Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Please give input!

Tags:
  • Video Games
  • Minecraft
  • Servers
Last response: in Video Games
Share
October 16, 2013 12:53:23 PM

I've posted this on the official Minecraft forum already, but it doesn't look like anyone is going to respond to my thread, so I'm gonna crtl+c / ctrl+v that thread here at Tom's Hardware. I hope this is the proper place to put this and I'd really appreciate some responses.

So, I've been considering building a separate computer from my current build for the sole purpose of running a Minecraft server, probably bukkit. I'd rather it not be more than 350$ total since it won't be doing anything other than running my server 99% of the time. This is my proposed build(I already have a 350w power supply from an old build): http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1PxYy I'm not sure if a dual core CPU like the one I chose will be okay for running a Minecraft server, so I'd appreciate input on this

More about : give input

Best solution

October 16, 2013 1:44:54 PM

I think the new server software allows MC to utilize more/all cores so long as you have the latest java on the machine, so this CPU, although not as strong in single threaded, is a much better multi-tasker (should help to have more players at one time with less lag) and the iGPU is stronger also if you ever need it (the server software wont use it, but you probably already know that). You have a decent amount of RAM there, and everything else seems fine.

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1PzSp
Share
October 17, 2013 11:11:59 AM

Thank you, this was a more straight-forward answer than what I've received at the official MC forums. So four more less powerful cores is better than simply having two, more powerful cores for the purpose of hosting a Minecraft server?
m
0
l
Related resources
October 17, 2013 12:34:53 PM

Yes, I'm no server expert but if your running saying a quad core i7 running 2.6ghz it would be 2.6ghzx4 for total processing speed. if it can take advantage of HT then your talking x8. So I would just do the math of the cores timexbase processing speed and come up with the best cpu for the price.
m
0
l
October 21, 2013 2:40:01 PM

Moonsfang said:
Yes, I'm no server expert but if your running saying a quad core i7 running 2.6ghz it would be 2.6ghzx4 for total processing speed. if it can take advantage of HT then your talking x8. So I would just do the math of the cores timexbase processing speed and come up with the best cpu for the price.


It does not quite stack up like that. It's more like having four ovens (CPU cores). If you want to bake a cake (single task), you can't split it across these ovens. Only one can bake the cake. This means the CPU "GHz" do not stack or are multiplied with additional cores, HT or not. So it is not 10.4GHz or 20.8GHz at the end of the equation. They can't be added like that if that is what you are saying.

Hyperthreading is like adding an oven tray. You can bake two cakes at once but less efficiently than having two real ovens, as you are sharing the resources that the oven has. (It does not actually run both tasks at the same time, but something more complex that I don't really understand.)

As minecraft is not overly intensive you could look into getting an i5 or i7, but an FX 6300, A8-5600K or even FX 8150 if you wanted, could handle the server just fine. Quad core just means less chance of lag when there are lots of entities about. I'd suggest a quad core with a moderate amount of strength (strength is also not measured in GHz).
m
0
l
October 22, 2013 8:01:17 AM

PyjamasCat said:
Moonsfang said:
Yes, I'm no server expert but if your running saying a quad core i7 running 2.6ghz it would be 2.6ghzx4 for total processing speed. if it can take advantage of HT then your talking x8. So I would just do the math of the cores timexbase processing speed and come up with the best cpu for the price.


It does not quite stack up like that. It's more like having four ovens (CPU cores). If you want to bake a cake (single task), you can't split it across these ovens. Only one can bake the cake. This means the CPU "GHz" do not stack or are multiplied with additional cores, HT or not. So it is not 10.4GHz or 20.8GHz at the end of the equation. They can't be added like that if that is what you are saying.

Hyperthreading is like adding an oven tray. You can bake two cakes at once but less efficiently than having two real ovens, as you are sharing the resources that the oven has. (It does not actually run both tasks at the same time, but something more complex that I don't really understand.)

As minecraft is not overly intensive you could look into getting an i5 or i7, but an FX 6300, A8-5600K or even FX 8150 if you wanted, could handle the server just fine. Quad core just means less chance of lag when there are lots of entities about. I'd suggest a quad core with a moderate amount of strength (strength is also not measured in GHz).


Hmm, I didn't know that. I thought most all programs and games these days were made to take advantage of multiple cores and even HT. Is this the case or are server rules just different?

m
0
l
October 22, 2013 12:57:05 PM

Moonsfang said:


Hmm, I didn't know that. I thought most all programs and games these days were made to take advantage of multiple cores and even HT. Is this the case or are server rules just different?



