Jump to content
RESET Forums (homeservershow.com)

Can't beleive I am saying this...


Recommended Posts

jmwills

LGA 1155 (Core i5) is what I am using for my Hyper-V server. I can run as many as six to eight clients before I start maxing out the 32GB RAM and I have never seen the CPU tack about about 20% for the host.

 

AMD is Space Balls in my universe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 29
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • geek-accountant

    10

  • pcdoc

    3

  • timekills

    3

  • ImTheTypeOfGuy

    2

Top Posters In This Topic

AMD is Space Balls in my universe.

 

Best analogy yet! lol

 

Seriously the intel chips just rock.. you won't be dissapointed. I'm running a Core i7-920 from 3 years ago and it still doesn't break a sweat at anything I thow at it.

Edited by tojoski
Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe_Miner

So after a little searching, I am comparing these two setups (only the parts that differ are listed):

i7-3820 Sandy Bridge-E 3.6GHz with a Gigabyte MB - GA-X79-UD3 LGA 2011

or

i7-3770K Ivy Bridge 3.5 GHz with a Gigabyte MB - GA-Z77X-UD5H LGA 1155

I would use the same ram and water cooler (H-80) in both systems. This system would not be for gaming and all of the video streaming software I have tested, don't use the video card for h.264 encoding, so the CPU is the main component for this system.

-snip-

 

I don’t know why you’re considering the X79 when the i7-3770 you’ve paired with the GA- Z77X-UD5H totally kicks the ass of the i7-3820 in benchmarks!

 

I’ve been extremely pleased with my Z77X-UD5H with my i7-3770. The 3770 is essentially the same as the 3770K except it does have VT-d but it can’t be overclocked. So, I guess the choice is do you want to preserve the future option of overclocking with the 3770K or the future option of VT-d if you wanted to go ESXi? (For your stated use case – preserving the option to overclock in the future sounds like your best action.)

 

The benchmarks aren’t that big of a surprise considering that the Ivy Bridge CPU performance is +5-15% over the Sandy Bridge and the Ivy Bridge GPU performance is +25-68% --- besides the Turbo Speeds of the i7-3770 is 3.9GHz vs the i7-3820 at 3.8GHz

 

Whichever way you go, I’d suggest shoving as much FAST RAM into that machine as possible. I’m very happy with my 32GB and I haven’t even upped the RAM clock speed (yet). Slap a Zalman on it for some heavy duty cooling with eye-candy.

 

Just so you know – I’m a fan-boy of the GA-Z77X-UD5H – which is a great board IMHO.

 

 

Just for comparision: Here’s the Benchmarks of the i7-3770 vs the FX-8150 -- All the more reason to look at Ivy Bridge, IMHO.

Edited by Joe_Miner
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest no-control

So after a little searching, I am comparing these two setups (only the parts that differ are listed):

 

i7-3820 Sandy Bridge-E 3.6GHz with a Gigabyte MB - GA-X79-UD3 LGA 2011

 

or

 

i7-3770K Ivy Bridge 3.5 GHz with a Gigabyte MB - GA-Z77X-UD5H LGA 1155

 

 

I would use the same ram and water cooler (H-80) in both systems. This system would not be for gaming and all of the video streaming software I have tested, don't use the video card for h.264 encoding, so the CPU is the main component for this system.

 

I would like to see what the other components are and your requirements before I make a suggestion either way.

  • How much RAM over how many sticks?
  • How many NICs do you want/need. Discreet or onboard?
  • Are you opposed to workstation or server class hardware?
  • Budget?

Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites
CablDeViL

Mike I was in the same boat, AMD since the early 90s. I just finished a build for a customer with the latest and greatest from AMD - My 3 year old i7 Crushed it in my benchmarks.

 

It make me sad to see AMD turn into a value brand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy C@#p, for a minute there I thought you said you where considering an Intel, surely I this post was created as a hoax.... :D

 

On the premise that this is not a joke and to answer your question, yes it will be faster even just using the CPU. If you get encoding software that supports quick-sync, it will be crazy fast. I convert full length video all the time from a Blu-Ray to MP4 using a Core I7-2500K. It takes about 45-55 minutes using Handbrake which is CPU only. The same file is converted in 12 minutes using quick-sync.

 

BTW, I know this post does not exist so don't worry, you secret is safe with me...

