WHS CPU/Motherboard

[Stinker]

My WHS CPU & Motherboard having been flaking out so I want to replace them.

What's something good these days that is low power but has enough CPU to meet WHS-Vail's requirement (1.5-2Ghz & 64-bit)? I am running the original WHS but may want to go to Vail when it comes out.

I want to stick with a good brand M/B (Gigabyte, probably) and want onboard graphics. Want at least 4 SATA ports, maybe 6 if possible for a good price.

Any suggestions?

Looking for best bang for buck first and then low power a close 2nd.

Thanks,
Stinker

 

[ddrueding]

Gigabyte GA-H55M-S2H
Underclocked/Undervolted G6950 Clarkdale 2.8GHz

 

[Mercutio]

That amount of CPU power seems exceedingly excessive, ddrueding.
A C2D celeron like an E2200 on a G31-based motherboard would probably work just fine though, and the whole rig would only run $100 - $130 for MB, CPU and RAM, or about what that motherboard probably costs by itself.

Does WHS actually allow for local video output?

 

[ddrueding]

Does WHS actually allow for local video output?

It does, but changes to the system are not encouraged. Apparently it is fairly fragile. Depending on what you are doing, some extra CPU isn't a bad idea. Mine acts as a BT client, backup server, media ripper and RDC gateway, in addition to having NOD32 set in very paranoid mode.

 

[Mercutio]

Other than ripping media, none of those things require much in the way of CPU horsepower.

 

[ddrueding]

Not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that it is more than a fileserver.

 

[Stinker]

Looks like you guys are preferring Intel. Any reason why?

 

[Stinker]

This is what I've come up with so far. I have some existing DDR2 I can use...

http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=14901226

 

[Sol]

If you can find a reasonable price on a 45 watt AMD chip that's what I'd go with... Newegg have a grand total of 1 option there though and it's a single core Sempron. (Although that is probably enough grunt for what you want the money you save could get you those extra 2 sata ports... But then you'd still need RAM)

 

[MaxBurn]

I posted elsewhere but this board has more than enough power to drive home server and I am sure it would be fine under vail.

http://www.wiredzone.com/itemdesc.asp/ic/10019793/model/X7SPA-HF

 

[Stinker]

Pretty nice except it needs SODIMMS. Compromises everywhere I guess!

 

[LiamC]

I have had good luck with undervolting Athlon II 250s--as per a SPCR article. I got a cheap Gigabyte (second hand) GA-MA74GM-S2H, Athlon II 250 and underclock it to around 2.0GHz. Just under 1.1V and seems stable. Just under AUS$100 (had memory sitting around)

 

[LiamC]

http://www.silentpcreview.com/article949-page3.html

 

[Mercutio]

Looks like you guys are preferring Intel. Any reason why?

I really think Intel-based motherboards are more robust. If there's no price difference, or minimal price difference, I'll go in the direction of higher reliability. The multimedia features that make AMD appealing for budget desktops aren't that interesting for a WHS system, either.

 

[time]

I really think Intel-based motherboards are more robust.

I think that's too broad a statement to be defensible. There have been some series of chipsets/motherboards for AMD CPUs that were problematic, but others have been just fine.

The capacitor plague always seemed to infest AMD-CPU motherboards more than Intel-CPU ones; this was probably due at least partly to being pitched lower in price, as well as different demands on regulation circuitry.

I've never been truly happy with nVidia chipsets, and extremely unhappy with some, but most of those problems were due to crappy drivers. But AMD-designed chipsets in the last year or two have been fine. If you're talking low-end, I'd rather have an AMD board than an Intel equivalent.

My gripe with AMD is performance per watt. Some applications/confgurations are fine, but some are quite poor compared to an Intel equivalent - which admittedly probably costs lots more.

 

[ddrueding]

I agree with the build quality and performance per watt augments against AMD above, but I'll throw in an even more subjective bit: snappiness. Intel (C2D and i-series) feel snappier than AMD chips.

 

[Mercutio]

The capacitor plague always seemed to infest AMD-CPU motherboards more than Intel-CPU ones

I've never been truly happy with nVidia chipsets

These two sentences make up the majority of my complaint (with the singular exception of Soundstorm on the A7N8X, which did make me happy), but I've gone entire years without having to replace an Intel-branded motherboard that I installed, which reminds me of something Tannin said about Intel hardware not having the good sense to die and which suggests to me the truth of my generalization.

 

[ddrueding]

The A7N8X was the last ASUS motherboard that I was really happy with. Good times.

 

[BingBangBop]

I have to admit, as little as I like it, that I agree, AMD motherboards tend to die much earlier than Intel. I suspect it has to do with the market choice that AMD choose of being the budget master. The result is that AMD motherboards tend to die earlier because they are made cheaper to satisfy the budget minded.

I'm not saying that that has to be in all cases but it has been my general observation.

 

[Stinker]

http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=14901226

Add another another $10 off the PSU with promotion code 'bigsave20' so I just went for it... Whole kit for $190 shipped + $20 MIR = $170 Shipped.

 

[ddrueding]

Looks good.

 

[time]

I agree with the build quality and performance per watt augments against AMD above, but I'll throw in an even more subjective bit: snappiness. Intel (C2D and i-series) feel snappier than AMD chips.

You've often claimed this, but I've dismissed it as you comparing apples with oranges, such as an i7 with an Athlon X2, or a Core 2 with an Athlon 64.

My understanding - dating all the way back to Tannin's enthusiasm for the AMD K3 - is that "snappiness" is a function of secondary cache size. With the advent of Core 2 and beyond, Intel chips typically had far more cache than AMD. These days, that's not necessarily true.

I've been able to compare a 3GHz Phenom X2 (7MB cache) against an Intel 3GHz Core 2 Pentium (2MB cache). As published benchmarks show, the Phenom is faster and feels 'snappier'.

 

[time]

The result is that AMD motherboards tend to die earlier because they are made cheaper to satisfy the budget minded.

Yes, that's what I was saying. However, I believe that has changed in the last year or two. You can finally get Gigabyte boards with the same level of components on both AMD and Intel versions.