Budget XEON based PC build-Any suggestions? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: djsb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 10:22:12 am
content: I'd like to UPGRADE my current PC to a basic XEON based build.My current (very old) build is as followsGigabyte Aurora case (http://www.trustedreviews.com/Gigabyte-3D-Aurora-GZ-FSCA1-AN-Case-review) with Corsair HX650 power supply (I'd like to keep the case and power supply if possible-only problem is the USB2.0 front panel connectors)WD SATA2 hard drivesEVGA nForce 680i mainboard (ATX size) and Intel Core 2 duo 6600 CPU (LGA 775).6gb corsair RAM (DDR2)Samsung optical drives SATA.NVIDIA 8800GT graphics card.I'd like to keep the hard drives,optical drives , case and power supply initially and upgrade these later. So I'm looking for a new mainboard, memory, CPU(S) and graphics cardI'm looking to build a xeon E5 (or E3 not sure) based PC that I can use for CAD and rendering and BASIC game playing and general purpose use. I don't have a clue about these CPU's apart from they are expensive. I'd want a basic foundation that I can expand upon as finances allow. Maybe start with one CPU on a mainboard that can support 2 CPU's (if this is possible).I've had a bit of a read of Daves post on his build and I'll carry on reading it. Just hoping I can get some opinions on here to help me decide if I'm on the right track or if I should stick to Intels mainstream CPU's.Thanks.PS Preliminary budget £750 to £1k max. But I'd prefer to build something gradually as I can spread the cost. I don't mind starting from scratch or buying a ready built system (UK based) so I'm quite flexible.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 10:32:25 am
content: A Core i7 would already give you a nice speed boost. Generally speaking a Xeon has twice the memory bandwidth compared to a core i7 but performance wise (number crunching) they are not far apart. If you run virtual machines a Xeon would be a good choice. Another feature the core i7 lacks is error correction memory.If you don't use the computer for games you can buy a low cost Nvidia or Matrox card. Good 2D performance and quiet.I would not economise on the motherboard and case. Nowadays I just buy Dells from their business section. HP also has good business machines. You can do better on paper (cheaper) but these machines just keep going and going. Stability is worth something as well. A good self build is just as expensive as a readily made machine. The advantage of the machines from Dell and HP is that their cases have a much better airflow compared to a standard ATX case.

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 10:47:47 am
content: Xeon can be a bit cheaper compared to their i7 competitors. However, they perform equally and sometimes a bit better. I've build a workstation with an E3-1230v3.If you're on a budget and going for the highest performance per dollar, a Xeon might fit. Assuming the performance window of the lower priced Xeon is what you are looking for.Iirc, xeons are also a bit less power hungry, and often carry more cache. More cache has a better effect on performance than more MHz.But this all happens in a tight window of Intel's product range. Also remember that a bonus of a Xeon is ecc memory. But then you need to be aware of motherboard and memory compatilbity lists. You should always check the cpu support list, xeons with the same socket as i7's are not always supported.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 11:31:55 am
content: Do you want cheap, performance or stability? Choose two.If you're considering a Xeon, I wouldn't bother unless you're also going to fork out the cash for a decent motherboard, RAM and peripherals as well. That's the thing with PCs; the combination of hardware is endless, but you really have to know what you're doing, otherwise you might as well go and buy a pre-packaged PC from Dell.If you're on a budget, may I suggest you stick with an i7 proc. A Xeon and ECC RAM is wasted if you're going to put them on a crappy motherboard.Perhaps if we got an idea of your budget, we could provide some detailed advice/specs for you to consider? I think you are on the right track though, I wouldn't deviate from Intel CPU's and chipsets at any cost.If I were designing/building a new PC, I'd start from the ground up. In order of importance:1. Power Supply2. Motherboard3. CPU / RAM4. I/O Cards5. Hard Disk Drive6. Chassis / CD, DVD, BD Drives etc...That's not to say more expensive = better, but certainly certain manufacturers produce better products and cost is almost always a factor.

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 11:57:04 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on August 23, 2015, 11:31:55 am+1. I always personally avoid bottom AND top end CPUs, RAM, MoBo's and GPUs because neither are generally the best value. Try to stick between the bottom and top end of mid range and you'll have a decent system that should last more than a few years without feeling you've been ripped off with seriously underpowered and unreliable parts you'll have to upgrade again in a year or massive diminishing returns where you could have got a system 10-20% less powerful for less than half the price.

author: max666
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 01:51:44 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on August 23, 2015, 11:31:55 amI disagree. Why would you start with the Power Supply? That's one of the last things to choose.What power requirement do you have? What and how many connectors do you need? You only know that after you've chosen CPU, Graphics Card, Hard Disks, ...

author: Len
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 02:33:05 pm
content: Quote from: max666 on August 23, 2015, 01:51:44 pmHe said order of importance, not order of choosing. I agree that the power supply is most important. A cheap crappy one that can cause all sorts of problems for the rest of the system. It's common to see a high-spec system let down by a poor quality PS.

author: djsb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 03:31:24 pm
content: I want to keep my PSU (Corsair HX650) even though it is 5 years old and the case (Gigabyte Aurora) and drives. The rest I can replace. I'm guessing that a Xeon build is really beyond my budget unless I start off with a mainboard that is flexible. Maybe i'm being too vague or generalist. Anyway thanks for the suggestions so far.

author: max666
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 04:00:29 pm
content: Quote from: Len on August 23, 2015, 02:33:05 pmOk, I read that one wrong. Sometimes you only see what you wanna seeBut back on topic; djsb, you asked for suggestions for a XEON based PC, so talking you out of a XEON is not answering your question. But do you really have a requirement for a XEON? Like others have mentioned already, a XEON is targeted for certain usage cases, like benefiting from a lot of cores, or high reliability and low power consumption. I don't think your usage profile fits well for a XEON, you're probably better of with an i7. And dual CPU motherboards are more trouble than they are worth (at least for desktop applications).

author: djsb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 04:14:58 pm
content: OK, thats settled then I'll go for a standard intel CPU. Thanks for all your input so far. I'll continue with my research on Tom's Hardware and anywhere else I can find useful reviews. Thanks.PS I might go with the recently announced I5-6600K fitted to a Z-170 mainboard. Got to do some more research first. Won't be buying anything before Christmas anyway.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 04:29:18 pm
content: Don't rule out a prebuild system from Dell or HP!

