Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Amd OR Intel

Last response: in Systems
Share
March 30, 2012 4:24:59 PM

I want to build a Server/Lab and was wondering if I dont go the full blown server route as in (Xeon or Opetron)what would you recommend Intel or AMD sandy bridge or bulldozer

More about : amd intel

March 30, 2012 4:33:15 PM

I would recommend a AMD 8120 which costs 180$ for 8 cores.
Then the motherboard for 150 $.
This would be perfect for multi threaded use.
Then there are also the Buldozer architecture opteron processors , compatible with AM3+ motherboard standards.
If you go with intel , you will get better perfomance but you have to pay for it.
So it is upto you , are you richie rich or not?
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
March 30, 2012 4:39:46 PM

Why buy an 8120 for $180 when you can get a 2500k for ~$200 that's way faster? Core count isn't everything, you know.

Get an Intel chip, they're faster than AMD's chips, and cost only a few tens of dollars more once all costs of the platform have been factored in.

As far as the new BD based server chips, they barely match Intel's now two year old Xeons. There's a reason AMD only has about a 4% market share for server hardware.
m
0
l
Related resources
March 30, 2012 5:08:55 PM

willard said:
Why buy an 8120 for $180 when you can get a 2500k for ~$200 that's way faster? Core count isn't everything, you know.

Get an Intel chip, they're faster than AMD's chips, and cost only a few tens of dollars more once all costs of the platform have been factored in.

As far as the new BD based server chips, they barely match Intel's now two year old Xeons. There's a reason AMD only has about a 4% market share for server hardware.
All the information I can find is about gaming performance which this machine will do 0 of. I was wondering how they compare in the SBS enviroment.
m
0
l
a c 92 B Homebuilt system
a b å Intel
March 30, 2012 5:35:23 PM

mitunchidamparam said:
I would recommend a AMD 8120 which costs 180$ for 8 cores.
Then the motherboard for 150 $.
This would be perfect for multi threaded use.
Then there are also the Buldozer architecture opteron processors , compatible with AM3+ motherboard standards.


No not even slightly - Zambezi has been FUBAR from day one and there's not a lot of anything that will save it. The $250 FX-8120 is outperformed by the $70 Pentium G620 on just about anything you can throw at it.

Quote:
If you go with intel , you will get better perfomance but you have to pay for it.
So it is upto you , are you richie rich or not?


That's a pretty ridiculous claim to make - sure Intels will cost more but cost in performance difference will be more than worth it. In the business world you have to think of it in terms of time vs. money. On server environment - you certainly want ZERO downtime if possible, and you don't want to spend all your overhead on new PC parts. I'm no die Intel fanboy by any stretch of the imagination but it's a proven fact that the last batch of AMD CPUs were just flat-out duds. If you're going to be building a server - Xeon or nothing.
m
0
l
March 30, 2012 5:46:35 PM

Guys get your facts right.
Every one knows AMD fails in single threaded apps, which are games.
But in a server environment we need multi threaded applications.
This is where the AMD wins.
The Fx8120 is much better in multihtreaded applications than any other intel offerings in that price range.
Check out the reviews or check out this link , if you dont believe me.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
The person wants a Server not a gaming PC.
If you want a gaming PC go get i5.
For video editing, multi threaded applications get the AMD.

People correct me if my facts are wrong.
m
0
l
a c 118 B Homebuilt system
March 30, 2012 5:47:17 PM

g-unit1111 said:
No not even slightly - Zambezi has been FUBAR from day one and there's not a lot of anything that will save it. The $250 FX-8120 is outperformed by the $70 Pentium G620 on just about anything you can throw at it.

Quote:
If you go with intel , you will get better perfomance but you have to pay for it.
So it is upto you , are you richie rich or not?


That's a pretty ridiculous claim to make - sure Intels will cost more but cost in performance difference will be more than worth it. In the business world you have to think of it in terms of time vs. money. On server environment - you certainly want ZERO downtime if possible, and you don't want to spend all your overhead on new PC parts. I'm no die Intel fanboy by any stretch of the imagination but it's a proven fact that the last batch of AMD CPUs were just flat-out duds. If you're going to be building a server - Xeon or nothing.



