Madshrimps Forum Madness

Madshrimps Forum Madness (https://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/)
-   General Madness - System Building Advice (https://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/f18/)
-   -   In search for hardware (https://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/f18/search-hardware-45268/)

BlackRabbit 26th June 2008 17:36

In search for hardware
 
Howdy,

I'm looking for hardware which should comply with the following statements:

1)
motherboard that:
- allows the use of low-power-consuming CPUs
- support for 'a lot' of SATA ports (at least 8).
- onboard gbit lan, (video perhaps)
- not too pricy
- support for at least 2 PCI slots

CPU:
- for the motherboard selected above.
- Note that I have no idea which CPU uses fewest power. Note that computational power should meet Duron 1Ghz speeds at least.

jmke 26th June 2008 17:51

lots of sata + cheap mobo = asrock series

BlackRabbit 26th June 2008 19:44

And what CPU should I go for?

About Asrock: the only 8port SATA mobo I found on their website (looking at 775 mobo's) was a 130EUR Pyron (~something), so not that cheap (it's a SLI board btw).

Found this one though, featuring 6 SATA ports:
Asrock 4Core1333-VIIV P965 Sockel 775

Combined with this Conroe CPU (35W TDP):
Intel Celeron 420 1.60GHz S775 boxed

jmke 26th June 2008 20:09

yep that 4Core1333 will do nicely, add in PCI card with 4/8 ports for more; because you're mixing high end requirements (8 port SATA) with entry level price, very hard to find:)

CPU... I would go for E2140/E2160 just for that dual core feeling:)

BlackRabbit 26th June 2008 20:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmke (Post 173053)
yep that 4Core1333 will do nicely, add in PCI card with 4/8 ports for more; because you're mixing high end requirements (8 port SATA) with entry level price, very hard to find:)

CPU... I would go for E2140/E2160 just for that dual core feeling:)

But it doubles the power consumption :/




How much would those CPUs use idle? (any idea how much the conroe would use idle?)

jmke 26th June 2008 21:12

12W @ Idle

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/...160-page1.html

piotke 26th June 2008 21:15

E21XX series can run perfectly passive with big *** heatsink.

jmke 26th June 2008 21:36

I think we wants a file server with low power usage;

BlackRabbit 26th June 2008 22:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmke (Post 173063)
I think we wants a file server with low power usage;

Correcto :)

BTW:
CPU: Celeron 420 (Conroe-L, 1.6 Ghz, 8w during Halt, 35w TDP)



8 <-> 12 is almost nothing, but I suppose computational power difference will be huge between both CPUs..

Was also looking @ the e1200, when I found this:
http://computermonger.com/intel-cele...00-review.html


Performance-wise I should go for the E21xx. Expected the e1200 to use less power, as it has less L2 cache.



How about e8500 & e8200 ? 3W idle, 28-33W load.
They are a bit pricy though :( (but have more underclocking potential)
MOD: forget it, those are too expensive :(

jmke 27th June 2008 08:24

E8200 are expensive, will require more power, will be more powerful then E21xx series;

Massman is selling a E2160 FYI ;)

BlackRabbit 27th June 2008 09:14

Could anyone tell me what the idle power consumption of a AMD64 3500+ is? TDP is also 65W (like the E2160)
As these CPUs support Cool'n'Quiet, I suppose/hope it will be low as well.

(my current system uses this CPU, and the motherboard has 8 SATA ports. See where I'm going? ;))




MOD, finally found this:
Quote:

November 2004 saw AMD move into the 90 nm age, nine months after Intel did. AMD unveiled a new and very impressive CPU, codenamed Winchester http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester (D0), which was only available in the low-cost market segment. As such, the core made its way into the Athlon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon 64 3000+, 3200+ and 3500+ models. The technology it was based on was anything but low-cost, though: we would have loved to see the looks on the faces of Intel's engineers when they measured the power consumption of AMD's 90nm CPUs and realized that even under full load, this unimposing CPU draws a mere 31.4 W. This means AMD was able to reduce the power consumption by about 44% clock for clock. Further measurements taken on a specially-modified motherboard in our Munich lab showed an idle power consumption of only 11.1 W.

But the best was yet to come. When the Cool & Quiet feature was activated and the frequency dropped to 800 MHz, the CPU contented itself with incredible 3.2 W. The Winchester was followed by the Venice stepping, which added SSE3 support to the Athlon 64 and lowered the power consumption even further.
I have a Venice core. Are these numbers correct? Because they are pretty sweet :)


As I still have a XP120 CPU cooler lying around, passive cooling would be no problem =)

piotke 27th June 2008 09:54

About right I think.

I remember having 3200+ C&Q enabled and when browsing the fan just turned a few second severy 5 minutes... And even then it turned very gently.

BlackRabbit 1st July 2008 09:17

Could someone tell me how much energy an AMD Duron 800-1000Mhz CPU consumes when idle?

piotke 1st July 2008 09:56

I'll measure it this evening. Have a durun 700 here.

BlackRabbit 2nd July 2008 12:46

Thanks!
Information of that kind is not easy to find, unfortunately :( Those days we didn't mind power consumption that much, I suppose :)


Can you measure CPU power consumption? Or will it be the total system (cpu,mobo,ram)?

jmke 2nd July 2008 12:48

total of course, unless he's able to solder some resistant directly to the CPU socket to measure power draw;)

anyway, difference between 10W and 30W is not huge BR, let's not get carried away here!

BlackRabbit 2nd July 2008 16:50

It's not really the electricity costs that make me ponder. The machine is installed in a pretty small place, without any ventilation. In these circumstances, 20W of power can make a lot of difference in roomtemp.

However, (re)discovered athcool (for AMD Athlon/Duron CPUs). Seems to be able to lower CPU temp reasonably (and thus: room/system temp).

Piotke: could you perhaps measure the difference with<->without athcool-like tools? (unless ofcourse, you're not actually booting into some OS). It would be interesting to see how much difference such a tool could actually make :)

piotke 2nd July 2008 21:56

Will test, but after werchter.

BlackRabbit 2nd July 2008 23:06

Thanks!


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 13:13.

Powered by vBulletin® - Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO