I would go for the FX-4100 because it has a SSD, and the CPU is a little faster. Also Both are quad core, so it doesn't matter that much. (Note: You really only need a duel core for a small server.)
FX-4100 (3.6Ghz) Quad Core - 16GB Ram - 64GB SSD For $130 OR Xeon E3-1230 (3.2Ghz) - 16GB RAM - 500GB HDD For $170
It would be for a Minecraft server. Im trying to find the best deal out there.
0.3Ghz higher and -50$ dollars. I'm feeling I have chosen mine, I'd say FX-4100? Mine is NDIVIA ShitDriver, so any computer with the age of 1980+ is fairly nice to me.
0.3Ghz higher and -50$ dollars. I'm feeling I have chosen mine, I'd say FX-4100? Mine is NDIVIA ShitDriver, so any computer with the age of 1980+ is fairly nice to me.
Clock speed is not a good gauge for comparing processor performance, the AMD fx chips are no more powerful than AMD's phenoms.
The Xeon option is better. Amd fx 4100 is junk and can't beat an i3 2100.
The 64gb SSD will run out faster than you Would expect. Oh and having a gaming rig of 700$ and running a server and playing minecraft at the same time is stupid. Since servers are ram hungry. And you won't or shouldn't get 16gb ram with a 700$ rig, if you want a good server. Last time I checked servers don't GPUs so getting a gaming rig and a discrete Gpu, you waste 200$ more or less
New account: FrozenOblivion, Contact me there, not here
Desktop (not yet built): i7 2600k/3770k, Gtx 680 DCII/Twin Frozr III, 16gb ram, 2TB Seagate hard drive, 500R/650D. psu that I haven't decided on yet
The Xeon option is better. Amd fx 4100 is junk and can't beat an i3 2100.
The 64gb SSD will run out faster than you Would expect. Oh and having a gaming rig of 700$ and running a server and playing minecraft at the same time is stupid. Since servers are ram hungry. And you won't or shouldn't get 16gb ram if you want a good server. Last time I checked servers don't GPUs so getting a gaming rig and a discrete Gpu, you waste 200$ more or less
Servers for minecraft aren't as RAM hungry as you think, you can host 5 people off of half a gig EASY including plugins, it all comes down to internet speed, heck even a SB Celeron could host a server easy if your internet could support it
Servers for minecraft aren't as RAM hungry as you think, you can host 5 people off of half a gig EASY including plugins, it all comes down to internet speed, heck even a SB Celeron could host a server easy if your internet could support it
Well my point is that fx 4100 would be a bad choice. And a gaming rig of 700$ to host a server and play mc on that server could kill the Internet on a computer.
Having an old desktop run a server and playing on a rig is better
New account: FrozenOblivion, Contact me there, not here
Desktop (not yet built): i7 2600k/3770k, Gtx 680 DCII/Twin Frozr III, 16gb ram, 2TB Seagate hard drive, 500R/650D. psu that I haven't decided on yet
Servers for minecraft aren't as RAM hungry as you think, you can host 5 people off of half a gig EASY including plugins, it all comes down to internet speed, heck even a SB Celeron could host a server easy if your internet could support it
My server is currently a single core pentium 4 at 2.6GHz with 640MB of RAM. I can host 7 people on bukkit with plugins before it starts to get a bit resource hungry.
Well my point is that fx 4100 would be a good choice. And a gaming rig of 700$ to host a server and play mc on that server could kill the Internet on a computer.
Having an old desktop run a server and playing on a rig is better
You should not run a server on that hardware, especially the SSD.
My bad it was a typo
The fx 4100 is a BAD choice. I was thinking about two things there.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
New account: FrozenOblivion, Contact me there, not here
Desktop (not yet built): i7 2600k/3770k, Gtx 680 DCII/Twin Frozr III, 16gb ram, 2TB Seagate hard drive, 500R/650D. psu that I haven't decided on yet
My server is currently a single core pentium 4 at 2.6GHz with 640MB of RAM. I can host 7 people on bukkit with plugins before it starts to get a bit resource hungry.
I'm sitting here wondering "How the hell?" and then I realize it is MB....
The Xeon CPUs are meant for server hosting. The bulldozers (FX Series CPUs) are down right horrible. They're even beaten by their older line of CPUs (The Phenom IIs) and even Intel's low-end Sandy Bridge CPUs (For example the i3 2100 and 2120)
Everyone complaining that SSD's are unsuitable for Minecraft servers is an idiot.
Sorry, but please go and get some actual figures to back your hypothesis, otherwise you are just parroting the bleatings of other people who know nothing of what they speak.
Intel SSD's, even the consumer versions, are more than capable of sustaining many terabytes of constant writes before they encounter significant wear. Even conservative estimates would put this at more than 5 years of serious and constant write abuse. Nothing a Minecraft server would manage.
