AMD X2 7750 or E5300 for server?

M

MystX

Weaksauce
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
82
Hi guys,
Im looking at building a server for when i head off to uni next year to host files and a website, as well as a bit of game hosting. So it doesn't have to be lightning fast, but it cant be sluggish.

I was originally looking at a E5300 (2.6Ghz) and an Intel DQ45CB (the cheapest small board i could find with RAID 5 for the 3 1Tb caviar blacks that im looking into) which is $220NZD here.
But then i found that a AMD Athlon X2 7750 (2.7 Ghz) and an Asus M2N68-AM together are around $160NZD.

Which is the best way to go? The AMD mobo is a lot cheaper which makes me think that it's missing something but i cant see any problems with it.

Any ideas?

P.S. What sort of ram and PSU would i need for this? I figured 2Gb of ram for the games and a 400-500W PSU would be sufficient.
 
Where are you buying from?

A X2 250, or a X2 545 would be a better choice for aq am2 cpu, and a corsair 400CX fits the PSU bill.

If its cheap enough, you could even get the 620 quad core.
 
Last edited:
Random websites here in New Zealand. The one's with the cheapest parts really.

And a 250 is an extra $30.. But doesn't that mean i need a different mobo and DDR3 ram too?
 
No. It will work in the mobo listed above. The 245-250 X2's run at 65w VS the 95w of last generation (7750). This in itself can save $ per month as well as having the chip run cooler. I run a 245 in a htpc for watching movies, including blue ray (cpu intensive).
 
Huh..
I thought that mobo was for AM2 chips only. And that the Athlon II X2s were AM3 chips.

So the final thought is gowith AMD?
Im still not sure how good that mobo will be though.
 
MystX said:
Huh..
I thought that mobo was for AM2 chips only. And that the Athlon II X2s were AM3 chips.

So the final thought is gowith AMD?
Im still not sure how good that mobo will be though.
Click to expand...

Socket AM3 CPUs like the Athlon II X2 CPUs will work with AM2+ mobos. In fact, if you check the CPU support list for that motherboard, it's clearly noted that the Athlon II X2 CPUs are supported.

AMD, whether you go for the X2 7750 or the Athlon II X2 CPU, are the better value. With that said, your planned setup may not be enough for a game server since the onboard RAID of most motherboards out there (consumer and server) are software-based fakeRAID. Which means that the PC's CPU is being used to do all of the parity calculations which means lowered system performance in general. A RAID 5 setup with fakeRAID will be fast enough for file serving duties and very light web hosting but a game server would require a bit of CPU power.

Budget PSU wise, stick to Antec's Earthwatts series, Corsair's 400CX and higher, and Seasonic PSUs.
 
Thanks Danny,
I realised that the raid functions weren't 'real' raid, but i want some sort of failsafe.. And i guess real raid cards are really expensive?

Whats the alternative? No raid, or faster CPU?
 
Last edited:
dell perc5/i is a good PCIe 4x RAID 5 card if you are looking.... $100 used on ebay
 
Yea, ive had a look here and cant find anything very good. ^that makes it about $150 in my money, which is almost the price of my CPU and mobo combined. Before shipping
 
I might just spend a little extra on a cpu and still use fake raid.
Would anyone suggest raid0 over raid5?
 
Only if you need speed. Remember: RAID is not a backup solution. It merely minimizes downtime (except for RAID0).
 
MystX said:
Thanks Danny,
I realised that the raid functions weren't 'real' raid, but i want some sort of failsafe.. And i guess real raid cards are really expensive?

Whats the alternative? No raid, or faster CPU?
Click to expand...

As enginud said, RAID is not backup. It just increases uptime after a hard drive failure. RAID 0, an misnomer sadly, does not have that uptime increase as once a hard drive dies in RAID 0, generally the data is lost.

If you want uptime, go the software/fakeRAID version of RAID 5. Just remember that you're doing at the expense of performance. If you want performance AND uptime, yes you will need to buy something like the Perc 5/i mentioned earlier.

Or you can just ditch RAID altogether. It's really up to you.
 
but it works as a running backup, right? (for drive failure)

I guess i could do regular backups, but that still leaves me open to drive failure.
 