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 05:39:17 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 23, 2015, 04:29:18 pmCorrect. But don't buy one from their consumer lineup. Always buy one for small business or enterprise.Or have a store assemble one for you.Be aware of crap power supplies, they tend to cheap out on those.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 07:49:18 pm
content: IT department at the last place I worked loved Dell. They broke constantly, but all it took was a phone call to get a replacement part by FedEx next morning.Best thing is to assemble one yourself. You can choose parts that best fit your exact needs. Don't expect to save money though.Note: Do not use an old drive as the primary drive on your new machine. Get an SSD. Smaller ones are cheap and nothing else will improve performance as much. Continuing to use old drives for storage may be okay, but be sure you have them backed up.

author: max666
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 08:27:27 pm
content: Quote from: rdl on August 23, 2015, 07:49:18 pm+1 nothing improves responsiveness more than a SSD. Best bang for your buck you can get by switching your HDD for a SSD as boot drive.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 09:32:24 pm
content: Quote from: rdl on August 23, 2015, 07:49:18 pmI strongly disagree. Standard ATX cases have nowhere near the airflow and thus cooling a proper business machine from HP or Dell has. Just pop one open and you'll see the airflow is carefully managed.The ATX case layout stems from the old IBM XT and it's thermal design just sucks. But then again, the XT didn't had the hotspots (CPU, memory, video card, hard drive) we have in today's machines. Sure you can pop in some extra fans but those are just making noise and push air in any direction except the right one.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 09:47:17 pm
content: Sorry, I didn't mean to push him so hard toward using an ATX case... wait a minute, where did I say anything about ATX cases?

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 09:53:35 pm
content: That is why you fit it in a large tower case with one of those enormous could heatsinksvthat barely fit.Nobody uses that stock cooler rubbish.(they actually improved a lot lately, go view reviews)Yes, buy standard hp or dell machines. On site repair is nice. But thermals are notas goodas in properly assembled diy atx tower. They are not because it doesn't actually matter the cpu is 60c when 100%, they can handle that, and you'll not be using it for 10 years. So you can save a few bucks (x1000) on heatsink size. They do however put detail in airflow so that everything has flow. Something your atx case lacks, but there you buy heatsinked ram and have power stage and north bridge heatsinks. Meh, not such an issue after all. Just more expensive.So, if the proces of choosing and assembling the pc is worth it, then do it. Otherwise just buy one from dell or hp's business line. Unless you're a gamer. Then an off-the-shelf might not fit your needs due to poor gpu choice, and swapping the gpu in an dell or hp also requires the psu to change and it might not even fit the case.

author: IconicPCB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 10:18:20 pm
content: I am in the process of building just such a machine.Initially quite some years back i got hold of a number of SUN ultra 20 work stations because I needed low latency Linux machines.In the process i discovered these ran on Tyan motherboards.So now I needed a new machine and started looking at a similar possibility from Tyan. In the end did not find a suitable supplier in Australia so eventually i picked up an Intel server motherboard and a Xeon processor.The machine is to run office software which includes book keeping application and database.The graphics are nothing to be proud of but the intention is to set up a reliable machine which ought to run for more than a few years.In retrospect an I7 core solution might have been a more appropriate one due to graphics capability. But then again ECC RAM is probably the better option.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 10:55:34 pm
content: Unless you build an overclocked beast of a machine with a bunch of high speed non-SSD disk drives, thermal problems are usually not much of an issue for a modern computer. The only time I ever hear a fan spin up is the one on the video card when playing a game. The stock Intel coolers work pretty good actually. The processor fan spins down right after start up and most of the time just idles at very low speed (I have a fairly run of the mill game computer, i5-3570, 8 GB RAM, SSD primary drive, 1TB storage drive). The case is a generic small "mid tower" with one 120mm fan plus another in the Seasonic power supply.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 11:27:41 pm
content: You are forgetting about the memory and hard drives. I actually don't care much about the CPU (it's temperature protected anyway) but the most precious and delicate part of a PC is the hard drive. Heat kills those quickly but that is still no reason for many ATX style PC cases to provide some airflow into the drive bays. Same goes for the the memory. The CPU is sitting next to it blowing (recirculating) hot air over the memory. In my Dell PC the memory has dedicated air ducts providing airflow just for the memory.

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2015, 11:56:00 pm
content: Quote from: IconicPCB on August 23, 2015, 10:18:20 pmQuoteTbh I've got to say for that the EEC RAM is pretty much a waste in that sort of usage scenario. You're not in a situation where you have to really worry about cosmic rays etc, you're not dealing with high precision scientific calculations...

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 12:36:32 am
content: Primary drive is SSD, data storage drives spin down when not being accessed, only one non-SSD is used often, a WD Black 1 TB, and it stays pretty cool since it's right behind the front fan. Plenty of air moves through a small case with one 120mm fan pushing and another pulling. Air coming out the top back of my case is typically only 5-10 degrees (F) above ambient, memory hasn't complained. System is used daily with quite a bit of heavy duty gaming and has run 24/7 for nearly 4 years without a problem. The fan on the Nvidia geforce does get loud enough to hear when playing some games.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 02:49:59 am
content: If you want a very good case, cooling setup, and power supply, start with a rack server. It's especially cost effective if you can find an old one (that can accept ATX boards) for free or very cheap and then upgrade it. The main downside is that if you want a GPU, you'll either have to find a 4U or bigger (much less common) or a 2U and a riser card that fits. With a few brackets, it's easy to mount to the underside of the bench, keeping it nicely out of the way.I have also recommended for those who want a high end PC but don't want a custom build to buy a rack server and add their own GPU.

author: IconicPCB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 06:06:28 am
content: QuoteEver had to submit anual financial information tot he tax office?

author: max666
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 10:54:20 am
content: Quote from: IconicPCB on August 24, 2015, 06:06:28 amNow come on, your tax report surely doesn't require ECC memory, does it?Otherwise all the bookkeepers out there would have to run ECC memory and I can't imagine that they are.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 07:11:42 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on August 24, 2015, 02:49:59 amAnd go deaf because of the noise? Using a rack server as a regular PC is outright insane.

author: IconicPCB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 10:00:46 pm
content: If anyof you out there think for a moment financial data is any less "important " than technological data.. grow up.