Thats actually not true. For gaming, yes the 2500k is the superior choice, however, not in multi-threaded applications.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-an...

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-an...

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-an...

As you can see on this, for multi-threading, The FX 8core smokes the 2500k and steps right up to i7 (and 8 core FX is cheaper)
m
0
l
a c 92 B Homebuilt system
a b å Intel
March 30, 2012 5:48:51 PM

nekulturny said:
Thats actually not true. For gaming, yes the 2500k is the superior choice, however, not in multi-threaded applications.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-an...

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-an...

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-an...


The first two links I clicked on still show it being beaten by the 2600K - it's not helping the case at all.
m
0
l
a c 92 B Homebuilt system
a b å Intel
March 30, 2012 5:53:29 PM

nekulturny said:
Actually it does.. Considering the 2600k is more expensive....


If you look at what I said earlier you have to think of this in terms of time vs. money - on a server environment - you want *ZERO* downtime. That's where Intel excels over an Opteron build. I'd honestly rather pay extra for the 2600K knowing that there's less room for failure over buying an AMD with a motherboard that's far more prone to errors and failure - which has typically been the case with most AMD systems I've worked with in the last couple of years. I say pay a bit more and buy the part once and be done with it, vs. buying the same part twice because it's slower and you regret the purchase.

Quote:
check out this review
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5279 [...] ser-look/9


That link actually compares a somewhat current Opteron to a 1366-based Xeon - I'm sure the 1155-Xeons will give you some very different benchmarks.
m
0
l
a c 118 B Homebuilt system
March 30, 2012 5:54:26 PM

g-unit1111 said:
If you look at what I said earlier you have to think of this in terms of time vs. money - on a server environment - you want *ZERO* downtime. That's where Intel excels over an Opteron build. I'd honestly rather pay extra for the 2600K knowing that there's less room for failure over buying an AMD with a motherboard that's far more prone to errors and failure - which has typically been the case with most AMD systems I've worked with in the last couple of years. I say pay a bit more and buy the part once and be done with it, vs. buying the same part twice because it's slower and you regret the purchase.



G-unit. I like you, I think we've had some nice discussions on this forum, but in this case, you're dead wrong. I'm sorry.


Edit:
I'd like to see your evidence that an AMD motherboard is more prone to failure.. Especially considering that Sandy Bridge mobos had to be recalled.. I don't remember hearing about any recalls on AMD boards...

http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/News/246709,intel-announces...
m
0
l
a c 92 B Homebuilt system
a b å Intel
March 30, 2012 6:00:42 PM

Quote:
G-unit. I like you, I think we've had some nice discussions on this forum, but in this case, you're dead wrong. I'm sorry.


Show me some benchmarks - I'm still not convinced yet. All the links I've seen so far are 1 - 2 years old, nothing current. No Xeon E5 - Opteron comparisons that I've seen yet. That's what I want to see. If there's a valid link that compares a Xeon E5 to an Opteron and the Opteron beats it, then I'll be convinced.

Quote:
I'd like to see your evidence that an AMD motherboard is more prone to failure.. Especially considering that Sandy Bridge mobos had to be recalled.. I don't remember hearing about any recalls on AMD boards...


I don't know about servers but all the workstations I've worked on have eventually had to be replaced with Intel boards, I will most likely be replacing my AMD system with an Intel rig at some point, and where was this about Intel boards being recalled? I haven't seen anything on that yet.
m
0
l
March 30, 2012 6:07:19 PM

Kind of like asking Ford or Chevy. Both have their strengths and weaknesses.
m
0
l
a c 118 B Homebuilt system
March 30, 2012 6:10:09 PM

g-unit1111 said:
Quote:
G-unit. I like you, I think we've had some nice discussions on this forum, but in this case, you're dead wrong. I'm sorry.


Show me some benchmarks - I'm still not convinced yet. All the links I've seen so far are 1 - 2 years old, nothing current. No Xeon E5 - Opteron comparisons that I've seen yet. That's what I want to see. If there's a valid link that compares a Xeon E5 to an Opteron and the Opteron beats it, then I'll be convinced.