The problem is that it provides little to no performance increase, thus wasting the SSD.
Minecraft worlds (even without backups, which you should regularly be doing say 1-4 times a day) can be pretty large, and fill an SSD depending on the size fairly quickly.
The problem is that it provides little to no performance increase, thus wasting the SSD.
Minecraft worlds (even without backups, which you should regularly be doing say 1-4 times a day) can be pretty large, and fill an SSD depending on the size fairly quickly.
Minecraft does a lot of read/write activity. You only have two options when you start going past 75-100 slots, a SSD or multiple SAS/SATA drives in RAID 10. Single drives or RAID 1/0 arrays just aren't stable and fast enough.
A typical 7200RPM SATA drive has about 75-100 IOPS. A cheap, low end SSD usually is over 3000 IOPS. Most modern SSDs go past 20k IOPS, and some higher-grade consumer models can hit 60k+ IOPS.
As for space, just buy a cheap drive for storage, and use the SSD for Minecraft only. The typical map is a few gigs at most, the biggest worlds I've heard of were 15GB and 30GB (and this is unusually large).
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” — Albert Einstein
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." — Robert Heinlein
FX-4100 (3.6Ghz) Quad Core - 16GB Ram - 64GB SSD For $130
OR
Xeon E3-1230 (3.2Ghz) - 16GB RAM - 500GB HDD For $170
It would be for a Minecraft server. Im trying to find the best deal out there.
The xeon would be better.
You would also need a good internet connection.
0.3Ghz higher and -50$ dollars. I'm feeling I have chosen mine, I'd say FX-4100? Mine is NDIVIA ShitDriver, so any computer with the age of 1980+ is fairly nice to me.
Clock speed is not a good gauge for comparing processor performance, the AMD fx chips are no more powerful than AMD's phenoms.
The 64gb SSD will run out faster than you Would expect. Oh and having a gaming rig of 700$ and running a server and playing minecraft at the same time is stupid. Since servers are ram hungry. And you won't or shouldn't get 16gb ram with a 700$ rig, if you want a good server. Last time I checked servers don't GPUs so getting a gaming rig and a discrete Gpu, you waste 200$ more or less
Desktop (not yet built): i7 2600k/3770k, Gtx 680 DCII/Twin Frozr III, 16gb ram, 2TB Seagate hard drive, 500R/650D. psu that I haven't decided on yet
Servers for minecraft aren't as RAM hungry as you think, you can host 5 people off of half a gig EASY including plugins, it all comes down to internet speed, heck even a SB Celeron could host a server easy if your internet could support it
i5-4690K @4.6GHz ~ ASRock Z97X Fatal1ty Killer ~ EKWB Supremacy MX ~ Watercooled SLI STRIX 970s
Project RedShift
Well my point is that fx 4100 would be a bad choice. And a gaming rig of 700$ to host a server and play mc on that server could kill the Internet on a computer.
Having an old desktop run a server and playing on a rig is better
Desktop (not yet built): i7 2600k/3770k, Gtx 680 DCII/Twin Frozr III, 16gb ram, 2TB Seagate hard drive, 500R/650D. psu that I haven't decided on yet
You should not run a server on that hardware, especially the SSD.
The fx 4100 is a BAD choice. I was thinking about two things there.
Desktop (not yet built): i7 2600k/3770k, Gtx 680 DCII/Twin Frozr III, 16gb ram, 2TB Seagate hard drive, 500R/650D. psu that I haven't decided on yet
I'm sitting here wondering "How the hell?" and then I realize it is MB....
http://pcpartpicker.com/user/SteevyT/saved/21PI
Thanks, I was about to state this.
Minecraft worlds (even without backups, which you should regularly be doing say 1-4 times a day) can be pretty large, and fill an SSD depending on the size fairly quickly.
Minecraft does a lot of read/write activity. You only have two options when you start going past 75-100 slots, a SSD or multiple SAS/SATA drives in RAID 10. Single drives or RAID 1/0 arrays just aren't stable and fast enough.
A typical 7200RPM SATA drive has about 75-100 IOPS. A cheap, low end SSD usually is over 3000 IOPS. Most modern SSDs go past 20k IOPS, and some higher-grade consumer models can hit 60k+ IOPS.
As for space, just buy a cheap drive for storage, and use the SSD for Minecraft only. The typical map is a few gigs at most, the biggest worlds I've heard of were 15GB and 30GB (and this is unusually large).
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." — Robert Heinlein
I would go for the Xeon, with the SSD.
Xeons we're literally MADE for servers.
You can't beat that.
Still seems pretty foreign to me to use an SSD for a server of any kind.