MystX said:
but it works as a running backup, right? (for drive failure)

I guess i could do regular backups, but that still leaves me open to drive failure.
Click to expand...

Again, not backup: Uptime. If a drive dies, the RAID array and data will still be available, albeit at a degraded performance, until you can rebuild the array with another hard drive. Once a drive dies, your risk for potential data loss goes up until

Back up your most critical data (i.e stuff that you can never replace) via an external hard drive and/or DVD.
 
Danny Bui said:
Back up your most critical data (i.e stuff that you can never replace) via an external hard drive and/or DVD.
Click to expand...

i could do, but i was really hoping for a really low-maintenance solution.

ok two questions: Can you get any motherboards with proper onboard raid?

and what sort of processor usage does CPU calculated raid5 take up? or, what sort of CPU would i need for it be be able to run a source dedicated server?
 
MystX said:
ok two questions: Can you get any motherboards with proper onboard raid?

and what sort of processor usage does CPU calculated raid5 take up? or, what sort of CPU would i need for it be be able to run a source dedicated server?
Click to expand...

Nope, not any more. The only mobos I've heard of having true hardware RAID were a couple meant for enterprises. Meaning they were easily in the $600 to $800USD range.

As for how much CPU usage a RAID 5 array take, it depends on the CPU, the size of the RAID array, and what is being used to set up or maintain the RAID array (either the onboard fakeRAID or via the OS). But I've seen some 2TB RAID 5 arrays take up roughly 50% CPU usage.

The X2 7750 is more than enough for a source dedicated server (assuming 16 players on average) without the RAID array, With the RAID array, not sure. Never seen anyone actually run a source game server off a software based RAID 5 setup.

Also another thing to note: Get a 4th hard drive to install the OS on for security sake. Should the RAID 5 array fails, you still have the OS drive on and vice versa.
 
Hmm.. Thats a lot to think about and im terrible at making decisions. What would you guys do?
 
For a personal file server? HP Mediasmart. :p Or an Acer if you want to save some cash. I'd only build one if I had extra parts to re-use or if I was buying used parts. Though, if such home server systems are expensive in NZ, then just go with your build plans. I'd avoid RAID5 unless I reeeeeeallly, absolutely need it. I'd simply backup to an external drive. Just get a fast Samsung F3 or Seagate 7200.12 500GB or 1TB drive and that should be good, along with the parts above.
 
enginurd said:
For a personal file server? HP Mediasmart. :p Or an Acer if you want to save some cash. I'd only build one if I had extra parts to re-use.
Click to expand...

^^Na, you cant buy PCs like that here, and buying one in general is so much more expensive than building one. That's why im doing it that way.

THey sell PCs with similar specs to this (without all the HDD space) for around $2k in shops here. Building it will get it to be for under $1k

The F3s and Seagate drives are faster than Caviar blacks?
 
MystX said:
The F3s and Seagate drives are faster than Caviar blacks?
Click to expand...

IIRC, yes.

I was in a similar position to you a few weeks ago. I needed a new file server after my Linux server got corrupted. Since I already had parts on hand and I did not want to bother with Linux as a file server for a while, I ended buying a used copy of WHS off the forums and built a WHS server out of spare parts.

I did use a WHS 120 day trial a few months before I went with a Linux server setup and was totally happy with it. But I had other things in my life that required most of my spare cash (my trip to China :)). So far WHS has worked pretty well for me.

However do note that Linux is still a good solution despite my above experience. That Linux server did run for a good 6 to 8 months before the problems started occurring. Also, before the WHS 120 day trial, I was using Linux for a 4-6 months before a very very stupid error on my part left that Linux server essentially useless.

My personal storage setup is as so:
- I have 3TB of storage on my main PC which holds most if not all of my data. None of this data is shared and all of it is my own data, not anyone else's
- The 2.8TB WHS server is there to serve as a file and backup server of sorts. The most critical data have duplication on. All of the data here is shared among all of the PCs in my home. It also stores copies of my family's critical files.
- All of the critical data and somewhat hard to find data is backed up to two external hard drives, one 500GB and one 750GB that's stored in my bedroom so that I can quickly grab them in case of emergency.

Plenty of redundancy. :) Very low chance of all three storage setups dying or corrupted or being lost at the same time outside of a house fire, flood, or burglary.
 
