christopher2007

Ok, so I should let the RAM on 2666. Thanks for the warning. For me it is now more or less a decision between the Xeon and the AMD build. All I am reading now are very special features and you are right, that is tying me up in knots. I am just wondering, why the AMD build is 300$ cheaper but has more power compared in numbers (more cpu cores, ...). Do you have a last personal rating between the two builds (new AMD link and Xeon link)? Do I have any benefits with the more expensive and less powerful Xeon? Or are the numbers misleading in real life scenarios?

I despair a little bit and want to give up. All sources tell some different things and I have not the knowledge to have an overview. I compared the `ASRock Rack X470D4U` and the `ASRock X570 Pro4`. Both seem to support ECC, but only the X570 supports DDR4-3200. And that is recommended for the Ryzen 7 3700X. But what does "recommended" mean? Do I have a bad experience when using only DDR4-2666? (My main PC with a i7-7700K runs well and I never checked the speed of CPU to MB to RAM ... ok, sometimes it is a little slow, but that also can be the OS.) I tried to create two build in order to compare and I came up with these: The AMD build from above, slightly modified. Pros when compared with the Intel Xeon build: more power (stronger CPU), also less needed energy/power, lower power supply needed, cheaper Cons when compared with the Intel Xeon build: No idea if ECC will work, RAM must be overclocked A new Xeon build, with all your recommendations and new knowledge : Pros when compared with the AMD build: Gigabyte motherboard (for "Initial Display Output" BIOS setting), guaranteed working ECC, 2x Ethernet for link aggregation Cons when compared with the AMD build: less power than the AMD build (weaker CPU), more power/energy needed, bigger power supply (I did not find any 500 Watt with the extra 4-pin ATX for the motherboard - why?), more expensive To 2: What build would you recommend for replacing two main workstation in the next months (Linux and Windows VMs), some docker container (websites, database, plex, ...), build processes and a little gaming? Can I basically compare the numbers of the CPUs and motherboards, or are there specifications that are more important than numbers? (Functions, that for example only a Xeon has, ...). Because I have the feeling, that the AMD build is more a desktop build and the Xeon is more a server build. But why do I have that feeling? And why is it so hard to get a Ryzen with the correct RAM with the needed Speed and ECC all together? Sry for my bad knowledge in this field. I really try my best, reading and learning as fast as I can. And of course, thank you for all your time.

Thanks @testdasifor your time. I think I now understand a lot of things better. Currently, I am focusing on the AMD build. Of course, you were right that I had other things in mind with my first post. But yesterday I read so much about VMs and the power of combining workstations, that I now have the vision to slowly migrate from two desktop workstations, a laptop and a server to only one server with VMs (also a little bit gaming from time to time). Nothing for a one-night-build, but a process over time. So I stepped my parts list up and here is the updated AMD build. Like you recommended: 860 instead of 860 Pro and added a graphics card (also a stronger power supply and other RAM - see below). Remaining questions: I read about ECC. UnRAID does natively not support FFS I think, but ECC should nevertheless be a thing in a server where data integrity is important. So the current motherboard in the build supports ECC (at least it is written in the manual) and the memory does it too. Sadly the memory is 2666MHz and not the needet 3200MHz, but a person on reddit wrote that it should be possible. My Question: Am I overthinking it? Is ECC really a good thing? Currently, I would like to have it, better than not. Can you maybe name me an alternative motherboard to the current ASRock? A Gigabyte version in order to use the "Initial Display Output" BIOS setting for the upcoming VMs? That really would be awesome. Is there also another weakness in the build? Are 16 GB RAM enough, would it be better to get a supermicro serverkit, ... In general, I am quite happy with the build. ECC and the Display-Output-Option are the only things currently giving me stomach pain. Thanks in advance.

Cool, thanks for the explanation @Hoopster. I learned a lot in the last compact answerers (better a large SSD then a smaller m2, GPU for several tasks, parity calculation, ...). So now the only remaining question is: Intel i5 build or Ryzon 2700X build? Any last comparisons, reasons or inputs on that? (power use, idle speed, direct power, future forward-looking, ...) And on @testdasi's answer: Why picking the i5 over the AMD for similar price, but then talking over a longer recommended use in the future with the AMD? Thanks in advance.

Thanks a lot @testdasi for your answers. Very helpful! But I am curious over your decision: Why picking the i5 over the AMD for similar price, but then talking over a longer recommended use in the future with the AMD? Can you please explain to me, why you think the Intel i5 9400 is better then the Ryzon 7 3700X? Do I really need a GPU? In the i5 build a chip GPU is integrated inside the CPU and in the AMD the GPU is missing completely. Shouldn't it be possible to run a storage server without a GPU? in general: What services or programs heavily use the GPU? Do I have an advantage when I even put a GPU in the i5 build? If so, what would you recommend? Thanks again for your time. I really appreciate it a lot!

Hello, The past: I am a database guy and programmer. And so I am not so good in the current hardware game. For some years now I was using a Synology NAS with around 10 TB space. Currently it is all used up and because of the limits with Synology+Docker I am now willing to upgrade my NAS. Therefore I compared FreeNAS and unRAID. The clear winner for me was unRAID and now I have the software but must find suitable hardware. My new network server must be for: primarily network storage with backups build tasks for programmed software (pipelines) network GIT cronjobs (build processes, backups, ...) network media center for videos and photos nextcloud some Docker containers (own websites, programms, ...) I want: around 15 TB space space should be upgradable in the future later this year upgrade to 10gbit network, currently one RJ45 will do, maybe two for link aggregation (but when I want to upgrade, I can now save some money on the motherboard) My budget should be 1.500$ max. I currently have three setups in mind and here are the parts: Version: Intel i5 Version: AMD Version: Low Power (I found this version in the forum after I finished my other two builds. So this one is not from me, but I like it.) -> All would use this case (I did not find it on pcpartspicker). My Questions: What Version of the three is the best for main storage and only some other tasks (no gaming)? What Version of the three has the best idle energy usage? Does a i5 really uses less power than a Ryzen when there is no work to do? What Version of the three do you recommend for the next five to eight years? Is it better to use 3x 8TB or 4x 6TB HDDs? (ignore the space difference, only the question of performance and later upgrades.) Does unRAID work best with 250GB SSD or 512GB SSD? Is this space calculator reliable? Feel free to post also complexly other parts in order to change one of my versions. Like I said: I am not good in case of hardware and so I am thankful for input with descriptions/reasons. I read somewhere that I can later plug in one more HDD in order to extend the space without loosing my data. But I can not find that information again, is this correct? Thanks for your help. greetings * source of the low power build: https://forums.unraid.net/topic/89113-my-silent-low-power-server-build/