Alright, so I really can’t decide which server to get;
HP ML350 G6 with 2x X5650
OR
HP Z420 with 1x 1650
What I will be doing is running Win 8.1 Pro, and then using Hyper V to create virtual environments of:
Win Server 2012 for Domain Controller (DNS, DHCP, AD)
Win Server 2012 for WSUS, File Server, and Deployments
NextCloud
The main Win 8.1 Pro host will have practically all programs uninstalled, and most services and startup programs disabled, along with being the most up-to-date on Windows Update, to reduce downtime. Along with that, the main host O.S will have WAN access disabled, but LAN access enabled, for monitoring of the host O.S.
I will have at least 2 Gigabit NIC’s installed and 1 SAS HBA, to add more sata HDD’s.
Both server configurations will have the same amount of RAM. The reason I can’t decide between the two is because of the CPU; would it be better off if I get 12 Cores, but at a lower single core performance, or 6 cores with higher single core performance?
Thanks!
Edit: Since it was brought to my attention that there are different ways to go for a VM Host O.S, which would the forum people recommend? VmWare ESXI OR a dedicated Hyper V host?
Having previously owned 2 x X5650’s I’d sooner go with the newer Z420 workstation and Sandybridge. The X5650 is much slower single threaded and unless your VM’s are doing lots of real CPU heavy work they will just give you a higher utility bill and make your room hotter.
Why run a cut-down Win 8.1 Pro? As far as Hyper-V goes this is feature limited and now old. Hyper-V 2016 is free to download and use and has a lot more features as does VMware VSphere. The only downside is that neither boots to a GUI - you just manage them from another machine or VM.
VMware arguably have the better product and they give their base hyper-visor away for free, so… Plus once you deploy it onto more than a handful of servers you will want/need to buy the System Centre suite of tools to manage the servers and VM’s. MS will get their $$$
Most of the new features are around better clustering and storage, features that are great for high availability, scaling out and live upgrades etc. However Hyper-V 2016 also has much better support for device pass through and virtual GPU’s etc. Some of these features are limited in the desktop versions of hyper-V e.g. no OpenGL support for virtual GPU’s in the Windows 10 Pro version, only Direct X.
You can also get free ESXI, just with a couple of limits. This is what I personally use at home for my PfSense and FreeNas instances, but done on one machine with hardware passthroughs:
That’s what I’ve got running in my current fileserver. I just have them because they were cheap. Only thing I can really afford with the limited budget I have.
I used a pair of X5670’s in my brothers build not just because of the price of the CPUs, but because of the price of the motherboards. Lga 2011 motherboards are still mad expensive for whatever reason, regularly 2x or 3x more expensive than the comparable Dual Lga 1366 motherboards available on eBay. The Lga 2011 definitely is architecturally superior, in terms of single core performance, number of cores available, platform features, and power usage. But, when you compare a single 1650 vs a pair of x5650-x5680s, the multithreaded performance of the older lga 1366 stuff is still pretty compelling.
If you plan on making use of the cores, go with the 2x1366’s. If something like 1/3 will be idle up to 50% of the time, I’d go with the 2011. I’ve used both in numerous models, and that’s where I would draw the limit personally.
On a side note, the X5690’s are pretty awesome, and you might want to just go with those if you have that option, rather than even considering a 2011.
I would recommend the X5680’s as you can find a pair for around $110 whereas a single X5690 will land you 150. The different being only 100 MHz in clock speed.
Unless you need that extra bit of umf, then disregard.
Whilst this not real-world it does help illustrate the single threaded handicap the X5650 has at its stock clock-speed. I replaced mine with 2 x X5677’s which had fewer cores but higher clocks (it’s an X5690 with 2 cores disabled) since over-clocking on the HP mobo was not possible.
The Sandybridge architecture is more efficient. You can compare the i7-2600 to the X5677 which have similar clocks. Basically the E5-1650 is slightly better than the X5690, and a lot better than an X5650.
If the Op needs the CPU grunt and can get hold of X5680’s or 90’s for cheap then the ML350 might be the better purchase.
These were the exact numbers I was looking for; how 2 X5650’s compares to a single 1650.
I totally do understand that.
Anyway, thanks for the replies peoples. When I do end up buying a server, it’ll end up being the Z420, because of the significantly higher single core performance, similar multi core performance to 2x x5650, plus, lower idle power consumption, in comparison to dual CPU’s.
Since people may be wondering, the reason for the choice of X5650 and not the X5680/X5690 is because 2x X5690’s are around 250+ CAD, while 2x X5680’s are around 150+ CAD.