author: suicidaleggroll
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2015, 10:08:32 pm
content: I always build Xeon systems these days...long gone are the days of scrapping consumer parts together only to have it fail within 3 years due to a power supply, motherboard, memory, or graphics problem. Even "quality" consumer parts still have problems, I don't trust them.You can do a real Xeon build, using real server-grade hardware, ECC memory, etc. and get out the door for around $1-1.2k, and it'll last you over a decade. Sure it won't be as fast or powerful as a $1k consumer-grade system, but it'll last a good 2-3x longer.For me the budget usually stacks up similar to the following$250 chassis/power supply$250 mobo$250 cpu$100 ram$200 SSDI typically just use integrated graphics, but if you want to do some gaming etc you might want to look into a separate card.Your budget seems perfectly reasonable for it, provided you can get the same kind of hardware that's available in the states for similar prices.

author: WZOLL
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2015, 01:50:01 am
content: All the store PC's that I've seen have bad thermals. They usually have only one maybe two fans in a cramped case with no cable management.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2015, 02:54:28 am
content: Two fans in a cramped case doesn't necessarily mean bad thermals. That pretty much describes my living room computer, and it has no thermal problems whatsoever. Short, skinny SATA cables don't really need much management either, though a modular power supply does help with that.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2015, 08:31:40 am
content: Quote from: WZOLL on August 25, 2015, 01:50:01 amPCs in stores are usually consumer grade. Avoid those at all cost!

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2015, 12:47:54 pm
content: I'm thinking about getting an old HP Z210 ... there's ton of second hardware out there and given the lack of speed at which hardware has been improving lately you don't necessarily need the latest. I just want an ECC server which runs at relatively low idle power consumption, 29 Watts is good enough.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2016, 09:44:31 am
content: I realise this is necroposting, but I guess it's in tune with the topic.While looking at building a machine primarily for video rendering but also for installing test VM infrastructure to keep my pre-retirement IT skills current, I came across several stories on how the market for last generation enterprise Xeons has plummeted, as data centres move to more energy efficient solutions in their 24x7 services. AS an example, list price of E5-2670 8-core 16-thread processors is about $1500, but they go for $70 on eBay as recyclers try to cash in.At first I was going to build a machine myself, but while looking I saw ads for complete dual socket (i.e., 16 core, 32 thread) machines for <$1k with more RAM than you could shake a stick at. The benefit of buying a 2nd hand ready-built unit is that there is no guesswork on whether a component will work or not.This was the one I bought:http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/272249080137: I offered £600, we settled at £650.There are no hard drives, but it has 4 3.5" hot swap SATA caddies. For the 2.5" SSD I had, I didn't have the right adapter compatible with the hot swap caddies to line up with the SATA connector, so instead I installed the SSD tucked into the chassis and hooked up to one of the spare mobo SATA ports. This thing booted right away installed Windows 10 from a DVD without any problems, the easiest install I've done for some time.Although the mobo has six PCIe slots, it's in a 1U chassis so there is a right-angle riser providing one x8 slot. I installed a FirePro W4100 graphics card half height low profile in there for now, after hacking the x8 socket on the riser to allow the x16 card fit. Being low profile also means there is still access to two PCIe slots that could potentially be used with a flexible riser, for example for a PCIe SSD or USB 3 (the mobo only has USB 2).The 96GB memory is PC3-10600, I believe the CPUs support PC3-12800.This thing is a beast. It's almost three times faster than my current desktop which is a quad core I7 3720QM.It's also terribly noisy, not what you'd want unless it was stored away somewhere.Boot time is slow, as it goes through its management boots, it may be possible to speed it up by switching off those.Still, if you want occasional sheer grunt on the cheap, and are not too fussed about it only having limited internal GPU capacity, these beasts might be a reasonable option. But as a day-to-day machine, I can't really recommend it as a replacement unless you are very hard of hearing and have cheap electricity.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 16, 2016, 09:54:37 am
content: For a video editing machine, processing power is your friend, throwing handfuls of RAM at it won't help you.I have 16GB RAM in my Xeon machine with the swap file disabled. I don't remember the last time I got a "low memory" error and I play around with some serious video codecs (Avid DNxHD and sometimes Apple ProRes).If you're dealing with video, you want fast processing and disk access. For huge amounts of video data, some good quality SATA disks in a striped RAID works wonders for an "every day" machine. I currently use 2x 2TB disks in RAID0* as my video "scratch" disks and it *almost* keeps up with what I throw at it.EDIT: What Kilrah said down below.EDIT 2: *When I say RAID, I mean a proper hardware RAID controller, not an on-board software RAID pretending to be hardware. In my case I'm using an Intel SRCSATAWB PCI Express controller. It didn't cost an awful lot.

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 16, 2016, 10:05:08 am
content: The above capture shows what will be the most common scenario on that machine... Idle CPU and nearly empty RAM, but everything waiting on the disk access that is pegged

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2016, 10:55:51 am
content: I'm still running a Dell workstation (dual quad core Xeon processors) from like 10 years ago. It still performs quite well. I think I can push it at least a couple more years.It was expensive back then but given the logivity it beats out buying cheap desktops repeatedly.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2016, 11:33:28 am
content: Interesting regarding the disk stuff. I have a rather old Kingston 512GB SSD (that I used to use in a portable USB 3 caddy for external VMs on a laptop) that I'm using for the OS right now and it's not performing as well as I'd hoped. It's OK, but not great, spec'd R/W speeds are only about 230/180GB/s respectively. Back when I bought it it was the bees' knees, not quite these days though.The biggest problem with this 1U chassis is getting access to PCIe slots. I can cobble together stuff on flexible risers but it's not going to be pretty. I assume that directly connected PCIe SSDs need one PCIe slot per disk, or am I mistaken?I think my approach may be to use some 3.5 to 2.5" caddy adapters and configure a RAID array in the four slots with some more modern higher speed ~500GB/s R/W SATA SSDs and see how that goes.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2016, 11:43:06 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on August 16, 2016, 10:55:51 amThat's also been my mantra for some time, I have no need for normal day to day stuff to upgrade either my four yo desktop or four yo laptop, I might've grimaced at the time particularly on the laptop, but even now the best current laptop is only about 20% faster. That's without all the hassle and time in moving all your stuff to a new machine, and then finding that things like software licences no longer work.Having said that, for testing and documenting semi-complex distributed processing infrastructure, the 16GB RAM and 4 core/8 thread CPU on those machines has sometimes been a limiting factor when you need to spin up half a dozen VMs.I am hoping to be quite old when I find 96GB doesn't even cut it anymore. The vendor also has 128GB and 192GB units, I couldn't justify it even though it is pretty "cheap".

