the input lag is there but when its closed its gone!! WOOO, Will mark as solved for people who have similar issues...

Just leave it on 4,6GHz and be happy with results.
If your temps were below 70°C after 20min of stress testing, I guess your daily temps won't even go beyond 65°C.
 
Stress testing is putting your CPU to it's limits. Something that you don't do on daily basis.
 
With my stress testing program I got around 78°C on my CPU but when I use CPU rendering (that puts CPU to 100% load), I got max 60°C.

Yea I knew they ran hot when stress testing, just making sure it wasn't going to spike out of no where after about 15-20 if I walked away. 

Are you from US? If so then any SSD within around $40 should be good enough.

The performance difference between 4.6 and 4.7 isnt much... I would personally go with the lower voltage as its safer and better for the chip as the difference between 4.6 and 4.7 will offer little to no boost in most tasks... Really you should just ask yourself if your doing it for bragging rights or if its actually going to benefit you in what you do, and if its worth pushing the voltage for that

Just did another full system reinstall, seems to have fixed it... Thanks for the help