Kinda what I was thinking as well. On December 9, 2014 8:47:44 AM AKST, Paul Conlin via Af <[email protected]> wrote: >Yes, but Eric's i3 suggestion, in a Newegg combo kit is $222 >(http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.171263 >2) as an example. Add a $100 case and it is just a little more than >half >the price of this SM C2750. It doubles the TDP but for a CPU that >scores >3.5 times better than the ATOM on the PassMark CPU score. This example >is >micro ATX but mini ITX boards are available. You have to really want >low >power to pay so much more for the ATOM. This might explain why the >ATOM >server market is so relaxed. > >PC >Blaze Broadband > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof via Af >> Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 11:36 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Atom D525 vs C2750 >> >> I've been pretty happy with the D510/D525 even with the limited >speed, >cores, >> memory addressing and onboard cache. I like the low power >consumption and >passive >> heatsinks. >> >> What I'm looking at is Supermicro 5018A-TN4: >> >> http://gopcn.com/i-16556899-supermicro-1u-atom-5018a-tn4.html >> >> Not all that cheap, but it's a genuine server with ECC memory, IPMI, >short >depth >> rackmount, and with the 2.5" HDD bracket can easily hold two SSD's >for a >software >> RAID1 configuration. Set the fan at lowest speed and even if it >fails it >should not >> really be needed unless you have it in a hostile environment. >Probably >fine with 4MB >> RAM and 128GB storage, maybe more storage for RADIUS or CACTI. >> >> BIND does a good job of multithreading and will use however many >cores you >give it, >> not sure about RADIUS and CACTI. D525 has 2 cores and 4 threads, >> C2750 has 8 cores and 8 threads plus a somewhat higher clock speed, >so I'm >figuring 2- >> 3 times the performance? It's definitely more money though. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Paul Conlin via Af >> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 9:58 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Atom D525 vs C2750 >> >> We have been planning on standing up a couple of light duty Linux >servers >to upgrade >> our DNS and RADIUS and maybe even a CACTI upgrade later. Are these >newer >> ATOM platforms and a couple of small SSD's up to these tasks? How >does >the D525 >> do? >> >> It appears the C2750 has been out for nearly a year but I'm are not >finding too many >> products using them. Intel's chart makes it look like the C2550 (4 >cores >vs 8 cores) >> might be a more cost effective replacement to the D525. >> But there are even fewer C2550 motherboards out there and they are >not >significantly >> cheaper than the C2750 or even the D525. Are we just not looking in >the >right places >> or is this low-cost low-TDP server market just really small? >> >> PC >> Blaze Broadband >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof via >Af >> > Sent: Saturday, December 6, 2014 2:57 PM >> > To: [email protected] >> > Subject: [AFMUG] Atom D525 vs C2750 >> > >> > I have several small Linux servers using Atom D525 processors for >> > tasks >> like DNS and >> > RADIUS, I even have one running Win7 that I use for PRTG and CNUT >and >> > RDP sessions. Put a couple 128 GB SSDs in them and with passive >> > cooling and >> low TDP >> > you have an almost indestructible little server. >> > >> > Going forward, I'm wondering if I should look at the newer C2750 >> > version, >> it would >> > seem to support more memory and storage, 4x as many cores, 2x as >many >> threads, >> > higher clock speed, more cache, supports ECC memory, but at a >higher >> > price >> and TDP, >> > and the Ethernet NICs might not be as good as the 82574L chips on >the >> motherboards >> > I have been using. Also at that price point you could question the >> > value >> compared to >> > just using an i3 or E3 processor. And even if the D525 is an old >> > design >> with limited >> > cores, cache and memory addressing, it does the job, so the only >> > reason to >> use the >> > newer chips may be for future proofing. >> > >> > So has anyone done the analysis or actually deployed C2750 based >servers? >>
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