Quote:
I'd like to see your evidence that an AMD motherboard is more prone to failure.. Especially considering that Sandy Bridge mobos had to be recalled.. I don't remember hearing about any recalls on AMD boards...


I don't know about servers but all the workstations I've worked on have eventually had to be replaced with Intel boards, I will most likely be replacing my AMD system with an Intel rig at some point, and where was this about Intel boards being recalled? I haven't seen anything on that yet.



Theres no reason to compare the Xeon to Opteron, thats not what the OP asked for. You asked for Benchmarks of current on the market chips, and I showed them to you. You came back with an argument that you should pay more money for lower performance due to an unsubstantiated argument that AMD boards were more prone to failure. The burden of proof is currently on you.

I get it that you have buyer's remorse on your AMD rig (while I personally don't know why) considering for gaming, despite all the pretty benchmarks people put out about gaming performance (as we have discussed before) of the FX line, its really quite silly since movie theater quality is 24FPS. So in a game, its quite ridiculous for people to use the argument that 2500k gives you 90FPS but the FX-4100 only gives you 80!!! The human eye simply can't tell the difference.

Now back to the topic at hand: In a server, this is where the FX 8 cores are worth their weight. Again, I have showed you benchmarks, no they are not 2 years old (Bulldozers are not even a year old yet). Theres no reason to find more current ones as the link I provided compares CPUs that are currently available on the market today, and I have provided up-to-date pricing to go with it.
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
March 30, 2012 6:12:14 PM

I think we need to know more about what the OP has in mind for this server. S/He's stated that this was going to be in a lab environment and also that it would be running Windows Small Business Server.

Looking at the Minimum System Requirements for SBS, they state it already requires a 2.0GHz quad-core processor. Now depending on what else the OP want to do, something like virtual environments (Hyper-V) would tend to point at wanting (if not needing) more than just four cores.

Now if this is just a test lab set up, the OP should be good to go with consumer level products; providing s/he can find a motherboard that supports Server 2008 R2. Otherwise, I'd definitely have to recommend staying with enterprise level products (XEON/Opteron).

-Wolf sends
m
0
l
a c 118 B Homebuilt system
March 30, 2012 6:20:12 PM

extremepcs said:
Kind of like asking Ford or Chevy. Both have their strengths and weaknesses.



I've owned Fords and Chevys. Now I own Acura/Honda. LOL. Too bad in the CPU business you only have two choices.
m
0
l
a c 92 B Homebuilt system
a b å Intel
March 30, 2012 6:20:51 PM

Quote:
I get it that you have buyer's remorse on your AMD rig (while I personally don't know why) considering for gaming, despite all the pretty benchmarks people put out about gaming performance (as we have discussed before) of the FX line, its really quite silly since movie theater quality is 24FPS. So in a game, its quite ridiculous for people to use the argument that 2500k gives you 90FPS but the FX-4100 only gives you 80!!! The human eye simply can't tell the difference.

Now back to the topic at hand: In a server, this is where the FX 8 cores are worth their weight. Again, I have showed you benchmarks, no they are not 2 years old (Bulldozers are not even a year old yet). Theres no reason to find more current ones as the link I provided compares CPUs that are currently available on the market today, and I have provided up-to-date pricing to go with it.


Well I'm not going to say I have complete buyer's remorse on my AMD rig - for some of the things I need it to do like media management and HD video streaming - it does quite well. When I play games like BF3 and Skyrim that's where I notice stuttering and things like that - although I'm sure it has more to do with my (bad) choice of GPU than it is with the CPU.

