Why not a server mobo?

[tomwaddle]

I'd like your opinion on why we don't consider looking at dual socket Mobo's when it comes to building our dream machine. I would figure that having two cpu's is better than one. AND, the extra memory support might be overkill but you know you'd have the option to throw in another 4 to 5 gig if you wanted.
I'm all about having several programs running at once (encoding, ripping, surfing the Net, email, chat, etc).
Please submit your opinions on why you won't consider one. Offhand, I'd say the lack of SLI support may be one.

 

[apt403]

They're expensive, for the board itself and for the compatible components. Most server mobos require FB-DIMMs, which run hot, suck tons of power, and are expensive.

The BIOS, chipsets, cpus, ram, ect., arent designed for oc'ing, so 60% of system builders arent going to invest in a server setup.

90% of the time there's going to be a desktop alternative out there that's better suited for regular apps then something designed for a server. The Clovertown Xeons for example, they're insanly expensive, unless you have 3 or 4 grand to drop on a computer your not getting 2 of 'em, so a desktop quad would work just as well.

Unless your doing something like encoding 20 movies at a time whilst gaming, dl'ing 3 or 4 torrents, ripping a cd or 5, running Folding@Home, playing an HD movie, all with Orthos in the backround, your not going to get all 4 cores in a quad core cpu running at full load, dual server quads are insane overkill.

Sure, if you have an unlimited budget or need an insanly fast workstation a computer with a dual socket mobo stuffed with quad Xeons, 5 or 6gb of ram and 4 gfx cards is perfect for you, but for the average user (Average enthusiast user that is) a single desktop quad core cpu and a couple gb of ram is more then enough.

 

[darkangelism]

they usually dont have overclocking options