since this is a CPU thread...I thought I'd just throw an idea out there - I've been running 4 drives with an AMD Athlon II X2 245 2.90GHz (65W), I've underclocked it, and I'm drawing about 55W when idle and up to 85 with all drives active. Since unRAID is so frugal when it comes to processing power, I was thinking of actually downgrading to the AMD Sempron 140 that many here are using, which is a 45W processor I think. I doubt I'll take a performance hit, but is that still the case with, say, 15 drives? Also, will I see a noticeably decrease in power draw? I like to run things lean and cool, and low power requirement is kinda sexy  (I can use the  stronger Athon II in another box I'm building for a different purpose, so a downgrade wouldn't cost me anything)

 

unRAID itself will only use one core no matter how many are present.  People who create a full linux setup with unRAID (advanced stuff) may benefit from multiple cores with virtual machines using them.  So, if you are going to use stock unRAID then 2 cores not going to provide any benefit over one core.

..that makes sense, so it looks like a sensible thing to do. Does anyone have an idea how they compare in matters of power draw?

since this is a CPU thread...I thought I'd just throw an idea out there - I've been running 4 drives with an AMD Athlon II X2 245 2.90GHz (65W), I've underclocked it, and I'm drawing about 55W when idle and up to 85 with all drives active. Since unRAID is so frugal when it comes to processing power, I was thinking of actually downgrading to the AMD Sempron 140 that many here are using, which is a 45W processor I think. I doubt I'll take a performance hit, but is that still the case with, say, 15 drives? Also, will I see a noticeably decrease in power draw? I like to run things lean and cool, and low power requirement is kinda sexy   (I can use the  stronger Athon II in another box I'm building for a different purpose, so a downgrade wouldn't cost me anything)

 

unRAID itself will only use one core no matter how many are present.  People who create a full linux setup with unRAID (advanced stuff) may benefit from multiple cores with virtual machines using them.  So, if you are going to use stock unRAID then 2 cores not going to provide any benefit over one core.

..that makes sense, so it looks like a sensible thing to do. Does anyone have an idea how they compare in matters of power draw?

 

Actually I'm going to modify my statement.  It might be that addons to stock unRAID may use the additional core.  Maybe someone else can illuminate a little more.

For stock unRAID usage, you won't notice any difference by using a slower CPU.  You will only notice a difference if you do any CPU-intensive tasks on the server (such as run the Handbrake add-on).  Through different iterations of my servers I've used a single core 1.6 GHz AM2 CPU, a dual core 2.0 GHz AM2+ CPU, a single core 2.7 GHz AM3 CPU (the Sempron 140), and I currently use a single core 1.8 GHz LGA 775 (the Celeron 430).  I haven't noticed one bit of performance differences between any one of those CPUs on stock unRAID.

 

Basically, you'll be fine.  The Sempron 140 is a great CPU.

 

Also, I believe that you don't actually save any power by underclocking a CPU, only by undervolting it.  I'm just parroting what I've heard elsewhere, though - I don't mess with that stuff.

What? There is a Handbrake add-on? I will have to check that out!

Yes, there is a handbrake addon. If you're going to be transcoding/encoding the Intel i3 530 CPU is the sweet spot. It has one of the lowest idle power usage and also provides high performance when needed.