I'm building a $400-$430 budget server computer. The computer will run on Debian 7 linux to get the most performance. It will be a home server running services such as 1. Vsftpd 2. Samba 3. BIND DNS 4. Game servers such as Minecraft, Gmod, Xonotic (only one at a time).
Right now I have an old computer doing all of this and it does it fairly well, P4 1.7ghz and 1.5gb of memory (it can't handle GMod or MC very well though and the PC is old so it's not really reliable to store data on there)
I can't decide whether to go with AMD or Intel, my main concerns are for the game servers, the other services listed about I know will run fine considering I've ran them on computers with lower specs. I see getting the AMD as being able to overclock it, having a true quad core (more things running right?). With the Pentium, people usually say Intel has a higher core clock speed compared to AMD and dedicated servers usually only use 1 core so would the Intel be faster? But then this would mean I would have only one core left for everything else.
Hmm, the AMD has a max temperature of 62c that's really low, how am I suppose to OC on it? The other thing is the AMD brings up the electric bill about $55 not a lot but it adds up with other things. If I pick AMD, I can upgrade to what an FX series CPU? With intel I can go for i5, i7. I can't decide.
You need to ask yourself a few questions.
1) Are you going to overclock? Are you going to need to or is it just for fun?
2) Do you plan to upgrade in the future?
3) What are your future plans for the PC?
The answers to these questions will point you to Intel or AMD.
Thanks for helping me out btw.
1. I am going to Overclock, I don't need to but I'm not doing it for fun but rather to squeeze out some more Performace (hyper 212 @ 4ghz)
2. I don't think I plan to upgrade, if anything only the memory.
3. The future plans of the PC will be the same as now it's just mostly a server to run dedicated servers to play with friends but then sort of a backup computer for my main PC.
You also need to understand that Linux will run faster than Windows on same platform.
Most people review performance at set case, say program running on same hardware. The more they explore different cases, the more convinced and confused they become. One set of programs would run faster on Inter versus Amd chips, and the other set would see no difference, or even be skewed toward performing better on AMD platform.
With Linux, being able to acquire or compile kernel and programs specifically for your platform is the benefit Windows does not have. This fact is often omitted due to limited awareness of benefit on Windows platform.
Optimized program would run equally well on both platforms, provided clock rate and instructions are equally available for both. Windows programs tend to favor Intel due to being compiled for Intel platform, which explicitly detects AMD chips and forces un-optimized code to run. Conspiracy as it may sound, there was antitrust case specifically about this case in 2009, settled by both sides from Intel and AMD.
Linux can be compiled for you platform and will perform faster than stock kernel. However, needs to be tuned specifically to load modules needed for your system.
Honestly I think people make too much of a deal about how much more electricity AMD CPUs use over their Intel counter parts. The Phenom II 965 BE is the better chip, but go with whichever you want.
Your fx4100 at 4.2ghz probably takes 50-60w more then an i7 3770k. Anyway, you could get an i3 cpu and a 7850 gpu and take less power on 100% cpu and gpu load then a stock fx4100 cpu at 100% load.
It uses a decent amount of more power, but when it comes to your electric bill the difference will be unnoticeable. And I doubt an i3 3220 at load and Radeon 7850 at load will take more power than my FX 4100 at load. Only things CPU TDP really factor into are power supply and cooling.