Cheapest, Quietest Card that Can Run 1440p

[ShiBDiB]

The main issue here is how he's setting this up... If you're going to use a server like this you might as well just install plex on your main tower and call it a day.

 

[newtekie1]

This is why I said just use an Intel CPU for the server. The built in graphics on an i5-6600K is fine for the server.

I wouldn't use an FX chip in a server if buying new, it just isn't worth it.

 

[cdawall]

This is why I said just use an Intel CPU for the server. The built in graphics on an i5-6600K is fine for the server.

I wouldn't use an FX chip in a server if buying new, it just isn't worth it.

I wouldn't use an FX chip if buying new now for anything. The only time I have currently found a use for one is AMD's ancient 7xx series boards work with them and support legacy XP installs.

 

[GhostRyder]

I believe this would suffice

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127763&cm_re=R7-_-14-127-763-_-Product

 

[bermel72]

Ummm I don't need it to run at 1440p 144Hz, sorry if I'm not making myself very clear here, but please read this post first...

My processor is a FX-8350 for my server (cause cost), and it currently does not come with onboard graphics. I have had terrible experiances with remote management before and would like to just switch the input on the monitor between the two systems...the KVM switch be ideal, but is there a decent one that supports 144Hz at 1440p? Not so much for the server aspect of things, but from my gaming rig standpoint. I don't want my display on my gaming rig to be bottlenecked by a switch if it can be helped. Also I have thought about getting a dedicated monitor for the server just a really cheap 1080p one, but I thought that it would save space and money to just use the same monitor. Also I use to use team viewer all the time and while it functions good I would rather have a hardwired monitor and not have to deal with the internet to get to my display. Thanks.

Also for a server standpoint besides everyone "favoring" Intel instead of AMD is there a solid reason that I would need it? At most I am going to be transcoding 3 devices, which the FX-8350 will be more then able to handle, also the FX-8350 is rated higher in passmark plex ratings then the i5, but lower then the i7, and for double the cost it doesn't have double the passmark rating. Sorry but I think the FX-8350 is a solid choice for the money, it may not outperform the i7 but your saving over half of your money for a little less then 1/4 of the missing performance of the i7. Proof Here.

 

[ShiBDiB]

If you've had terrible experience with remote management than fixing those is better long term. Majority of servers are run headless and once you get more comfortable with doing it that way you save yourself the headache of having to worry about a kb/mouse/monitor combo for a server and instead can go stick it in a closet somewhere with nothing more than an outlet.

 

[Kursah]

Why not check your local Craigslist and pick up an old monitor...you don't even need 1080P for a server monitor in all honesty...

Remote management is the way to go with server management. Makes things easy...and Teamviewer is one of the easiest ways to go...so is RDP because it is built into Windows out of the chute. But say you wanted to manage your server outside of your LAN, that's where Teamviewer would be handy. Honestly can't see why you wouldn't want to go this route... if it seems complicated, it really isn't...just need to understand some basics about networking and administration and you'll be set.

In my experience with monitors, they have a bulky pain in the arse way of switching between inputs because they're meant to detect the in-use input expecting only one PC connection to said screen...maybe your screen is different in this respect...but my Asus work monitors need 6 button presses just to switch input from one to the other... I'd rather resolve remote issues for an easier management into the future than waste time pressing buttons on a delayed UI.

Also Teamviewer has a setting to use LAN explicitly or prefer it if both workstations using Teamviewer are on the same network, so that gibberish about needing to go over the Internet to remote on is false fyi.

 

[Jack1n]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130606
Super cheap, passive cooled.

 

[D007]

A freesync 144hz monitor at 1440p for a SERVER?

This is absolutely not needed. In fact, most servers you can remote into and run headless...if you must occasionally use a monitor, nothing extravagant is needed...it's a server.

What this guy said.

 

[Brusfantomet]

If the server hardware still is debatable a AMD APU could do the job and have a GFX card in it.

Otherwise, since the server link is only to check stuff like the cheap R5 card will work, you will NOT need 144 Hz for the time you are on the server. If the spare input on the screen is a HDMI input then the 210 from Jack1n is the best option.

 

[bermel72]

If the server hardware still is debatable a AMD APU could do the job and have a GFX card in it.

Otherwise, since the server link is only to check stuff like the cheap R5 card will work, you will NOT need 144 Hz for the time you are on the server. If the spare input on the screen is a HDMI input then the 210 from Jack1n is the best option.

Not for transcoding it wouldn't work that well. If you didn't read my previous post I am not reexplaining myself.

 

[Brusfantomet]

then get the cheapest passive card and cal it a day.

 

[xvi]

but is there a decent one that supports 144Hz at 1440p?

For a decent price, I doubt it. That monitor will accept lower resolutions and/or refresh rates. I'd pick up just about anything with an HDMI port and call it a day.

You could try this $23 Quadro NVS 310 with a $3 DisplayPort to HDMI adapter. That should get you up to 2560x1600 resolutions (or 1440p at 85hz according to page 45 of this document). Total $26.

Cheaper yet would be a $13 Quadro NVS 300 that's passively cooled and lower power, but would need a $5 DMS-59 adapter and a $6 DVI-i to HDMI adapter/cable. Total $24.

Those would at least run native resolutions, albeit at lower refresh rates. I'd be surprised if the difference in refresh rates was noticeable. They're certainly not necessary.