author: SL4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2016, 08:32:23 pm
content: This whole thread boils down to -Do you want to it 'properly', or do it 'good enough' ?All the suggestions are valid in their own context, but only the OP can sit down with a clear mind and jot down the SWOT and choices for his project. We've all been there.If that's too hard, seriously, go out and buy a Dell or other warranted machine.This isn't just for the OP, but to all PC builderz!

author: Dubbie
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 16, 2016, 08:42:44 pm
content: We have over 100 i7's here at work. They run 24/7 at 100% load (it is a renderfarm) We have never had a processor fail - ram, mobo and ssd yes, occasionally.To save money on cooling we run them hot (about 80°C) They have run like this for the last 4-5 years non stop. I'd say that is pretty good evidence of the reliability of the i7.For the sort of number crunching we do, hex core i7's are far and away the best bang for buck when it comes to $$$ in and finished pixels out.

author: bitslice
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2016, 09:19:17 pm
content: Quote from: djsb on August 23, 2015, 10:22:12 amhttp://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Dell-PowerEdge-R810-2x-Xeon-8-Core-E7-4820-2-00Ghz-64Gb-2x-146GB-SAS-H700-/282108311289Dell PowerEdge R810 -2x Xeon 8 Core E7-4820@2.00Ghz,64Gb, 2x 146GB SAS, H700£874.99Ex enterprise machines are usually good value, they are sold on as practically scrap and have gobs full of RAM added. Sitting in a server rack is a cushy life, and these things are designed to run hard.I'm not suggesting buying this one, just pointing out where to buy a Xeon for a fraction of retailedit: ah, I appear to have wasted my time in responding to a necro

author: hans
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2016, 10:54:00 pm
content: Quote from: Kilrah on August 16, 2016, 10:05:08 amQuote from: Howardlong on August 16, 2016, 11:33:28 amI suppose @HowardLong meant to say MB/s instead of GB/s.May want to send a TRIM command to the drive if it's an enclosure, I am not sure if it's support is as good as an internal drive controller.However, this is a bug. I just got a Lenovo P50 last week, and it came with Candy Crush pre-installed adware. As Windows 10 does, it decided randomly to update this. The machine was idle, however it showed 99% disk load while the absolute figures said a few MB/s write and practically zero read throughput, with a latency of hundreds of ms (because background I/O priority).Meanwhile, this P50 is equipped with a Samsung SM951 256GB NVMe SSD that can sustain 2GB/s read and 1.25GB/s write (sequential), and 90k IOPS random read.It seems like we have the rightly named GIF for Windows 10 I/O metering:As for people buying Xeon workstations. I've never found personally the need. But I don't do CAD or video rendering, and only light VM usage. In that case a mainstream i5 or i7 will serve pretty well.If you do have more heavier needs, analyze your use-case closely. The Xeon line-up can go into ridiculously high core counts, but each core is relatively slow. So that only works out if your workload uses all those cores. If it limits at 6 then a 24 core machine is a complete waste. Also, if you need the absolute highest single core performance, a mainstream i7 will probably outperform those dozen-core count CPU's.But if your workload can utilize all those cores, sure pick up one of those discontinued servers. Those are a beast. Even though the CPU's may be 5 years old, two of them will likely outperform an equal budgeted new system, which would likely contain a mainstream i7 or something.Example "budget power house" build on the Apple platform:I also wouldn't fear too much that these 12 core Xeon's aren't fast enough for gaming. "Gaming" as in the CPU not being a bottleneck for a mid-range to high-range graphics card on new gaming titles. People even build budget gaming rigs based on a Pentium and i3, so they can invest as much as possible in a mid-range graphics card. If a dual-core i3 is fast enough, I'm sure a Xeon is also fast enough

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 17, 2016, 10:28:15 am
content: Quote from: hans on August 16, 2016, 10:54:00 pmIt's not only metering, W10 seems to be doing something wrong with disk access and relying a bit too much on the supposed IO capabilities of SSDs...When I upgraded my 6-year old PC that was previously doing fine on the OCZ Revodrive PCIe 120GB SDD (2x 60GB in RAID0) to W10 I had the same problem with very high disk utilization despite low throughputs, and the machine was really a dog compared to how it performed on W7 a day before.I took the "opportunity" to make the jump and replace the 6-year old SSD that had always been tight anyway with a recent 512GB one, and that perfroms as expected. Don't know whether it's due to the RAID/TRIM issue, just the old SSD not having the IOPS or what.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2016, 11:20:57 am
content: Quote from: hans on August 16, 2016, 10:54:00 pmYou're right, I did ;-)Usually I make the mistake the other way, the first computer I built had 1KB RAM comprised of eight 2102s, back when 450ns access time was easily enough, what with a CPU cycle time of ~5us. Back then this seemed extraordinarily quick considering the only other computer I'd used at that time had an instruction cycle time of 576us (yes, over half a millisecond).

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2016, 11:46:28 am
content: Quote from: Howardlong on August 16, 2016, 09:44:31 amNice find, for parallel remote processing a beauty but for normal users not so practical.Most users never get to load their current i7 to 100% on all cores anyway.Even the 4 core performance of your i7 3720QM beats the 8 core single E5-2670 performance (see attachment) which means it will only outrun it when more then 4 cores simultaneously are required, or in your case more than 9 cores for the E5-2670 (two cpu's).So probably for your purpose a good fit, but would not recommend it for general applications.You will probably store it somewhere in the attick and run it trough a remote desktop?

author: System Error Message
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2016, 12:46:14 pm
content: between xeon vs i7 it really depends. Xeons and some i3s support ECC ram so if ECC is what you want than you need xeon. Xeons do not have double memory bandwidth compared to i7, infact many desktop CPUs have a xeon counterpart, the difference lies in a few key hardware differences like ECC and some other hardware related stuff. Cache is a very important factor, the more cache you have the faster it will run larger programs.For overclocking they are the same unless you get an unlocked CPU. Some sample xeons have unlocked multiplier. Xeons actually overclock better and they are picked from the better part of the silicon wafer.Price for single socket xeon vs desktop counterparts have been similar ever since the iseries cpus came out. some dual socket xeons also are priced similar. Desktop motherboards will take xeons and ECC memory because with the iseries CPUs the memory controller is on CPU. You dont need a server motherboard for a xeon but they are recommended if you want remote management and some other features you only get on server boards.While the xeon numbering may not be obvious there are various tiers just like with desktop such as the mainstream 2-4 core CPUs, extreme 4-8 core and with xeon theres a step further such as their 22 core xeon with 50+MB of cache but the CPU itself costs thousands.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2016, 01:38:01 pm
content: IMHO for a workstation a Xeon is a good choice because of the ECC memory which just adds stability to the system. I'd go for the highest clock speed so single threaded processes run as fast as they can. More cores isn't going to help much.

