Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Lowest power media server

Last response: in Systems
Share
April 21, 2009 7:22:04 PM

I've opened up another thread in another board about media servers vs NAS, but I was wondering:

What is the lowest power triple or quad core solution to a Media Server? I know Intel has the only 65w quad cores on the market right now (at least, thats all I can see on Newegg.com), but the motherboard and onboard video draw power as well, and I've read over and over again about how AMD solutions, while having slightly less efficient processors, have lower consumption when taking the entire platform into the equation.

So, what platform offers the lowest power consumption althogether, an AMD or Intel one, when using a tripe core or quad core? Remember: media server.
April 21, 2009 7:34:11 PM

amd has the 9350e which is 65w, and I remember seeing becnhmarks where the whole system only used 95w total since they were using onboard graphics and intel motherboards and their chipsets, igpu's etc use more power.

also most intel processors use upto 30w more than it says on the box, and amd cpu's use whatever energy used it says on the box or less.
a b B Homebuilt system
April 21, 2009 8:01:54 PM

Any particular reason you want triple- or quad-core? For serving media, your network components are much more likely to be the bottleneck. Unless this machine will be busy doing other things as well, consider one of the 45W AMD chips, like the 4850e.
Other ways to lower total power consumption are to use "green" drives, and an 80+ certified PSU.
Related resources
April 21, 2009 8:14:17 PM

The only reason I want a triple or quad is because I can imagine multiple people trying to watch multiple things from the server at once. I'm going to have this setup to serve up to three TVs, two of which have surround sound.
a b B Homebuilt system
April 21, 2009 8:33:17 PM

You won't need a triple or quad for that. If the network interface isn't the bottleneck, next will be the hard drive(s).
April 21, 2009 8:38:19 PM

A question I asked elsewhere and haven't gotten a response for is whats the benefit of a Media Server over just NAS? (see, i am a newblet when it comes to this)

To me, it seems a media server is just NAS. Whats the benefit of giving it its own OS and a processor and memory? If I just put the NAS on my network, wouldn't an Xbox 360 (or similiar device) just be able play the media?

I guess the question is: why have a Media Server when NAS works all the same? What is the difference that I am missing?
April 21, 2009 11:01:47 PM

a NAS is limited from the start for speed, Raid levels and # of drives.

A PC/Media/File server is upgradable. Start with 4 drives now, and upgrade to 6,7,8 and so on as you go.

With a NAS, you usually pay A LOT more for better speed and easier setup/configuration.
With a Server, you pay less but can spend more time configuring it.

With a Server, you can even integrate it into an existing PC.

For 3 streams at once, you won't need much speed. It just depends on how much storage space you need now and in the future. A 2 drive NAS should work just fine with the 2 drives in Raid 1 for data protection. If you need more space in the future, I'm sure there will be 4TB+ drives to meet your needs. However, if you need more speed and have more people to stream to, then a 4 drive NAS or a Media Server would be better. Configuring a NAS is rather simple. Find a good one and there are sites with people explaining exactly how to set them up.
!