LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/index.php)
-   Linux - Hardware (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   Can I build a desktop using server processor? (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?t=4175432493)

future_computer 10-16-2012 09:03 AM

Can I build a desktop using server processor?
 
Can I build a desktop using server processor like AMD Opteron?

shihad 10-16-2012 09:06 AM

Sure. As long as your motherboard supports such a processor there should be no issue.

Do you have any specifics about this?

cascade9 10-16-2012 09:07 AM

Yes, but its pretty much pointless if your a normal user.

*edit- and a lot more expensive as well.

future_computer 10-16-2012 12:37 PM

Just ask, because opteron has 16 core CPU.

johnsfine 10-16-2012 12:59 PM

Typical desktop computer use rarely gets much value from cores beyond the second. Compute bound desktop applications (to the extent they exist at all) tend to be single threaded and the user tends to run only one at a time. It is great to have a second core to make the mouse and network service and all the other misc. stuff remain responsive while a single threaded compute bound app ties up one core. But after the second core, the benefits are questionable.

Desktop CPUs typically have more than two cores because it is a lot cheaper/easier to put more than two cores in a package than to make a two core CPU significantly faster. If you could make a two core CPU twice as fast, that would be a vastly better desktop CPU than a four core of the original speed, probably better than 16 cores of the original speed.

A few extra cores don't cost a lot (relative to total system price) and sometimes the workload can be usefully divided over more than two cores.

But 16 cores is currently silly for desktop use.

I'm not current enough on hardware to know how much trouble you might have finding a desktop motherboard that supports that CPU or finding a desktop case that has enough air flow for the secondary cooling of that chip. I expect such things should exist because there is enough demand in the specialized workstation market. But it is too specialized for the price to be competitive.

I'm sure the Linux distribution won't care. It will handle 16 cores just fine even in a completely "desktop" (non server) install. If you have some bizarre (for desktop) workload that actually could use 16 cores at once, the desktop install of Linux won't in any way obstruct you.

Someday, most compute bound desktop applications will make better use of multiple cores. If you had asked me five years ago, I would have said to expect quite a lot of that by now. But it has been arriving more slowly than I expected.

While you are waiting for that, use a sane desktop CPU. Don't overpay for many cores in a CPU that will be obsolete for some other reason before the software is there to take advantage of all its cores.

cascade9 10-16-2012 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnsfine (Post 4807401)
I'm not current enough on hardware to know how much trouble you might have finding a desktop motherboard that supports that CPU or finding a desktop case that has enough air flow for the secondary cooling of that chip. I expect such things should exist because there is enough demand in the specialized workstation market. But it is too specialized for the price to be competitive.

The 16 core (actually '8 bulldozer module') CPUs arent as crazy-hot as 16 cores might lead you to believe. They are rated at 140watts TDP, which is pretty close to the 125watts max of AMD phenom IIs/bulldozer and 130watts max of the 6-core i7s.

Finding a case that can deal with 140watts TDP is easy. Your average 'gamers' video card is rated at 150watts+ TDP, and you've got the CPU etc. on top of that. 400watts+ TDP from CPU + GPU isnt that uncommon.

Also, the G34 motherboards are actually not as expensive as you might guess, you can get a single CPU socket G34 board for about $250, which isnt that much more than some good 'standard' motherboards (and its quite a bit less than some of the ecrazy 'top end', 'gamers/overclockers' boards).

That doesnt make getting an opteron for normal desktop use sane. A 16 core opteron CPU is going to be at least $550-600 US, and for normal desktop use it would be slower than a bulldozer, phenom II, i5 or i7 that costs half as much......

TobiSGD 10-16-2012 01:37 PM

Comes down to what is considered "normal desktop use". A Gentoo user can have great benefits from a 16-core CPU (not that I would call those AMD things 16-core, they aren't) when updating his machine, since most compilations can be multi-threaded very well. If you run multiple VMs simultaneously it can also give you a good boost, not in performance, but in how many VMs you can use at the same time. Of course a CPU of this type has to be supported by large amounts of RAM and a fast storage system to be able to use its full potential.

For home-desktop use this makes no sense at all, a cheap quad-core with higher clockspeed would be a better choice for most people, if you really only surf the web and do office stuff a dual-core will be sufficient.

jefro 10-16-2012 03:03 PM

Servers work pretty good for server work. They start to fail on desktop or workstations for some reasons. One is memory is usually ecc or more and is a bit slower. The second may be that some are difficult to get a good video in. Odd slots like pci-x or such may limit use. The nic's tend to be really good though.

future_computer 10-17-2012 06:27 AM

AMD quad core and 6-core CPUs do not vary too much in price,
is it wise to choose 6-core?

TobiSGD 10-17-2012 06:56 AM

Since those CPUs aren't real quad- or six-cores (if you talk about the AMD FX CPUs, since the Phenom IIs are EOL) I would rather go for the "8-core"/4-module CPUs.
Basically you can see the 4-core/2-module CPUs as dual-core with Hyperthreading, the 6-core/3-modules as triple-core with Hyperthreading and so on.
So the server CPU you had in mind is basically a 8-core CPU with Hyperthreading.

future_computer 10-17-2012 08:38 AM

I am talking about Desktop, sorry, not server CPU,
my Athlon 64 4800+ is too old, wanna to change it.
I have a few choices,
1. Intel Core i5 2nd or 3rd Generation
2. AMD APU A8 or A6

Both fit my budget.
Based on benchmarking done by people, intel's CPUs always beat AMD.
Should I go for intel, especially IvyBidge 3xxx series?

TobiSGD 10-17-2012 10:06 AM

When you compare computing power over price you will see an advantage for Intel only in the high price segments, not in the low- and mid-price range.
I personally would not go for the APUs, cince the socket format of them is already announced to be obsolete in the future, even the new FM2-socket.
If you want to have an upgrade path go for AMD's FX CPUs or Intel's Core i-series.
IvyBridge in general runs a little bit hotter than SandyBridge, but has better graphics.
My personal opinion is go for the Intel's, but I am biased due to bad experiences with AMD in the last year.

future_computer 10-17-2012 07:27 PM

Ivybridge has bult-in VGA,
if I buy an entry-level Intel G850, but separate VGA card like Nvidia GT640, would my PC's performance be better than a Ivybridge's PC that has no graphic card?

TobiSGD 10-17-2012 08:06 PM

Unanswerable question. For sure the GT640 will be faster than the IvyBridge video unit.
But will this CPU be faster than an IvyBridge CPU? Nobody can answer that, what you are actually asking is like: Will my Honda Civic with this nice turbi-loader be faster than a Toyota. Nobody can say, since you don't state which IvyBridge CPU you want to compare.

future_computer 10-17-2012 09:04 PM

1)core i5 3570K (cab be overclocked),without VGA card, (costs RM690)
v.s. 2)G850 + Nvidia GT640 card. (costs 228+360=RM588) , cheaper by 14.78%.

Will my second choice be better, at cheaper price, if we consider playing 3D games which require better display card?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:37 AM.