processor advice needed.

[notsurewhatoput]

I'm looking to build myself a pc, but am struggling with the decision of which processor to go for, as I am looking to build an esxi / hyper v machine, that will be fairly small and out of the way. So I've decided that a M-ATX board in a smaller case is the way forward, and am looking at the asus p67m-pro or the h67 version.

Am thinking of using onboard graphics because I will mainly be remoting onto the VM's, rather than playing games/videos etc...

So the questions:
>Should I try and get a Core i6 2600, or will a Xeon E3-1225/1235 be better?
>Would I invalidate my warranty by putting the Xeon CPU in the m-boards mentioned above?

Any other considerations I should take?

Thanks in advance for help.

 

[BarbaricSoul]

Ok, I don't have any experience with esxi hyper v servers, but just looking at the specs of the Xeon cpus and knowing what the 2600 is(btw, it's I7 2600, not I6) and that the Xeons are about $100 less expensive for the E3-1225 and $50 for the e3-1235, I'd probably go with the e3-1225. I don't think you'll really a notice a difference in performance between the 2600 at 3.4ghz and the e3-1225 at 3.1ghz to justify the $100 price difference.

 

[jagjitnatt]

2500k

 

[phanbuey]

no you will not invalidate your warranty because they are the same chip with different names...

If you really want maximum VM/$ then get an M-ATX with a 2600K - because of more logical CPUs (and vmware benefits from this ALOT) and also at least 16GB of ram.

My experience with VM is that CPU scheduling is rarely the limiting factor, always the RAM by a long shot - and the storage speed will mess with your VM performance.

We have 3 VM farms where I work (Citrix server farms) each with 5x servers with dual 4c/8t chips and 72GB ram and our main concerns are: RAM and SAN speed (storage) so CPU speed wont matter *that* much, VM thrives off ram/Core (-HT or not-) and storage speed. For us VM's ratio for current is 4GB ram/ Core - so with a 2600K you can get 32GB of ram or 16GB with CPU heavy apps.

Most cost efficient is a 1366 i7 with 24GB due to ram/CPU core ratio. Clockspeed helps VM's since they are usually limited to dual/single CPU assignments.

It also depends on *WHAT* your VM's are doing... are they client servers? are they app/web servers? are they DB servers? this will change how you spec your rig/farm.

 

[notsurewhatoput]

Probably clients+ servers for now, but might introduce a DB server/ two later on down the line.

I know it's better to have 1 vm / hdd when you're on a smaller scale like this - no SAN sadly - so will introduce more HDD's and then hopefully VM's when prices are a bit more sensible.

I was avoiding the 2600K / 2500K's because they didnt have "Intel® Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d)" which I thought I'd want (...or?)

 

[phanbuey]

ok well a few things with this:

1. i2600k has VT-d http://ark.intel.com/products/52213 (scroll down in advanced features) as does the 2500K. They both have this tech.

1.1 - a DAS/local disk will offer better performance anyways than most SANs

2. - TLDR - In my experience - VM in a *single* machine is rare and is rarely worth it for the cost and performance hit:

Spoiler

I have considered valuable VM deployments across farms, with Vmotion and all of the other trimmings applied. The ideal amount of VM servers in our case is 3... 2 if the client REALLY doesn't want to spend any money...

Single machines and it is *almost* always better for performance and cost to avoid VM scheduling all together. DB servers and IO intensive apps take a massive performance hit when virtualized, and the only benefits become snapshots when Vmotion is not enabled.

Many databases and client-server apps cannot be snapshotted while live anyways, and will panic in which case you will need to bounce your virtual servers to bring them back up, eliminating any useful benefit over Acronis-style system Images.

But to answer your question, the 2600K is your best bet for high CPU intensive apps. For memory and IO intensive apps, an older gen, tri-channel 1366 platform will give you better bang for the buck since you can get a low cost 24GB of ram per box.

 

[Hayder_Master]

2600k

 

[Timekills]

I had to register here to try and stop someone form following the incorrect advice. The "K" versions ore Sandy Bridge chips do NOT support Vt-d. Check again that link from above. It is for the vanilla 2600 not the 2600K.

This is the link for the 2600K. Note it doesn't include Vt-d. I checked myself on a board that does support Vt-d with a 2500K and no dice. Works great with a 2700 (non K) in ESX-I including USB pass through and greater than 3 TB disks. (ESX-I 5).

If virtualization, especially Vt-d, is important do NOT buy a "K" model.

 

[repman244]

If you really want maximum VM/$ then get an M-ATX with a 2600K - because of more logical CPUs (and vmware benefits from this ALOT) and also at least 16GB of ram.

Not saying you are wrong, but I just want to ask if you are sure that having logical cores is better.
I've even read some documents from HP where they recommend turning HT off for VM in servers where HT is present. I even know a company that has turned HT off.
I wish I had a CPU to test this, because I'm really curious myself.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Imo logical cores are better surely, a logical core is a physical core, a HT one is not.