author: gnif
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 17, 2016, 01:51:49 pm
content: I built one just recently... and a dual CPU one for that matter. My aim was a ton of ram for virtual hosting on a Debian/Xen platform, in a standard case, and low noise.SuperIO X7DBi= $2002x Intel Xeon E5450 @ 3GHz = $1002x SuperIO X7DBi Heatsinks = $3064GB of fully buffered RAM = $100Total: $430 AUDObviously this is not the latest and greatest of hardware, but it suits my requirements perfectly. The biggest difficulty I had was when the motherboard arrived, I had missed that it was an 'E-EATX' form-factor, which is a SuperIO proprietary design, I had to cut my case up and make up some mounts to hold the board properly.I also was not aware that fully buffered ram was more then just ECC ram, each DIMM has a separate controller on them to reduce the trace count on the board for having so many DIMMs, and they get HOT. Good airflow over the DIMMs is not just a good idea, but essential! Since I bought 2nd hand RAM, I also removed their heat sinks and replaced all their dried out crusty thermal paste. To get good airflow, I took two intel CPU fans, tied them together in the center to make a figure 8 shape, which fits almost perfectly on the diagonal across all 16 DIMMs. Cable ties were used to keep this in place.The next issue I had was, the board would not post reliably... the PSU I was using had a fault with the 3v3 rail, after repairing it (bad voltage reference), the board was posting, but performing extremely poorly when accessing > 4GB of RAM. If I installed all 64GB it would not post at all. Trick was to update the BIOS and set the memory gap in the bios (Whatever that is) to 4GB BEFORE installing the ram.Since then I have invested another $30 in a SAS card from a Sun server (they just need the rear bracket changed to fit), and running an external array of 6 HDDs along with the 5 I already have internal to the machine. For this I took an angle grinder to an old HP GL380 G4 server that has been collecting dust and liberated the HDD chassis and back-plane as a stand alone unit. Other components were also salvaged for future projects (dual redundant PSU conversion to standard ATX coming soon)With a very simple modification to the HDD caddies (snapped of a small bit of steel that obscured the SATA connector) I mounted old SATA disks that I had floating around from prior upgrades into them.I also spent a few $ on some female to male sata+power adapters/connectors on eBay, and with a bit of tongue at the right angle work, drilled, filed, aligned and glued the connectors into the old back plane. After this I wired up the LEDs on the backplane to each HDD and used the SATA power pin 11 (status for disks that support it, WD seem to work the best) to light the activity light on each bay. So now I have a 6 bay hot swap HDD SAS array.I want to use these disks for backup purposes only (no raid etc), I don't want them spinning constantly wasting power, and also wearing them out (consumer disks, not NAS/Enterprise grade). So using what I had on hand, I wired up an ATTiny85 to some 78000 series logic to drive a bank of relays to power each disk up on demand. To interface this to the server, I used the exposed SMB header this SuperIO board provides. The ATTiny85 was programmed with a small chunk of code just to respond to a few I2C commands to report status, and drive the logic. I then wrote a C application that controls the relay board via the SMB bus.Because I need to ensure this relay device is reliable, I decided this was a good excuse to give PCBWay a go and make some PCBs up (first time ever having PCBs made!), I used Altium CircuitMaker (very nice software) and should have the PCBs by next week.Each disk is powered up once a day in turn, a backup is performed, and then it is powered down again. The script that performs the backup determines if I have pulled a disk from the array, and uses the next scheduled one if it is missing, this way I can cycle a drive off site also. Across all 6 external disks, this equates to just over 60 cycles per year, well within the reliability limits of cheap consumer disks. This array is to provide a worst case scenario backup of my critical data, the ZFS array itself is already taking daily snapshots which are always online and accessible.Having a server with all that RAM is a dream, not only can I run a ZFS array with de-duplication for my non critical stuff (VM testing), I can dedicate VMs to things such as a git server, embedded dev environment, web dev environment, etc... Since I am likely to be the only user of the server other then data storage for the family, I have no need to invest in more modern hardware. This also keeps costs down as server grade parts (CPUs, RAM, etc..) for older generation servers is very cheap since the demand is low.To leverage ZFS fully, I am using NFS root filesystems for the guests, they are simply pointed at a NFS export. VM boot time is about 2-3 seconds, including service startup.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2016, 04:58:21 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on August 17, 2016, 11:46:28 amI haven't decided where it's going yet, one thing's for sure I don't think the wife will put up with it in ear shot!As it's for occasional use for video editing/transcoding (as well as infrastructure proof of concepts & testing), I will need direct access to the video card I put in there which supports several 4K monitors at 60Hz refresh rate over Displayport. The onboard mobo graphics only seems to support relatively low resolutions and I am almost certain will not support video playback at reasonable frame rates. I am pretty sure that the remote management layer won't help in that regard either, it's designed for basic admin, not video playback!Although I have been berating the lack of usable PCIe slots, the 1U form factor makes it surprisingly easy to hide the unit away while taking up minimal space. It's just the noise!

