Hi all,

so I am about to build a new Unraid server which will replace my current server, retiring it to my backup server. I am looking at the AMD FX-8320 Eight Core AM3+ and I wonder if I am going overkill on the cpu? I rarely use plex for encoding, most of the time I stream direct using XBMC and so no transcoding.

 

I am thinking that I may want to play with virtualization in version 6 and so I am going with 8 gig dual channel ddr3.

 

Any thoughts on the cpu? Should I save my money and go for a quad or six core version which runs about $50 less?

I am using a 6 core AMD. Others here using as much as dual Xeons. Overkill? Maybe for 90% of the time. But you will be equipped to handle that 10% bump needed every once in while

 

ps. I started out with a Sempron single core and for years that ws enough because all I used it for was file serving. Now with multiple Dockers and Plex transcoding, I needed the extra horsepower.

I have a fx-6300 and an debating on upgrading to the 8320 based in how well docker and KVM have been working for me. If you don't plan on running multiple virtual machines, the 8320 is way over kill IMO.

See my signature. Using plex in arch VM. Occasionally transcoding full bd rips and for mobile. Loving it.

The FX-8320 only scores 8082 on PassMark ... a good score, but certainly nowhere near what the high-end Intel chips do with far fewer cores.    It is, of course, a very good low-cost CPU, and if cost is a major factor it's certainly not a bad choice.  But for $90 more you can get FAR more "horsepower" per core.  A Core i5-4690k scores 7739 on PassMark ... 96% of the processing power with only 4 cores -- or essentially TWICE the processing power per core.    And it does that with only 70% of the power consumption of the AMD chip (88w vs. 125w).

 

... or you could spring for a Core i7-4790K, which scores 11,297 on PassMark -- also while only consuming 88 watts.    I've used these in several recent builds, and they're simply amazing CPU's.  (They do, however, cost $300)

 

 

 

 

I use intel in my main PCs but I don't think I could justify spending that much more on a cpu for Unraid where I could use that money to add my drive space .

As a % of the total system cost, I think an extra $100 or so is "in the noise" -- but it's an individual choice.  I haven't built a system with anything less than a Core i-7 in years ... NONE of them really "needed" that much "horsepower", but my view is simply "Why Not?".

 

 

As an update, I ended up going the i5 - 4590 route, it was on sale in my local Frys and so it only cost another $30 over the FX chip. I went this route for the lesser power consumption vs. the AMD chip I believe.

Good choice.  90% of the "horsepower" of the 8-core AMD chip with only 4 cores ... so nearly twice the per/core performance => and it only uses 2/3rds of the power of the AMD chip, so it will run notably cooler and use less energy.

 

Thanks for the advice Gary, it made me re-think my cpu criteria and not focus 100% of horsepower but also to consider power consumption and heat.

Great advice

We frequently disregard the financial impacts of running electronic equipment continuously.  A difference of 10 watts in power consumption will add up quickly.  Over the course of a year of continuous operation that 10 W savings amounts to $10 - $15, depending on the cost of electricity.  One can easily justify spending more up front on better efficiency and get the added bonus of increased performance.

 

Of course if you live in a high latitude environment you're just going to replace the heat generated by the computer with heat generated by the furnace.  I haven't yet done any SWAG calculations to tell me if that's a wash.  :-)