Intel's server management solution is also based on the MegaRAC product, so many of these features will look fairly familiar from the previous two machines. Intel does give the interface some attention, though.
One great feature is a check box to boot to the firmware. If you've used MegaRAC in the past, then you know that the Java-based KVM does have a bit of latency associated with it. If you need to get into a remote motherboard's BIOS, checking that box makes that operation a lot easier than trying to time an F2 or Del keystroke.
Intel also gives you access to power statistics, shedding some light on minimum, current, maximum, and average consumption. What you see in the shot above only reflects our power use during setup, not during the benchmarks. We'll give you those numbers shortly.
Another feature called Node Manager that facilitates management of each machine in the context of a complete rack. You can set a power budget that limits consumption, allowing a number of systems to operate concurrently without exceeding a data center's limits.
One notable feature that the Intel Management WebGUI does not include is the ability to reset the baseboard management controller (BMC) from the Web interface. Though this doesn't sound like a show-stopper to anyone without experience using MegaRAC products, it's a problem if you get a Video Socket Error, where the Java KVM cannot open and refresh video. In a remote data center, if the BMC errors out, you could end up needing hands on-site to perform a cold reboot. Intel should be able to address this, and it is something that every MegaRAC-based solution needs. I encountered this exact situation during a reboot for a BIOS setting change with the Intel platform, and I see this error from time to time during my normal work on ServeTheHome with boards from various vendors using the MegaRAC solution. And, if you search online, you'll see the problem isn't uncommon. The easiest way to fix it is rebooting the BMC.
Intel also offers a neat feature called the Virtual Front Panel, which shows the enclosure's front LEDs. It is an interesting feature that comes in useful if you want simple diagnostic information from a remote location.
With that said, Intel does provide much more complete sensor information in the IPMI interface.
Intel's KVM-over-IP feature, seen in the shot above, is similar to the implementations from Tyan and Supermicro.
- Three 2P Xeon E5-2600 Platforms Compared: Intel, Supermicro, And Tyan
- The Rules, Contenders, And Test Setup
- Supermicro 6027R-N3RF4+: Layout And Overview
- Supermicro 6027R-N3RF4+: Layout And Overview, Continued
- Supermicro 6027R-N3RF4+: Management Features And Serviceability
- Tyan GN70-K7053: Layout And Overview
- Tyan GN70-K7053: Layout And Overview, Continued
- Tyan GN70-K7053: Management Features And Serviceability
- Intel R2208GZ4GC: Layout And Overview
- Intel R2208GZ4GC: Layout And Overview, Continued
- Intel R2208GZ4GC: Management Features And Serviceability
- Pricing, Warranty, And Support Comparison
- Benchmark Results: Adobe CS 5, 3ds Max, And Cinebench
- Benchmark Results: Compiling, Folding, And Euler
- Power Consumption And Noise Comparison
- Whose 2U Server System For Xeon E5 Is Best?







I agree. Just reduce it a little bit but don't make it too hard to see
Usually? The E5s absolutely crush AMD's best offerings. AMD's top of the line server chips are about equal in performance to Intel's last generation of chips, which are now more than two years old. It's even more lopsided than Sandy Bridge vs. Bulldozer.
As an AMD fan, I wish we could. But while Magny-Cours was competitive with the last gen Xeons, AMD doesn't really have anything that stacks up against the E5. In pretty much every workload, E5 dominates the 62xx or the 61xx series by 30-50%. The E5 is even price competitive at this point.
We'll just have to see how Piledriver does.
Having said that I would suggest you include expected PPD for the given TPF since that is what folders look at when deciding on hardware. Or you could just devote 48 hours from each machine to generate actual results for F@H and donate those points to your F@H team (yes Tom's has a team [40051] and visibility is our biggest problem).
The issue is that other tech sites promote their teams. We do not have a promotive site. Even while mentioning F@H, some people do not agree with it or will never want to participate. It is a mentality. However, it is a choice!
F@H on such a monster? Do the math and you'll see that just after one year of 24/7 operation you would rack up over 3 billion points, putting you in the top 10 for teams and no.1 spot for single user.
That's assuming, of course, that you've forked out $20k for your monthly power bill to run that fully-stocked 42U rack and paid $240k to your utility company for the entire year. Then there's the cost of the hardware itself - around $26k for each 2U server, or around a cool $600,000.
SPEND MONEY FAST
all powerful server are expensive now.
I believe market for cheap but powerful server are big, and no one is working on this area.
I know the profit is not big, but by big quantity it mean big money too
The point is that memory is directly connected to 1 CPU only. Adding a 2nd CPU doubles aggregate bandwidth, but could actually hurt performance, if the software isn't written to carefully to localize data and manage affinity between threads & CPUs.
great work.
That is something that we are looking at. This was more of a look at what is out there for barebones kits. I totally agree that these types of comparisons would be great.
That is already done (but as more of a work around) build a standard PC.
Many high end gaming motherboards work well in a server environment, and can easily handle a high traffic website.
Most web hosting does not need a super powerful server (which is why virtualization is so popular). If you are running a relatively small business and are not doing anything that is hugely CPU bound (eg, rendering) then you can save a bit of money with a decent desktop PC.