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2016, 05:34:35 pm
content: I have HDMI cables which are 5m in length and maybe you can find even longer ones so it should be doable to put the computer itself in a different room than the operator.

author: ChunkyPastaSauce
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 17, 2016, 07:31:58 pm
content: If you're not looking for huge core count, take a look at the 6-core xeon E5-1650 V5...you can get xeon E5-1650 V3 for the same price as a i7-5930K..... It's basically an i7-5930K with ECC mem capability, larger mem capability, VM extensions and some other stuff. The E5-1650 V3 is unique from most of the xeon line in that it is also unlocked, you can overclock if you're into that. There is a rumor that the upcoming V4 version will be locked though.My setup is:Xeon E5-1650 v3 (3.5Ghz, 6-core...OCable to 4+ GHZ, but I don't usually have it OC'd)64 GB, EEC, DDR4 2133MHz, Quad-channelFirePro W8100 workstation card with 8Gb ECCASRock X99-WS workstation motherboardDark Rock Pro heat sink (huge but almost no fan)EVGA 850 G2 PSU (quite, very clean outputs and dropout resistant...highly rated)Corsair Carbide 330R Titanium acoustic absorbing caseApple SSD (pulled from a laptop, switching out for a NVMe drive)Standard backup hd.3x Dell U3011 monitors, 16:10 2kMinus monitors was about 2200usd 1 to 1.5 years ago.

author: Srbel
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2016, 06:42:37 am
content: I don't understand this oppression with Intel. Yes, they currently have better CPUs than AMD. But at what cost? They cost 2-5 times more and they offer, what, 20-40% better performance?I understand that in the long run, for servers, Intel would be better. But if you are building something on a budget, why waste money on Intel?P.S. I am comparing non-server CPUs here (like i7 vs FX).

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 18, 2016, 11:23:11 am
content: Buy cheap = buy twice.You'll likely waste more on the indirect costs inferred by your slower machine over the years.The current top consumer AMD CPU seems to be a 220W TDP power hog, that is being well beaten performance-wise by its Intel counterpart that draws 1/3rd of the power (and only is about 15% more powerful than the 6 year old Intel CPU I'm on right now). The $110 extra are negligible at this point.For tools it's nearly always more interesting financially to make an effort and invest more initially than to cheap out.

author: Srbel
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2016, 11:48:56 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on August 18, 2016, 11:33:52 amAutocorrect...

author: Srbel
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2016, 11:52:59 am
content: Quote from: Kilrah on August 18, 2016, 11:23:11 amI was thinking of FX 8 series, not 9. 9 series is just for show.And you have mentioned I7-5930K, which is around 600 dollars. 2,5 times more expensive than AMD FX-8350K.

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 18, 2016, 01:17:25 pm
content: FX-8350 is $160 on my comparator, but is a dog at 8940 points on the comparator I've been looking at. My65.5-year old i7-970 does 8511.I'd expect to change a CPU of this performance in about 2 years. So buying a $160 CPU now for 2 years = $80/year.In 2 years my $600 CPU will be 7.5 years old, i.e. it will have cost me the same $80/year. AND, most importantly, if you buy a CPU of that performance today it's that you're replacing something that was significantly slower... i.e. I've been able to work more efficiently (or just enjoy a really powerful machine for whatever I please) for 5.5 years for the same price.Yes AMD have good pricing in mid-range but they have no competitive high-end, and IMO if you use your PC as a lot then going high end is more efficient.Quote from: Srbel on August 18, 2016, 11:52:59 amNo, I was thinking of a $300 i7-4790 for example. You confused with someone else.

author: ChunkyPastaSauce
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 18, 2016, 08:59:04 pm
content: Quote from: Kilrah on August 18, 2016, 01:17:25 pmI mentioned the 5930k because the xeon E5-1650 V3 is basically the same processor but with xeon features enabled and costs the same as the 5930k. About $600... but if one doesn't need the xeon features then at $600 the i7-6850K is likely the better choice over the 5930kFor most people going i7, the 5820k makes more sense than the 5930k, basically same cpu but fewer pci lanes (which most people don't need unless they are doing high spec sli configs) and is ~$380 vs $600.The 5820k has the same price/performance as the 4790, but with 4790 doing better for single thread and the 5820 better for multi thread so depends on what one wants to do.There are also some other good choices for heavy multithreading, but most sacrifice single thread performance a ton.

author: FlyingHacker
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2016, 09:08:22 pm
content: Which CPU you get should be based upon the desired application you want to run. Ideally you can test them, or find benchmarks on different CPUs.The i7 will be significantly faster for any single threaded applications, especially if you overclock, which you should. Xeons do not overclock on modern motherboards.The Xeons are good for multi-threaded applications that indeed use all the cores. Note that the increase in cores does not translate to a linear increase in performance in most application (usually MUCH less once the core count exceeds 4 or so each core becomes worth less).A budget Xeon build seems silly. If you want a budget build do an i7. It will most likely be faster for most applications anyway.We have a render farm with about 50 i7 and Xeon machines. The i7s are usually the best bang for the buck, unless you need feedback on a single machine, and the application is very well threaded.

author: hans
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2016, 10:08:00 pm
content: Quote from: Srbel on August 18, 2016, 06:42:37 amThe problem I have with AMD is that they need twice as many cores to achieve the same benchmark/CPU scores as Intel. I am currently looking to build a HTPC. I created a build for a Intel G4400 and a AMD A8 7600 chip, with Mini ITX motherboard, 8GB of DDR3/DDR4 RAM, etc. Both builds came to the same 240 euro price tag for the basic set. The CPU's had almost the same "multi core" benchmark scores; however the Intel is a dual core and the AMD is a quad core. The Intel hastwicethe single core benchmark score. And in many day to day applications, single core is still dominant.The same is true for their FX series. The highend ones that can compete with i5 in multi-core are often 8-core chips, yet again performing 2/3 at most of the single score of an Intel chip.Multi-score is nice, but like I said only for a few applications. Stuff like video rendering, many parallel tasks and maybe many VM's on 1 system.In effect; pricing vs multi core score is pretty much identical. But single core score is for me where it's at; many eCAD tools are single core, web browsers, word, etc.So unfortunately AMD is dead for me in almost every segment. I am waiting for Zen, the latest press release sounds very promising. I sincerely hope they can break open the market, because anything mid performance or higher is Intel right now. Intel can unfortunately afford to make consumer quad cores for 10 donkey years now. They release a new CPU series every 1.5 year or so, with 10% IPC improvements at best, maybe 1 new gadget, and ofcourse a new socket; chipset; and oh.. +30$ on the price tag for an i5 or i7 because they can (AMD has nothing to compete with). In effect; if you are a 'real' enthiousiast that wants to upgrade to each new CPU family, you need to spend like 600$+ each 15 to 18 months to do that.