The 500GB and 1TB drives in the F3 and 'cuda.12 lineups use 500GB-platters, making them faster than the 333GB-platters used in most of the other drives, including the Caviar series. I don't think WD has released any drives using the higher density platters aside from the 2TB.
 
Hmm.. Ok, ill look into those drives.

Danny - i was planning on using arch all along, which will probably lighten up onthe OS based stress on the CPU somewhat.

I could also overclock a X2 245 to handle the extra raid calculations. I REALLY would prefer to have a raid setup as i dont really want to have to deal with multiple volumes. Im starting to think that raid0 would be fine too. how much CPU time will thtat use roughly?
 
MystX said:
Hmm.. Ok, ill look into those drives.

Danny - i was planning on using arch all along, which will probably lighten up onthe OS based stress on the CPU somewhat.

I could also overclock a X2 245 to handle the extra raid calculations. I REALLY would prefer to have a raid setup as i dont really want to have to deal with multiple volumes. Im starting to think that raid0 would be fine too. how much CPU time will thtat use roughly?
Click to expand...

Ehh not that much sadly.

The last thing you want to do when using software RAID is overclock the CPU. Remember that the CPU is doing all of the parity calculations. So an unstable OC can and well adversely affect the RAID array like corruption of the files, the RAID array itself, etc.

RAID 0 would be a stupid choice for a purely a storage setup because if one drive dies, all of the data is lost. The only reasons to go with a RAID 0 setup is if A) you already have backups of the files stored elsewhere and B) you want sheer performance. RAID 0 is not meant for safe data storage. However RAID 0 and RAID 1 uses very very little CPU. Like barely 1%.
 
Danny, i might go for raid 0 and backup everything externally every so often. I cant really see a better alternative.
 
Something that is fast enough to run source servers, only has one volume to deal with (i may make var and root different partitions), but where i have a failsafe for HDD failure.
 
MystX said:
Hi guys,
Im looking at building a server for when i head off to uni next year to host files and a website, as well as a bit of game hosting. So it doesn't have to be lightning fast, but it cant be sluggish.

I was originally looking at a E5300 (2.6Ghz) and an Intel DQ45CB (the cheapest small board i could find with RAID 5 for the 3 1Tb caviar blacks that im looking into) which is $220NZD here.
But then i found that a AMD Athlon X2 7750 (2.7 Ghz) and an Asus M2N68-AM together are around $160NZD.

Which is the best way to go? The AMD mobo is a lot cheaper which makes me think that it's missing something but i cant see any problems with it.

Any ideas?

P.S. What sort of ram and PSU would i need for this? I figured 2Gb of ram for the games and a 400-500W PSU would be sufficient.
Click to expand...

go with the e5300.. lower power usage and cooler running while on top of being faster then the x2 7750..

the amd boards not missing anything.. they are just cheaper then lga-775 boards while having the same features.. the only difference between them would be which one has more sata ports..
 
Thanks sirmonkey.
Im looking at getting a 65W AMD now as they're not much more expensive
 
MystX said:
Something that is fast enough to run source servers, only has one volume to deal with (i may make var and root different partitions), but where i have a failsafe for HDD failure.
Click to expand...

Well, then hardware RAID 5 would be a good alternative to the RAID 0 idea.

Or you can always just try software RAID 5 for yourself and see whether or not it is sufficient for a source server. Like I said earlier, never seen anyone run a source server off software RAID 5 but that didn't necessarily mean it can't be done. Try it, see if it works, and if it doesn't then do the inadvisable RAID 0 setup.
 
Yea might have to do that danny. I cant find a hardware raid card here for under $300 so ill try software for now
 
Not too sure about that RAID card. From this thread:
unhappy_mage said:
9500S-[4LP|8|8MI|12|12MI] - 4/8/8ML/12/12ML ports, PCI-X, hardware raid 0,1,10,5 (50 on >4 port cards), 128 MB cache upgradeable to 256, OCE, BBU.
Decent OS support, and these were the best thing going when they came out. But bus interface messiness (these are very picky about who they interact with) and the fact that these are bridged ATA->sata cards keep them from being recommended.
Click to expand...
 
Hmm.. curious. I realise that they're quite old, but i still think that they'll have enough performance for what i want
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top