Go Back   Hardware Canucks > HARDWARE > CPU's and Motherboards

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old April 13, 2013, 08:12 AM
Trial Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1
Wink Some HW help please :)

Hello guyz,

I am soon buying a new desktop computer.
Unfortunately i am not that good in hardware.Therefore i need some advise from you.
First of all I need my computer to host virtual servers for some testing purposes. I need a lot of RAM for that.

About the processor i am thinking :

1.FX-Series X4 4170, 4.20GHz, 12MB, BOX, AM3+, Black Edition
2.A10-5800K X4 Quad Core, HD 7660D, 3.80GHz, FM2

I am not sure which one is better for me. About the motherboard i have no idea... I am not sure which is passing. Do you have any suggestions. I have been told that with the second processor i can play games as well. I am not a big gamer but it would be good to play once in a while.

I think i have chosen my other components.
RAM will be Geil 2x8GB 1600 dragon CL11
Harddisk will be seagate 1Tb 64MB SATA 3 SV35 series
PSU i have chosen one with 500W


Can you please give me some opinion about this. I am not sure :))
Thank you in advance.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old April 13, 2013, 10:27 AM
Allstar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 701

My System Specs

Default

Well for the CPU i would get an intel core I5 3570k...Well optimizied for gaming. the CPU you said is pretty weak.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old April 13, 2013, 02:59 PM
Allstar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 724
Default

How many VM you planning on using and what kind of VM host? If you use something like Hyper-V or VirtualBox, a 4 cores CPU, at most you can only do 3 single CPU VM. I would go with an AMD FX6xxx series CPU because at least you will have some room to play with. I suggest 2 core for VM host since Hyper-V & VirtualBox sits inside the host OS. That still leave you with 4 cores for VM. The AMD FX series isn't as great as the Intel offering in terms of gaming but $ / available cores (physical or virtual) it's better. At this point, it really depends on your budget. With VM, cash is the limit.

Oh, forgot to say that both can play games. Just the A10 comes with a better integrated video card compare to the Intel offering while the FX have no integrated video card so you will need to buy one. To be honest, I wouldn't consider A10 for VM work.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old April 14, 2013, 01:00 AM
Top Prospect
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 220

My System Specs

Default

I'm somewhat along the same lines as moocow

depending on the number of VM's you plan on using at a time, an AMD FX cpu with 6 cores or even 8 cores will be less expensive than intel's offering and though the per clock performance is not as impressive, the number of cores will balance things out for more virtual machines.

When I run VirtualBox VM's on my i7 2600k, I find my system starts to craw once I get to 2 virtual machines, 3 virtual machines is even worse, but virtualbox is really just a toy, it's not really meant to run as a full on hypervisor like MS Hyper-V or VMWare ESXi which I use on my servers

If you only plan to use a single VM at a time though, anything with 4 cores will do it really

Another thing to keep in mind if you want to run more virtual machines (also good with less), is that you may want to think about getting more than one hard drive. The more systems you have running off a single drive, the lesser your performance will be. I tend to boot the host off an SSD, and then have a smaller RAID array to store virtual machine disks and keep regular snapshots on another backup server. What I'm getting at is that hard drives are slow enough as it is, running multiple system off a single one doesn't help. at the very least if you have 2 hard drives, one for the host system, one for the guests it would greatly help, especially to keep the host responsive under load
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old April 26, 2013, 02:39 PM
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3
Default

I would recommend the A10 for you because the A10's greatest feature is that it also contains a very good graphics processing core. I have the FX you are talking about and because I can't afford a video card, I am missing the graphics capabilities that I can be getting without a graphics card with the A10 offers. It's really great for people like you that aren't a full-time gamer.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old April 26, 2013, 03:59 PM
Bond007's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 3,005

My System Specs

Default

With your uses I would go for an FX, because they are better suited to heavy tasks. I would go for the fx-6300 (or fx-8320 if your budget has some flexibility). The A10 can play games on low settings, but given the primary use of the computer I would go for the improved processing power of the fx. You can always add a cheap (or not so cheap) graphics card if you want to game. A <$100 graphics card will run circles around the A10 integrated.
__________________
Desktop: Antec Three Hundred, Z77-D3H, 3570K undervolt @4.1ghz with Zalman Optima Cooler, Corsair Vengeance 2x4gb@1866mhz, HD 6950, Seasonic S12II 500W, WD Black 1TB, Intel 530 120GB
Away from home light Gamer: Acer Aspire 15.6", A8-3500m undervolt and OC to 2Ghz, 2x4gb Corsair Vengeance, Crucial M500 240gb
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes