GA-MA74GM-S2 v DG45FC for basic file server

All about them.

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

Post Reply
somename
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 12:03 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

GA-MA74GM-S2 v DG45FC for basic file server

Post by somename » Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:44 am

I gather these two boards are two lowest power consumption motherboards in each respective CPU platforms. I was hoping to get some help deciding with motherboards to go with in building a basic home file server that I might also use for mail and vpn server via vitualization.

Right now I'm leaning toward DG45FC because of its smaller footprint and since I already have a e4500 being used in my current file server. but I'm still considering 740G board because it's much cheaper and because I'm thinking bigger case might be better for 24/7 operation than small miniITX case that would house DG45FC.

I'm assuming I won't see much power consumption difference between these two boards nor much performance difference for my purposes. Please let me know if I'm wrong.

Also, I have a few question I hope some of you could answer. Would DG45FC be okay running 24/7 in a small miniITX enclosure? Also, if I were to get e5200 or e7200 instead of using e4500, would I see a decrease in power consumption? Finally, does any one know how much power does a dual port gigabit ethernet card?

Thanks for the help.

QuietOC
Posts: 1407
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:08 pm
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Re: GA-MA74GM-S2 v DG45FC for basic file server

Post by QuietOC » Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:24 pm

somename wrote:I gather these two boards are two lowest power consumption motherboards in each respective CPU platforms.
These are definitely NOT the lowest power motherboards on their platforms.

QuietOC
Posts: 1407
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:08 pm
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Re: GA-MA74GM-S2 v DG45FC for basic file server

Post by QuietOC » Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:33 pm

somename wrote:Also, if I were to get e5200 or e7200 instead of using e4500, would I see a decrease in power consumption? Finally, does any one know how much power does a dual port gigabit ethernet card?
Yes, your current CPU might use as much at idle as E5200 or E7200 uses at 100% load.

I would sell your CPU, get a E5200 and a G31, G33, or P35 motherboard. Like this one for $36. Boy, am I cheap!

Actually an nVidia chipsets tend to have the best drive controller performance. The AMD chipsets have poor multiple user file serving performance, but If you just have a single user using the server that won't matter. An nVidia 7xx0 or 8x00 chipset for Intel or AMD would probably be the best choice for a low power file server. A 65nm single core Sempron = nVidia 70x0 can idle < 20W.

somename
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 12:03 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: GA-MA74GM-S2 v DG45FC for basic file server

Post by somename » Wed Nov 19, 2008 1:11 pm

QuietOC wrote: I would sell your CPU, get a E5200 and a G31, G33, or P35 motherboard. Like this one for $36. Boy, am I cheap!
Thanks for the reply. Do you know how much that board would idle with e5200? Going from the review here, DF45FC seems to be able to idle at 35W. Would that board idle under 30W?
QuietOC wrote: Actually an nVidia chipsets tend to have the best drive controller performance. The AMD chipsets have poor multiple user file serving performance, but If you just have a single user using the server that won't matter. An nVidia 7xx0 or 8x00 chipset for Intel or AMD would probably be the best choice for a low power file server. A 65nm single core Sempron = nVidia 7xx0 can idle < 20W.
Any particular board you recommend with nvidia chipset? Also, would the Sempron be enough if I decide to run a virtual server or two? Thanks.

QuietOC
Posts: 1407
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:08 pm
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Re: GA-MA74GM-S2 v DG45FC for basic file server

Post by QuietOC » Wed Nov 19, 2008 1:29 pm

somename wrote:Thanks for the reply. Do you know how much that board would idle with e5200? Going from the review here, DF45FC seems to be able to idle at 35W. Would that board idle under 30W?
I'd say it stands a very good chance of being much more efficient than the DF45FC. It has a cooler chipset and fewer CPU VRM phases.

G45 9W idle, 24W TDP
G31 7.4W idle, 15.5W TDP

Here is someone's experience with the Biostar G31 + E5200. 23W idle 58W load

QuietOC
Posts: 1407
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:08 pm
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Re: GA-MA74GM-S2 v DG45FC for basic file server

Post by QuietOC » Wed Nov 19, 2008 1:49 pm

somename wrote:Also, would the Sempron be enough if I decide to run a virtual server or two? Thanks.
Well, you're best off with lots clockspeed, so probably not. I run Windows XP virtually on my 2.16GHz Core 2 Duo iMac and find it doesn't run well. Part of that is probably just crappy Apple software and hardware.

lowpowercomputing
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 3:05 am
Location: Germany

Post by lowpowercomputing » Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:17 am

QuietOC wrote: I run Windows XP virtually on my 2.16GHz Core 2 Duo iMac and find it doesn't run well. Part of that is probably just crappy Apple software and hardware.
I owned an 1.83GHz Core Duo MacBook a year ago and Windows XP used to run really fast virtually, no matter if it was Parallels Desktop or VMware Fusion.

feb
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 6:44 am
Location: Belgium

Post by feb » Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:25 am

For virtualization, you should select a CPU with HVM capabilities.

At AMD they call it AMD-V or SVM. All Athlon XP AM2 and Phenom CPU have it. Semprons don't. Even a very cheap and efficient Athlon 4850e has it.

At Intel, they call it VT. For Intel, it's more difficult to find a CPU with VT. If I remember correctly, the Core 2 Duo 8xxx have it. Unfortunately, those Intel CPUs are at the higher end.

A list of CPUs with HVM: http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/HVM_C ... Processors and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_virtualization
[size=67]AMD 4850e | 2x1GB DDR2 800 | GA-MA78GM-S2H | Samsung HM320JI 320GB SATA | cheap 350W Q-Tec PSU | Lite-on SHM165P6S DVD RW[/size]

Post Reply