Now I definitely realize what applies to gaming environments doesn't carry over to a server environment - those are like comparing apples and oranges. But what I want to see is like where you have some 50+ users logged on to an Opteron based server and what happens when you have 50+ users logged onto a Xeon E5 server and thos benchmarks but I can imagine they're hard to come by.
m
0
l
March 30, 2012 6:21:38 PM

Intel fan boys go to some gaming thread and say we get 120 FPS with i5 2500 K. This is a thread for servers.
m
0
l
March 30, 2012 6:24:58 PM

Ferrari or McLaren?
m
0
l
March 30, 2012 6:29:15 PM

here it is a pick up truck or a car.
AMD ---- Intel
m
0
l
a c 118 B Homebuilt system
March 30, 2012 6:32:36 PM

g-unit1111 said:
Quote:
I get it that you have buyer's remorse on your AMD rig (while I personally don't know why) considering for gaming, despite all the pretty benchmarks people put out about gaming performance (as we have discussed before) of the FX line, its really quite silly since movie theater quality is 24FPS. So in a game, its quite ridiculous for people to use the argument that 2500k gives you 90FPS but the FX-4100 only gives you 80!!! The human eye simply can't tell the difference.

Now back to the topic at hand: In a server, this is where the FX 8 cores are worth their weight. Again, I have showed you benchmarks, no they are not 2 years old (Bulldozers are not even a year old yet). Theres no reason to find more current ones as the link I provided compares CPUs that are currently available on the market today, and I have provided up-to-date pricing to go with it.


Well I'm not going to say I have complete buyer's remorse on my AMD rig - for some of the things I need it to do like media management and HD video streaming - it does quite well. When I play games like BF3 and Skyrim that's where I notice stuttering and things like that - although I'm sure it has more to do with my (bad) choice of GPU than it is with the CPU.

Now I definitely realize what applies to gaming environments doesn't carry over to a server environment - those are like comparing apples and oranges. But what I want to see is like where you have some 50+ users logged on to an Opteron based server and what happens when you have 50+ users logged onto a Xeon E5 server and thos benchmarks but I can imagine they're hard to come by.


Theres nothing wrong with your GPU's. I would say (as I did before when we talked about it), the 1055T was not a wise choice for a gaming rig. Its not a bad chip, its just not a good match. You would have done better off to pick a 1090T or a Deneb like I have. But lets not derail this thread lol. Tell you what, if you're close to Maryland, I could bring my 975 Deneb over and drop it in your rig to prove the point.

But like wolf says, really more information is needed on what the OP is actually planning to do with this server. I know some people like to run a server-grade build as their daily PC, while I think thats a little crazy, some people do it.
m
0
l
March 30, 2012 6:48:19 PM

Wolfshadw said:
I think we need to know more about what the OP has in mind for this server. S/He's stated that this was going to be in a lab environment and also that it would be running Windows Small Business Server.

Looking at the Minimum System Requirements for SBS, they state it already requires a 2.0GHz quad-core processor. Now depending on what else the OP want to do, something like virtual environments (Hyper-V) would tend to point at wanting (if not needing) more than just four cores.

Now if this is just a test lab set up, the OP should be good to go with consumer level products; providing s/he can find a motherboard that supports Server 2008 R2. Otherwise, I'd definitely have to recommend staying with enterprise level products (XEON/Opteron).

-Wolf sends
As far as I have seen you can throw server 2008 R2 on just about anything. The environment I have in mind is for dual purpose. I will start out using and ESXI VM environment to configure a small domain and exchange server probably just run 2 maybe 3 vms tops. ( Its not going to see any real use but I am going to be taking some MCITP exams soon and would like to configure from the ground up for a change rather than administering already in place networks like I do now. After I have succeeded in playing which is essentially what im doing lol. It is going to replace my current file\domain controller at my house (an old e8400). I already have my gaming rig 2500k intel build all setup so gaming really is of no concern for this project. I would like to stick with consumer level sandybridge\bulldozer just for the sheer fact of it being cheaper and my needs do not really justify opetron or xeon builds.
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
March 30, 2012 7:01:19 PM

As the op suggested about xeons and opterons he must be deep pocketed.

My recomendation

intel i5 2500k
Cm hyper 212 evo
asrock z68 pro3 gen3
seasonic 320w 80+ bronze psu
corsair 2x4 gb 1333mhz ram

The above build x3 and

the master Pc

intel i5 2500k
Cm hyper 212 evo
asrock z68 pro3 gen3
seasonic 320w 80+ bronze psu
corsair 2x4 gb 1333mhz ram
seagate 500gb hdd
and a gpu if needed.

