Home Server CPU

[Padunkadunk]

Hi all,

 

I'm researching my first server build and I'm wondering how much processing power I'll need. This server will be serving blu ray files to laptops and mobile devices, have FTP capability and will be running a VM or remote deskop. It won't have more than 2-3 clients at one time max.

 

I've been looking at these dual core processors:

 

G3220

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116950

 

i3

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116947

 

OR am I looking at needing more processing power. A lot of online research has not yielded a very clear answer.

 

Thanks!

[Ryan Leech]

I would go with the i3, just because it will be relevant longer

[Bonsai99]

APUUUUUUUUUU Since the FX series would require buying a GPU. Also an APU is probably still better than an i3. and on top of that the boards are also cheaper.

[Raboo]

i3

[brob]

If you are running remote desktop or VMs, users are running almost entirely on the server. All that runs on their local machine is the "terminal" interface to the server. A more powerful cpu is required.

 

For file services, ftp, intranet services, etc. less processing power is required but better multiprocessing ability (i.e. cores/threads) helps as user count increases.

[Padunkadunk]

Can you please justify your responses? This is a first build.

[Padunkadunk]

If you are running remote desktop or VMs, users are running almost entirely on the server. All that runs on their local machine is the "terminal" interface to the server. A more powerful cpu is required.

 

For file services, ftp, intranet services, etc. less processing power is required but better multiprocessing ability (i.e. cores/threads) helps as user count increases.

 

Thanks for the clarity! When you say a more powerful CPU is required for those tasks, do you mean a move to a quad core?

[Torand]

i3. It's always theoretically better just to stick with the newest, more support, new features, etc...

[brob]

Thanks for the clarity! When you say a more powerful CPU is required for those tasks, do you mean a move to a quad core?

 

That depends on what the users will be doing. For remote desktops, the simplest way of working this out is to imagine that a user is sitting in front of the machine and using it. Would they be happy with the machine doing the work they will be doing? Now add a touch of overhead to account for moving data between the user "terminal" and the server.

 

A quad core isn't necessary if only one user will be running a remote desktop. An i3 with its hyperthreaded dual cores should be more than sufficient. Presuming the load from other work is not that high. And assuming that the user isn't running anything too taxing, i.e. no BF4

 

Serving files has low cpu overhead. The principal bottleneck for that activity is storage.

[ProKoN]

an i3 is a great cost effective choice for a home server

 

i ran an i3-3220 for a couple years no problems. very fast. I recently upgraded to a i5-4670k as my homeserver is now going to be an htpc.

 

i would recommend an i3 .

 

I would personally stay away from AMD for a homeserver. AMD chipsets are far inferior to intels. My biggest problem is with data transfer over the sata bus or home network and since its a server there's most likely going to be a fair amount of data being tossed around.. i did a few tests recently transferring 10GB+ files from large capacity drives on intel and amd machines, 990fx vs p67. keep in mind mechanical HDDS can rarely even saturate a sata2 bus. my intel machines just work great. I get the fastest data transfer over the Gigabit network or locally with an intel machine.

 

i3 is the ideal cost effective solution.

 

if you plan on this machine possibly taking on a htpc role i would go with any i5 sandybridge or newer

 

]

[Torand]

I really should invest in a server project.

 

I have a legit version of Win Server 2012 thanks to DreamSpark and my Uni. 

 

Just to play around with, and for data storage. Films, music, etc.. might be easier to make a NAS box for that really. But a nice bitfenix prodigy server build.

[Giggitygoebbels]

A G3220 is more than enough.

However,get an A8 and above APU.

[Padunkadunk]

That depends on what the users will be doing. For remote desktops, the simplest way of working this out is to imagine that a user is sitting in front of the machine and using it. Would they be happy with the machine doing the work they will be doing? Now add a touch of overhead to account for moving data between the user "terminal" and the server.

 

A quad core isn't necessary if only one user will be running a remote desktop. An i3 with its hyperthreaded dual cores should be more than sufficient. Presuming the load from other work is not that high. And assuming that the user isn't running anything too taxing, i.e. no BF4

 

Serving files has low cpu overhead. The principal bottleneck for that activity is storage.

 

Thanks so much for the explanation! The remote users won't be playing BF4. They will most commonly be watching movies. I imagine the i3 will work just fine.