author: ChunkyPastaSauce
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 18, 2016, 10:14:13 pm
content: Quote from: FlyingHacker on August 18, 2016, 09:08:22 pmMost xeons are multiplier locked but can still be overclocked on good mbs that allow for base clock adjustments. Some of the xeons are multiplier also unlocked, my xeon E5-1650 V3 is and will overclock to 4.2-4.5ghz on an air cooling with minimum fuss.Budget xeons (below ~$600) make sense for efficiently multithreaded applications, or simultaneous single threaded apps but most budget xeons will perform poorly in single thread in most cases.However, in certain corner cases single threaded performance can be hugely better on some specific xeons, particularly large datasets (many of the xeons have larger ram capacity, greater mem performance) and highly optimized compute where compute is kept in cache (some of the xeons have massive caches).Xeons are also worth it if you have data integrity requirements, stability critical applications/work, certain VM configs, need more pci lanes than typical or need management/security stuff.

author: ChunkyPastaSauce
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 18, 2016, 10:32:22 pm
content: Quote from: hans on August 18, 2016, 10:08:00 pmAMD cpus are currently not competitive in general...but they do make some decent gfx cards

author: System Error Message
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2016, 01:29:50 am
content: AMD CPUs are competitive now. Their approach to more cores however was at a time when software wasnt optimised but when directx 12 came out it gave AMD CPUs a performance boost because of multi threading. AMD CPUs have always been better for server workloads not requiring much compute however other CPUs have expended into this space such as the Tilera TileGx 100 core CPUs that facebook uses in their servers as PCIe cards to handle web server and firewall. I myself have one of these CPUs and they perform tasks like routing much faster than the x86 architecture for less power use.The bulldozer architecture doesnt have the raw compute power of intel, the CPUs just arent as fast (talking about latencies, cache speeds, etc) but price per price the bulldozers larger cache size is advantageous if you are running large programs. Even on an intel i7 with the same number of cores (same architecture) just a cache difference of 2MB in an RTS game meant the difference between fluid gameplay and gameplay with some stuttering every now and than (RAM was not full).There are really a lot of factors into picking but i still suggest you stick with xeon as you cant get a decent or equivalent dual socket performer from AMD even at the price of using low end xeons. If this were a single socket than you could consider AMD especially because you can use ECC ram with their non server CPUs.

author: FlyingHacker
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2016, 05:46:43 pm
content: Quote from: ChunkyPastaSauce on August 18, 2016, 10:14:13 pmBCLK adjustment is very temperamental these days. I would avoid it. While I haven't looked in the last year, the higher performance Xeons (12 cores+) were all multiplier locked and no overclocking was possible.QuoteI would avoid budget Xeons, or really any Xeon less than 10-12 cores or so. I just don't see any point at all. The i7s at the same price pretty much always perform better.Naturally, as I said above, you truly have to test these with YOUR application, but unless you KNOW your application will run faster on a Xeon, you are almost always better suited to an i7.If your task can be distributed across multiple machines (like ours-- 3d rendering) then it is even cheaper to get multiple i7 machines. This also gives you a bonus in terms of if a single node fails you don't lose all your processing. If you have one monolithic machine and that goes down, game over. A monolithic machine would use less power, though. Also, some software is licensed per machine, and therefore might cost more for multiple machines.

author: System Error Message
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2016, 02:15:45 am
content: Quote from: FlyingHacker on August 19, 2016, 05:46:43 pmSome posts ago i mentioned why to choose a xeon over i7 other than unlocked multipliers. Xeons overclock better and support more features including ECC ram. You can use unregistered/unbeffered ECC with xeon in desktop board. If however overclocking isnt an option theres the option of undervolting which again a xeon being from the better part of the wafer will be better at. So if you're talking about not using low powered xeons than you are mistaken as they have a wide market for things that do not require high clock speeds. However over the recent iterations for intel overclocking is questionable but the xeons and their desktop equivalents have the same clocks and turbo clocks and theres always some hackish way to overclock them (throttlestop?)

author: FlyingHacker
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2016, 03:00:02 am
content: The problem is that there are VERY few programs that thread well. Most still do tons of single threaded stuff (either because of programming laziness, or non-thread able algorithms).Unless you have a specific application that you *know* will run well on a lower end Xeon I think it is generally a waste of money, and slower.

author: System Error Message
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2016, 03:29:54 am
content: Quote from: FlyingHacker on August 20, 2016, 03:00:02 amnot true, lower end xeons work well for single threaded stuff (they will turbo a lot for single thread) too if they are a server rather than being the workstation you are using. It really depends on if this is for your main PC or some server that you dont directly interface with. I've made multi threaded programs that will use every single resource that they can get a hold of to complete the task.It doesnt matter if a xeon is high end or low end, many core xeons will have more cores but lower clock speeds though that large cache is really helpful. Theres a lot to consider from your power budget, clock speed, core count and cache size. Clock speed stopped being an importance ever since the core2 came out, so getting a recent architecture that is lower clocked is better than an older architecture with higher clocks. ivybridge and higher do turbo so even with a multicore xeon with lower clocks, they do turbo far with single threads. Go for as much total compute power as you can within your budget and requirements as you will be seeing more and more multithreaded stuff and its not only the threaded stuff that benefits but you can run more programs at the same time even if they are single threaded. The argument of frequency vs core count is a decade old.If you want to overclock xeons you'd be looking at the 1st gen iseries (before sandybridge) as some have overclocked those xeons almost twice their clocks using high end desktop motherboards.

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 20, 2016, 07:27:50 am
content: Quote from: System Error Message on August 20, 2016, 03:29:54 amThen that fits in the "specific application that you *know* will run well on a lower end Xeon". For usual desktop use more than 4-6 cores are useless.Quote from: System Error Message on August 20, 2016, 03:29:54 amIt's a decade old because even after a decade we're still waiting on properly multithreaded programs.I'm on a 6-year old 6-core i7-970 right now, and nearly never do I see it go above 20-30% usage unless I'm running multiple heavy things at the same time.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 20, 2016, 08:22:06 am
content: Quote from: Howardlong on August 17, 2016, 11:20:57 am... and S100 bus.Flashback!!God, I feel old.