Link to post
Share on other sites
geek-accountant

I would like to see what the other components are and your requirements before I make a suggestion either way.

  • How much RAM over how many sticks?
  • How many NICs do you want/need. Discreet or onboard?
  • Are you opposed to workstation or server class hardware?
  • Budget?

Thanks!

 

System is just for my Broadcast server. "If" I see a big speed improvement, I will also think about upgrading my main system where I do video editing, Photoshop, Lightroom,, etc. But for this system it's sole purpose is to broadcast the show, and all the things that go with that.

 

Was thinking only 8gig in either 2 4GB sticks or 4 2GB sticks. The current system has 8GB and rarely goes over 4GB during even the most intense parts of streaming. I can go 16GB since ram is so cheap, but I don't know how much of a difference that will make in real uses.

 

On board NIC should be fine.

 

Workstation/server? I don't really care, but would like to keep this under $1k for the MB, ram, CPU and water cooler (I think that's all I need). So what ever will give me the best power for encoding the live stream is the way I want to go. Of course, I would like to spend as little as possible. :)

 

Holy C@#p, for a minute there I thought you said you where considering an Intel, surely I this post was created as a hoax.... :D

 

On the premise that this is not a joke and to answer your question, yes it will be faster even just using the CPU. If you get encoding software that supports quick-sync, it will be crazy fast. I convert full length video all the time from a Blu-Ray to MP4 using a Core I7-2500K. It takes about 45-55 minutes using Handbrake which is CPU only. The same file is converted in 12 minutes using quick-sync.

 

BTW, I know this post does not exist so don't worry, you secret is safe with me...

 

LOL. Yes, I must have hit my head or started smoking crack. Wait, do you smoke crack or shot crack, either way, I must be doing it.

 

I use Xsplit for the broadcast and if I want to push the quality up while keeping the bit rate down, I need all the power I can get to encode H.264 on the fly while streaming. Need more power.

 

One thing that has me worried is real life vs the benchmarks. The guys at work gave me a Core i-7 2600 overclocked to 4.2GHz and said it would smoke my old computer (Core i-5, don't remember the model). While it is faster, I have no trouble bringing it to it's knees with some of my spreadsheets. When I work on those same spreadsheets at home with my AMD X6 system, I can tell the i-7 is faster, but it's not as big a difference as I would think. For the most part, the AMD feels almost as fast.

 

That said, running Xsplit on the two systems will provide real feedback and not just a "feeling", which of course is subjective.

Link to post
Share on other sites
timekills

For what I imagine are your primary concerns, Photoshop can see an increase, but that is also dependent on GPU; right now Nvidia is just better supported than AMD for GPU/APU assisted encoding. There are some significant changes to the newer AMD architecture with their APU instruction set that Adobe is wither already supporting or has plans to, but at this very moment, Intel and Nvidia are undisputed king of the hill when it comes to video and photo editing/encoding.

 

Video encoding, as Mike said, can be phenomenally improved using the HD3000/4000 integrated GPU, but it can also work well with a discrete GPU if you go that route with an AMD CPU, so I wouldn't make that my sole decision. Also, it depends on the software; notably Premiere which does not support Quick Sync through ver. 5.5 and do not have any plans to integrate (yes, there is a glitched up plug-in, I've tried it, it's dog slow compared to using a discrete GPU.) Quick Sync is also not supported in Linux, if that matters, but generally Intel has had "better" driver support than AMD for their newer chips. After about 12-18 months it all washes out.

 

If you're interested in software that supports Quick Sync you can check their site: http://www.intel.com...eo-general.html (For example, Total Media Theater supports it.)

 

Regarding photo editing, I don't want to crush any AMD spirit you have but the generally accepted best AMD chip for photo work is the FX-8150 you mentioned. For comparison's sake, the last gen i5 2500K is benchmarked in almost all Photoshop tests as 20% faster than the FX-8150. Again, that is the i5, LAST gen Intel chip. Not to mention under load the 2500K uses about 130W while the Bulldozer (FX-8150) uses about 230W.

Link to post
Share on other sites
geek-accountant

On this build, the only thing it will be doing really is streaming the show using Xsplit. Doing H.264 encoding to stream the podcast, which they say can't easily be ported to use the GPU and they will not be doing it, is very CPU intensive and that is really my only concern with this build. At some point, I may re-build my machine with an i7 and that machine will run PS, LR Premiere, After Effects and more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...