1

Hi,

I’m custom building a lower end server that will host

1 DC (for 4 users at a remote office)

1 lightly used security computer (codes fobs for access control)

1 lightly used WiFi Hotspot program (program that manages a dozen hotspots)

This server will also take some remote backups from the main office. Mostly file backups.

I’m torn between using a Xeon E3-1230 or an AMD 61xx or 62xx.

With similar parts from the newegg, the Xeon can be built for about $1700. The AMD about $1900. The nice thing about the AMD mobo (Supermicro) is that It has 8 slots. I can stuff 32GB of ram in easily. The Intel board (also a Supermicro) has 4 slots, but 8GB chips are impossilbe to find at a good price. So 16GB will be the max for the Intel board

I recently built a 12 core Revit rendering machine with a 6174 that is running very well. I do have a soft spot AMD.

Does anyone have thoughts? I am looking to build not buy. Thanks

4 Spice ups
2

So long as you’ve decided to build and not buy (which I wouldn’t recommend - what happens when a drive fails or some other issue? HP / Dell / Whomever will usually offer some sort of onsite repair / replacement service) then I’d suggest the AMD chips. They aren’t quite as sexy as the Intels not quite as fast, but for the money I always seem to get a lot more bang for my buck from AMD.

3

I hear you but I’m not worried about a drive failing I have spares.

4

I am a big fan of the AMD’s for virtualization. Half our hosts are AMD based, and I am very happy with them. We plan on going all AMD as we replace the older intel servers.

1 Spice up
5

Derek_A wrote:

I am a big fan of the AMD’s for virtualization. Half our hosts are AMD based, and I am very happy with them. We plan on going all AMD as we replace the older intel servers.

Are you using any of the newer processors? 61xx or 62xx?

6

Derek_A wrote:

I am a big fan of the AMD’s for virtualization. Half our hosts are AMD based, and I am very happy with them. We plan on going all AMD as we replace the older intel servers.

Me too, I use AMD almost exclusively.

7

mrbostn wrote:

62xx here.

8

Scott Alan Miller wrote:

Thanks for answering. Did you build the server that the 62xx is in? Or buy? If build what mobo did you use? How many vms?

9

mrbostn wrote:

Thanks for answering. Did you build the server that the 62xx is in? Or buy? If build what mobo did you use? How many vms?

I would never build a server for a business, I can’t build them as cost effectively as buying let alone get the quality, performance, reliability and support. I wouldn’t even do that for home :wink: Even my home boxes are Proliants and SunFires.

I have machines ranging from just a handful to nearly a hundred VMs. The 6200 box that I just checked is currently at around ten vms but is continuously climbing as we move more stuff onto it. It is basically entirely idle at ten VMs. We have 64GB and 8x 10K SAS drives on that box.

1 Spice up
10

Thanks for the input everyone.

11

mrbostn wrote:

Mine are not the 6xxx series. I am using the 4xxx series. These were bought, Dell’s. Same reasons as SAM says above, I cannot build one for much cheaper than Dell sells them for. Plus you get the warranty and support if needed.

1 Spice up
12

Scott Alan Miller wrote:

Any reason you chose AMD over Intel?

Everything I’ve read they do not perform as well in a VT situation. From a price point I’m not sure if they fit the bill either. I’ve not kept up with AMD for a few years but when I do read something here or there it always still shows the Xeon ahead.

I think the E3 Xeon is leaps and bounds ahead of the 3xxx series. When we put in Foundation servers the 3xxx was a decent processor and it handled a light work load well. After seeing how the E3 performed you could run 10 users off a Foundation server in RDS and deliver a decent experience.

13

eric-ptek wrote:

Scott Alan Miller wrote:

Any reason you chose AMD over Intel?

Everything I’ve read they do not perform as well in a VT situation. From a price point I’m not sure if they fit the bill either. I’ve not kept up with AMD for a few years but when I do read something here or there it always still shows the Xeon ahead.

I think the E3 Xeon is leaps and bounds ahead of the 3xxx series. When we put in Foundation servers the 3xxx was a decent processor and it handled a light work load well. After seeing how the E3 performed you could run 10 users off a Foundation server in RDS and deliver a decent experience.

Price is the big one. “Genuine AMD” is another - not a good one but when running AMD architecture I like the real thing :wink: We get into AMD boxes at twice the cores of the Intel boxes for several hundred dollars cheaper. That is a big deal. We are not CPU bound so the pricing is a big deal as that money can go towards memory and drives, which matter a whole lot more.

14

Scott Alan Miller wrote:

So from a capacity standpoint say given $7,500, how much dense is AMD?

I’m asking out genuine interest because from what I’ve read Intel with less cores performs better on synthetic benchmarks.

Is there a tip over point as far as where AMD/Intel makes more sense?

15

eric-ptek wrote:

So from a capacity standpoint say given $7,500, how much dense is AMD?

I’m asking out genuine interest because from what I’ve read Intel with less cores performs better on synthetic benchmarks.

Is there a tip over point as far as where AMD/Intel makes more sense?

That requires a lot of lab space and funding to really determine. Core for core, Intel crushed AMD. But AMD brings a lot more cores at a lower price. Some workloads excel on Intel, some an AMD. Each workload varies. On average the workloads potential is very close in equally priced systems - it has to be or one maker pulls dramatically ahead of the other like AMD did in the G1 to G4 era.

Intel is leading right now but AMD is hot on their heels. At $7,500 you have 24+ AMD cores. You can do a ton with that. Depending on your workload, that could mean 100+ VMs. Or if you are doing big databases, just one. All depends on the workload.