author: FlyingHacker
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2016, 09:42:08 pm
content: Quote from: System Error Message on August 20, 2016, 03:29:54 amQuite true. They turbo, but to what speed, typically less than the i7s? Can they be overclocked?QuoteThese are antiques. Why build a new machine with anything less than a modern processor?I have both Xeons and i7s. I am not biased one way or the other. I can only tell you that for general use the i7s are faster; for specific *very* well threaded applications that do not require lots of memory bandwidth*, the Xeons are faster. Even then the price difference is tremendous once you factor in the more expensive mobo and memory.* yes, Xeons have faster memory, but when you have 14 or 24 or whatever cores all trying to access the same main memory it slows down. This is why the Xeons have the larger cache, to try to limit that bottleneck. However, there are some applications that need to access lot of main memory from each core. You frequently end up better with multiple machines.So my point still stands: test your particular application, or just be happy with whatever you get and be done with it.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2016, 10:54:21 pm
content: Overclocking Xeon with 10 or more cores better get watercooling, it will get hot! That is why the higher core Xeons run on a lower frequency to keep the die temp. Within operating specs.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2016, 11:27:59 pm
content: For reference, that the £650 ebay dual Xeon 16 core 32 thread box I mentioned earlier renders video nearly three times as fast as the i7 I was using. Without any tweaking it's already near real time rendering UHD h264 at 25fps, which was my goal. If I were to attempt to build that raw processing power with i7s, which I did look at, the processor alone (overclocking a i7-6950X) would cost more than twice that before I'd bought any DDR4 RAM, mobo, etc etc, not to mention the time and energy of hours fannying around trying to squeeze another 0.5% out of it ;-)One other benefit of an off the shelf 2nd hand unit from a server farm is that you know it's been spec'd to work. A frustration I have had historically from building my own PCs has been the many compatibility gotchas, some obscurely documented, some not at all, but either way there's a cost in that.Getting that Xeon server up and running was an unexpected piece of cake. I can also switch it on and off remotely I discovered today, which has allayed some of my concerns over the energy bill!

author: rrinker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2016, 02:13:48 pm
content: My current primary desktop uses a 'budget' Xeon. An E3-1230 V2. In a standard desktop motherboard. Why? I don't overclock my main computer, so locked multiplier didn't matter. I am using an external video card, so the internal graphics capability of the I7 did not matter. The TDP of this is less than the equivalent I7, and it was actually cheaper at the time than the equivalent I7. Outside of increased virtualization support, there's nothing this level Xeon does that the I7 does not, other than cost less and use less power. Though I do occasionally spin up VMs to test things.

author: xjordanx
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2016, 04:28:00 pm
content: I built an amazing lab PC with huge BALLS. I used:- SuperMicro dual socket 771 Xeon motherboard. eBay $32.- 2x Xeon (one was never used) each about $30 eBat.- 32GB DDR2 ECC DRAM about $80 eBay all HP modules with Samsung chips.- nVidia GeForce video card I had floating around, 2009-ish generation with 1GB- an old PC case- 1000W ATX PSU was the second most expensive component.- Added a USB 3.0 PCIe card- 256GB SSD Most expensive component.- Windows 10 (got a Win7 license for $30 and did the free online upgrade).I already had keyboard/mouse/monitors and 3D connexion navigator spare.The machine absolutely RIPs.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2016, 10:34:58 pm
content: I got a dual Xeon workstation from about 10 years ago. While it still works fine, it has lost most of its value - a great thing if you are willing to buy used.I think going used brand name workstation is a great way to get value for your money.I would look for single core x5650, or w3690 or e5-2670, or dual core x5650 workstations with ecc memory. Server parts are considerably cheaper than their consumer counterparts on the used market.Get a ssd as well.

author: technix
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 30, 2016, 05:20:17 am
content: If you are okay with older, used parts, you can go with dual Xeon E5-2680 or dual Xeon E5-2670 (Sandy Bridge), an Asus Z9PE-D16C/2L motherboard and 16x 8GB ECC DDR3-1600 RAM (= 128GB). The parts are fairly old, but those CPUs and RAM sticks are very cheap now as there was a major dump from some megacorporation's datacenter. I personally used that motherboard and it was very reliable. The motherboard doesn't support nVidia SLI so if you want to use a dual graphics card setup you have to use dual AMD Radeon RX 480, although a single nVidia GTX 1080 is nice enough too. The Asus motherboard have two SATA 6Gb/s ports for your boot SSD.If you want to go for Xeon E3, you can still get very impressive price to performance ratio on older generation parts, as Xeon E3-1231v3 (Haswell) can still work on B85 motherboards (cheap!) although you have to use non-ECC RAM this time. For state-of-the-art parts, Xeon platforms have lot a lot of its value even on Xeon E3 line because Intel locked the chips down to their server platforms since Skylake. My daily driver now is a Xeon E3-1231v3 on Gigabyte GA-Z97M-D3H with a 3.25% overclock dialed in (since the motherboard is Z97 after all).

author: Koen
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 30, 2016, 07:13:51 am
content: There's plenty of very cheap refurbished single or multi Xeon E5 workstations for sale which make for a solid start.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 31, 2016, 08:38:26 am
content: If I was looking for a Xeon Workstation - my choice would be the HP Z series workstations with the special coolers. Biggest problem with big processors is usually sound and the HP Z series are very quiet.But the smaller current generation Xeon processors vs i7 same generation - are not very different at all. Usually only difference is support for ECC memory. Most other features are equal to the high end i7. (Bus width, PCI lanes, memory lanes, cache, instruction sets etc)But for me - I currently use an Intel 980 processor on a good MB - but I want more power efficiency - so I'm looking towards mobile with dock. As the 980 is a bit dated - but fast and power hungry - updating to a Mobile Xeon or i7 6820HQ would give me about 20-40% better performance - but about 50-80% power saving. I don't care about gaming - but use 3D design and some simulation sw + Visual Studio. So fast SSD and lots of memory is my no 1 choice. So my determining factor is processor speed per watt...and potential "sleep states / sleep efficiency" - and that is changed a lot over last 5-6 years.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 31, 2016, 08:51:36 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on October 31, 2016, 08:48:26 amyes but usually the high end server motherboards & firmware are NOT designed for power efficiency - giving you less features for power saving. So while the processor might be great / watt - overall system is not.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 31, 2016, 09:44:56 am
content: Quote from: kaz911 on October 31, 2016, 08:51:36 amAFAIK low energy consumption is one of the most important things for servers.

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 31, 2016, 10:11:29 am
content: Quote from: wraper on October 31, 2016, 09:44:56 amto some degree yes - but IRL not so much. I run a lot of servers and they are not that power optimized no matter what you do. Right now I have 7 XEON dual & quad servers running in a rack at an ISP and no matter what I do power is a financial drainAnd usually they are not very good at clocking up or down - their spread is not as good as on a mobile processor. Even in the most power efficient mode they only clock consumption down by about 20% - where a good workstation notebook clocks down by 80% or more.