This will become a cluster of 4 system and will yield more than a 12 core mac pro at a much lesser price
m
0
l
March 30, 2012 7:03:02 PM

serialkiller said:
As the op suggested about xeons and opterons he must be deep pocketed.

My recomendation

intel i5 2500k
Cm hyper 212 evo
asrock z68 pro3 gen3
seasonic 320w 80+ bronze psu
corsair 2x4 gb 1333mhz ram

The above build x3 and

the master Pc

intel i5 2500k
Cm hyper 212 evo
asrock z68 pro3 gen3
seasonic 320w 80+ bronze psu
corsair 2x4 gb 1333mhz ram
seagate 500gb hdd
and a gpu if needed.

This will become a cluster of 4 system and will yield more than a 12 core mac pro at a much lesser price
I never suggested opetron or xeons I said the cost doesn't justify my needs. I am confused as to why you would be suggesting such a small psu for a machine that will be running multiple drives and peripherals.
m
0
l
March 30, 2012 7:03:45 PM

As you already have a i5 2500k , i think a fx 8120 would be a nice bet because for better perfomance in rare cases you would need to go with i7 , but it costs more and the motherboard costs more to.
So ya, fx8120 is a good processor and when over clocked it can beat a stock i7 , because it has a unlocked multiplier.
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
March 30, 2012 7:26:47 PM

mitunchidamparam said:
As you already have a i5 2500k , i think a fx 8120 would be a nice bet because for better perfomance in rare cases you would need to go with i7 , but it costs more and the motherboard costs more to.
So ya, fx8120 is a good processor and when over clocked it can beat a stock i7 , because it has a unlocked multiplier.

I don't understand why people insist on comparing overclocked chips to stock ones. Of course the overclocked chip is faster, but if you overclock both it's still slower. That said, overclocking a server is an awful, awful idea.

I'd also like to chime in one last time about the 8120 vs 2500k.

The 8120 is superior in only some workloads, and even then it's not that much better (certainly not the gap you'd expect comparing 8 core chips to 4 core). Fortunately for the OP, these workloads are also the ones most common to servers, but if he mentioned the specific workload he had in mind, I don't remember it.

The 2500k is going to dominate the 8120 on any workload with heavy floating point work, no matter how well threaded it is. You see this even in the guru3d benches that were posted earlier. This is a result of the BD chips not really being true 8 core chips and having to share the floating point schedulers between pairs of cores.

I still say go with the 2500k, as it's the more well rounded processor, unless you know you're only going to be working with integers. If floating point performance isn't an issue, the 8120 isn't a bad choice, but you should be aware of the Jekyll and Hyde nature of Bulldozer's performance.
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
March 30, 2012 8:22:44 PM

@Plasticjesus690 - If all you're doing is building and configuring and not putting any real load on the system, then I don't seen any reason to go with anything more expensive than what meets the minimum requirements. If you're current file/domain controller isn't meeting your expectations, take that into consideration when deciding on your current build.

When I built my server (also just for *fun*), I decided to go Intel because I didn't have much luck finding Server 2008 drivers for AMD motherboard. If you think you can get by with an AMD based build, I'd say go for it.

For the record, my server was based on some Gigabyte GA-P43 board and an Intel Q8400. My mistake was only getting 8GB of RAM for the system.

-Wolf sends
m
0
l
a c 92 B Homebuilt system
a b å Intel
March 30, 2012 8:24:48 PM

Plasticjesus690 said:
As far as I have seen you can throw server 2008 R2 on just about anything. The environment I have in mind is for dual purpose. I will start out using and ESXI VM environment to configure a small domain and exchange server probably just run 2 maybe 3 vms tops. ( Its not going to see any real use but I am going to be taking some MCITP exams soon and would like to configure from the ground up for a change rather than administering already in place networks like I do now. After I have succeeded in playing which is essentially what im doing lol. It is going to replace my current file\domain controller at my house (an old e8400). I already have my gaming rig 2500k intel build all setup so gaming really is of no concern for this project. I would like to stick with consumer level sandybridge\bulldozer just for the sheer fact of it being cheaper and my needs do not really justify opetron or xeon builds.


