Need help with chosing CPU

Hi there can any one help me with chosing the right CPU for my little home server?
wich one of the 4 CPU's is the best for my server? and why?
please dont just say that the intel core 2 duo is the best or something like that,
please explain why it's better then the other 3.

http://ark.intel.com/compare/27253,27236,27116,27463

atm the only use of the server will be storage, router and media server.

I own all of them (and more) so no need to take the cost into the consideration

 

Depends on what OS you plan on putting on the server, how many machines you will have accessing data from the server, and what OS your other machines use, honestly.

If you're going to run it with XP or a lighter Linux flavor, then the Pentium would be well up to the task. However, if you want to run Windows 7, I'd say the Celeron D at a minimum, possibly the Core Duo.

Reasons? Small servers (with less than 10 machines using them) don't need processing power, but Windows 7 might balk a little at using a Pentium. Other than that, I'd say go with the least processing power you need, which are the ones I listed above.

Also, the other thing you should consider is how much RAM the server will have. Obviously, the only 64 bit processor capable of addressing more than 3 or 4GB of RAM is the Core 2 Duo. But, if you're only going to have 3 or 4GB of RAM, that won't be an issue.

If I were building a home server for the handful of computers in my house to access, I'd probably go with the Core 2 Duo, simply for future proofing reasons, with 8GB of RAM.

One caveat: I've never built a home server, this is just my thoughts based on what I've read, etc. My desktop is a semi-server using Windows 7's Homegroup for the laptops in the house, and hosts all personal files, but that's as close to a server as I have at the moment.

 

Another consideration is wattage/power usage.

Taking into account mcsmc's thoughts, the newer processors draw less than half the wattage of the Prescott CPUs. For server use, this could equal a savings of as much as 2KW/h per day.

11 cents per KW/h x 2KW (one day using the more efficient Core 2 versus an older Prescott CPU) = 0.22 savings.

0.22 per day times 365 days = $80.30 per year savings.

Even if power saving (wake on LAN) is enabled on the server, the savings using a more energy-efficient chip should be a minimum of $25-$30 per year.

Hope this helps.

 

I agree it depends on the OS. I only see one that claims to be 64-bit. Sticking with 32-bit holds you to the past.

What you really need to do is go out to the motherboard maker's website for that motherboard and look at the QVL - qualified vendors list of CPUs they have verified work with that board.

 

Total agreement. If it were me, I would rather build a unit that is easily upgradeable (newer OS, more memory, more HDDs if needed, etc.). Doing so gives you a server you'll be able to enjoy for several more years before obsolesce eventually catches up with it.

 

I wouldn't go that far personally. I gave away a one gig Celly machine with 512MB RAM(circa 2K2), runs *nix well and happily has a new home and purpose as a server. It could use more RAM but sadly 512 is the max on the ASUS TUSL2-C.

 

Totally different scenario and not applicable here.

The whole point of going 64-bit is to ensure that machine, regardless how it is used, has the potential to carry you further into the future. Buying 32-bit now immediately puts the machine in the past with legacy technologies, and it holds you to the past while the rest of the industry keeps marching forward.

 

I didn't say 'buy one'. The only thing I'm probably missing is HD video. I have no idea of how much power that sucks.

 

??? You were disagreeing with gman who agreed with me and my comments about buying for the future and going 64-bit.

IMO, you merely verified with our opinions. Your 512Mb limits, and the lack of that board's ability to be upgraded illustrates the point. A Model A Ford may still run and carry passengers down main street in a parade, but it would not fair well in regular traffic, let alone 55MPH on the highway.

Still working is not the same as meeting current demands. So again, different scenarios.

 

Although the OP didn't list specifics on how the server will be used, the majority of ones I see going into home use are used somewhat (if not almost exclusively) for video.

If the server is going to function as a TiVo unit for Pirate Bay, HDMI (and the speed of SATA2 or SATA3) are not bad things to have. :-D

Although we may end up agreeing to disagree on what constitutes the perfect system, all posts have had valid pros and cons on home server builds.

 

I can't disagree with you sir so I'll just bow out of here as gracefully as I can.

 

I would say that you are all right depending on OPs reqirements. If you have no need to travel on the highway then the Ford is fine.

As an extra option Im going to chuck NAS storage out there. If all you want is a storage area for files and media a NAS will use less power and take up less space, however if you are after a full media PC to hook up to TV then this will be no good.

 

Thank you all for the replies, it was interested reading.
I noticed that small heat was building up, but that can alway's hapen in forums

Any way after the reading it, it seems that the 64bit is the winner,
for me they look "pretty much" the same.
The 64bit has 2mb L2cache and is 1.6GHz doual core but only 667MHz system bus.
that's pretty much what I know to determine wich CPU is better.

As I said in the first post I own all the CPU's I mentioned so no need to purchase.
Electricity is kinda no problem as it is cheaper here in Iceland then in most countries. but it's always a plus anyway

Also as I said in the first post, the main use for the server will be handling all my HDD's and used as file storage server for movies and stuff like that, about 3tb's.
I have a another PC that will play mediafiles from the server to the TV.
I'm also thinkin about using it as router/gateway for atleast 4 PC's and then maybe up to 7 when i'm working on other PC's (repairing,formating etc.)

Regarding the choosing of the OS, is still work in progress, it will probably be win7 or ubuntu/server ubuntu.
All sugestions regarding the chose of OS are welcome

the motherboard is Asus p4c800-e rev 2.00

I hope this will clear few things

 

Depending on how many drives you have this will work well as as a file server. Only thing is you have the components for building a server so there is no associated cost and you wont be able to do any routing with a NAS. In general a NAS is a very cheap way of setting up a file server.

 

Not good enough. You need to grovel and donate all your income for the next 30 years to a worthy cause - like me!

Or music. Or as Tueur note, as network storage, or for backups, which is what I find old computers are often re-purposed for. That's what I use my old XP system for - to store backup images of the other computers on my network.

A genuine file server typically needs to be pretty powerful - at least in CPU and RAM horsepower.

 

It's been over 100F (38C) every day for the past week here -- running the A/C almost non-stop -- and I just received my electric bill today.

Any chance you could send some of either the cheap electricity or ice down here to Houston? :-D

 

lol you sure that it would be cheaper :-D ?

 

It seems that the Intel core 2 duo is for labtops/mobile, does that matter in anyway?

 

No, that particular Intel Core 2 Duo is an Intel Core 2 Dual Mobile. Not all Core 2 Duos are designed for mobile. And all that means is it is designed with extra battery saving features and maybe some extra heat precautions.

 

Just as I thought, thanks.