What I believe is actually happening with the multicore/hyperthreading thing is that applications and games are now "baking their cakes in layers" so a different layer for each core /logical core which means that you can throw it all together at the end in a sense. This isn't to say that the compute power adds though. Each core is still only as powerful as the next, but by splitting the task (when possible and if it is allowed, because some things cannot just be split) , you can achieve your end product faster, but not often at double speed (this is especially common with hyperthreading.)

Even though not all applications can take advantage of multicore/HT CPUs, the CPUs can still schedule and run multiple different applications, which is still beneficial. There are limits to how much multicore proccessors can show improved performance too. This is Amdahl's Law. The more cores you add, the less you get in return, due to having to link the cores ( Amdahl's Law CPU Scaling Limits. You can see in the graph clearly the limits of today's CPUs if they were to scale the way it seems they might. Of course along side this we will be using new technology soon (I really hope) which will enable much greater single threaded performance, but this is probably well off. (Probably 7 - 15 years away, I really don't know).

I hope this makes sense.

Anyway, Plasmio, did you find what you were looking for? If you could provide me with a budget I could probably put together something better or more suited to that.
m
0
l
October 23, 2013 2:14:32 PM

PyjamasCat said:
Moonsfang said:


Hmm, I didn't know that. I thought most all programs and games these days were made to take advantage of multiple cores and even HT. Is this the case or are server rules just different?



What I believe is actually happening with the multicore/hyperthreading thing is that applications and games are now "baking their cakes in layers" so a different layer for each core /logical core which means that you can throw it all together at the end in a sense. This isn't to say that the compute power adds though. Each core is still only as powerful as the next, but by splitting the task (when possible and if it is allowed, because some things cannot just be split) , you can achieve your end product faster, but not often at double speed (this is especially common with hyperthreading.)

Even though not all applications can take advantage of multicore/HT CPUs, the CPUs can still schedule and run multiple different applications, which is still beneficial. There are limits to how much multicore proccessors can show improved performance too. This is Amdahl's Law. The more cores you add, the less you get in return, due to having to link the cores ( Amdahl's Law CPU Scaling Limits. You can see in the graph clearly the limits of today's CPUs if they were to scale the way it seems they might. Of course along side this we will be using new technology soon (I really hope) which will enable much greater single threaded performance, but this is probably well off. (Probably 7 - 15 years away, I really don't know).

I hope this makes sense.

Anyway, Plasmio, did you find what you were looking for? If you could provide me with a budget I could probably put together something better or more suited to that.


Thanks for such a clear response! I've heard several sides to this story its seems to be a very opinionated topic. I understand what you mean though the ghz have nothing to do with the amount of cores being HT especially considering its a lot less ineffecient i would think to split up a task and then have to reform it. Either way it goes though the technology will advance and will come into a new age at some point.
m
0
l
October 23, 2013 7:44:04 PM

Moonsfang said:


Thanks for such a clear response! I've heard several sides to this story its seems to be a very opinionated topic. I understand what you mean though the ghz have nothing to do with the amount of cores being HT especially considering its a lot less ineffecient i would think to split up a task and then have to reform it. Either way it goes though the technology will advance and will come into a new age at some point.


No problem. A program/task isn't actually split like you would cut a cake, but rather allows for processing smaller "threads" from the task at hand. So within a game or application like photoshop or minecraft, there are multiple threads available to run, but you will only see one or two processes in the task manager. If you go to the performance tab, you will see handles, threads and processes. It gets more complicated. I don't really know how it works from there.
m
0
l
November 29, 2013 2:34:25 AM

PyjamasCat said:
Moonsfang said:


Thanks for such a clear response! I've heard several sides to this story its seems to be a very opinionated topic. I understand what you mean though the ghz have nothing to do with the amount of cores being HT especially considering its a lot less ineffecient i would think to split up a task and then have to reform it. Either way it goes though the technology will advance and will come into a new age at some point.


No problem. A program/task isn't actually split like you would cut a cake, but rather allows for processing smaller "threads" from the task at hand. So within a game or application like photoshop or minecraft, there are multiple threads available to run, but you will only see one or two processes in the task manager. If you go to the performance tab, you will see handles, threads and processes. It gets more complicated. I don't really know how it works from there.

My apologies. Over a month late to respond because I haven't been on in that amount of time. I saw your pcpartpicker link and assuming that an A8 is powerful enough to host a server of maybe 30-40 people max, it seems like a good build. The only thing I'm curious about is if an Intel build would still run it better seeing as Intel is generally much better for gaming.
m
0
l
!