OK that clarifies it a bit. I was thinking this was going to be a workgroup server for like 20+ users. :lol: 

Quote:

Theres nothing wrong with your GPU's. I would say (as I did before when we talked about it), the 1055T was not a wise choice for a gaming rig. Its not a bad chip, its just not a good match. You would have done better off to pick a 1090T or a Deneb like I have. But lets not derail this thread lol. Tell you what, if you're close to Maryland, I could bring my 975 Deneb over and drop it in your rig to prove the point.

But like wolf says, really more information is needed on what the OP is actually planning to do with this server. I know some people like to run a server-grade build as their daily PC, while I think thats a little crazy, some people do it.


I live in California, Maryland might be a bit of a stretch... :lol: 

I guess if it's a small server FX could work (still not a fan by any stretch of the imagination) - I'm thinking a server like I'm used to that runs dual Xeons and feeds some 50+ users, not a small workgroup server that serves like 4 - 6, I've tried setting one up but Windows Home Server is a bit of a pain.
m
0
l
March 30, 2012 8:33:41 PM

I get to play with big boy servers all day long. This is mostly for a lab environment so I can test things such as backup software services packs for exchange and what not before rolling them out to important environments. Not to mention configuring and environment from the ground up would be a good learning experience
m
0
l
a c 118 B Homebuilt system
March 30, 2012 10:26:09 PM

willard said:
I don't understand why people insist on comparing overclocked chips to stock ones. Of course the overclocked chip is faster, but if you overclock both it's still slower. That said, overclocking a server is an awful, awful idea.

I'd also like to chime in one last time about the 8120 vs 2500k.

The 8120 is superior in only some workloads, and even then it's not that much better (certainly not the gap you'd expect comparing 8 core chips to 4 core). Fortunately for the OP, these workloads are also the ones most common to servers, but if he mentioned the specific workload he had in mind, I don't remember it.

The 2500k is going to dominate the 8120 on any workload with heavy floating point work, no matter how well threaded it is. You see this even in the guru3d benches that were posted earlier. This is a result of the BD chips not really being true 8 core chips and having to share the floating point schedulers between pairs of cores.

I still say go with the 2500k, as it's the more well rounded processor, unless you know you're only going to be working with integers. If floating point performance isn't an issue, the 8120 isn't a bad choice, but you should be aware of the Jekyll and Hyde nature of Bulldozer's performance.


I agree with you, its kinda silly to compare an overclocked chip to a stock one..

And I can understand why overclocking a server wouldn't be appropriate if we were talking a several thousand dollar Xeon. Or a server in a hospital or some other circumstance where life and death could depend on the server functioning. But say for a small business or like what the OP is saying his needs are, and using a sub-$300 CPU, what would be the harm in overclocking a server under these circumstances? Again, I'm not really trying to say you're wrong, more curious for my own learning purposes.

m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
April 1, 2012 9:52:19 PM

well for his needs a amd is not so bad for a choice, 8120 and 8150 performs nice as a server, seen some 70-120$ mobo which can go well with that for a server should lower down the price, and some cheap graphics card or something.
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
April 2, 2012 3:31:39 PM

nekulturny said:
And I can understand why overclocking a server wouldn't be appropriate if we were talking a several thousand dollar Xeon. Or a server in a hospital or some other circumstance where life and death could depend on the server functioning. But say for a small business or like what the OP is saying his needs are, and using a sub-$300 CPU, what would be the harm in overclocking a server under these circumstances? Again, I'm not really trying to say you're wrong, more curious for my own learning purposes.

It's a poor use of money. Overclocking increases your energy cost significantly, which in servers tends to be a major part of the total cost. It's a better idea to spend a bit more up front and buy the chip that delivers the performance you want already than try to save a few bucks and pay for it in the long run with higher energy costs and more waste heat to dissipate.

For small servers, this isn't that big of a concern, but the OP specifically mentioned that this was a bit of a learning exercise with configuring servers from the ground up. I'd say in that context, it's worth sticking to what you'd do in the larger scale environment he seems to be preparing for. You don't learn much about building servers if you're treating your practice server like a desktop machine.
m
0
l
!