Which processor should I buy for this setup?

[spyork]

Okay it's been awhile since I've been on the SageTV forums (was a GB-PVR user for quite awhile), but I'm now building a server specifically for SageTV that will run Windows Home Server. I plan to eventually have around 5 or 6 HD Theaters spread throughout the house. I will probably start out with a couple of the Hauppauge 2250 tuner cards. My question is should I go for a quad core or dual core CPU? I will definitely be using comskip, but doubt I'll be doing any heavy transcoding. Also what processor speed, cache, etc. should I shoot for? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks...

[SWKerr]

You really do not need much CPU to run sage as a headless server. Comskip on HD-PVR files can be somewhat cpu intensive but I run it on mine which is an older core duo and do not have any issues. I would say that unless you are going to be running Placeshifter transcoding h.264 files that CPU is not necessarily a big consideration.

The low power AMD X2 will work well as will most any dual core Intel chip. I would just make sure that you use a motherboard that will support a quad core if you want to upgrade later. Just about any AMD motherboard will work for this but the Intel options are a little more complicated. The current AMD X4 chips are comparable to all the Intel quads except for the newest i7 cpus. The i7 chips are still very pricy by comparison and would probably be a waste in a Sage server.

Here are some recent posts on the subject:

http://forums.sagetv.com/forums/show...ht=TorontoSage

http://forums.sagetv.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39447

[S_M_E]

I would suggest an Intel quad core, there are people that have already built WHS+Sage servers using them and they all seem happy with it and it leaves room for "future proofing."

[Djc208]

I have to agree with SWKerr. More cores won't hurt but right now I'd shoot for higher clock speed than more cores, but neither is really vital since other than comskip just about everything will be handled by hardware.

My suggestion would be to go find the most full featured MB that fits your budget (AMD or Intel) and then worry about the CPU. The fancier motherboards will have all the SATA, eSATA, firewire, USB and expansion slots you'll want/need to attach all kinds of capture cards, HDDs, and accessories. Many have dual ethernet ports with teaming so throughput shouldn't be an issue, as well as better bios and software.

[paulbeers]

Also remember that more cores generally means more power usage (all things being equal), so it may be worth considering a balance between processing power and maximum watt usage. If you are using HD Extenders, then only comskip will use any real processing power. If you are like me, you rarely watch shows the night they air, so if it takes a little longer for comskip to complete it doesn't even matter (in fact many schedule comskip to work outside their normal viewing hours). I moved my Sage sever from an Intel Core2Duo e4300 (over clocked to 2.4ghz) to an AMD 4850e just so I could save some cash on the power bills (and because the overclocking severely reduced the life of my server - Oops). I'm not advocating going with AMD, just stating that whatever you do, I would keep in mind the long term costs (which also means go with a high efficiency power supply as this will save you the most $$$$).

[PLUCKYHD]

q6600 is nice and easily overclocked if clock speed is your thing.

[S_M_E]

Originally Posted by PLUCKYHD

q6600 is nice and easily overclocked if clock speed is your thing.

I also don't recommend overclocking, especially servers, but I'd take a slightly slower quad core over a slight faster dual core any day. L2 and the number of core is more important than the clock speed...

[SWKerr]

Here is a good article comparing the current crop of AMD quads with thier Intel equalivalants. I find it easiest to look at the applications that matter to you and compare the graphs for relative performace. Pricing changes daily so go to NewEgg for current prices.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3492&p=1

Also: can't decide on two or four cores. Pick three. Phenom II X3 720
This chip is coming up on a lot of bang for the buck reviews. It has a good single core speed and adds an extra core over the dual cores for applications that can use them. This will still be $80 more than the low power X2 that would probably do the job but that will depend on you needs and budget.

To me every $100 you save on the CPU\motherboard is and extra 1TB drive but priorties differ.

[S_M_E]

I never was impressed with AMD, the K5 was a space heater and even my X2 wasn't that great, that's why I stick to Intel now. Perhaps they've gotten better but I'll never buy another.

YMMV...

[wayner]

One other issue to keep in mind is the number of SATA ports on your mobo - I made sure wehn I was putting together my system (Sage on WHS) that I got a mobo with 8 SATA ports.

[S_M_E]

Originally Posted by wayner

One other issue to keep in mind is the number of SATA ports on your mobo - I made sure wehn I was putting together my system (Sage on WHS) that I got a mobo with 8 SATA ports.

I agree, the large number of SATA ports is why I picked the AB9-Pro for my WHS+Sage too...

[PLUCKYHD]

Originally Posted by S_M_E

I also don't recommend overclocking, especially servers, but I'd take a slightly slower quad core over a slight faster dual core any day. L2 and the number of core is more important than the clock speed...

Oh I use to be against recomending overclocking but it is so easy no adays and just a gentle overclock doesn't hurt but I see your point.

I also agree on the sata ports mine has 8 and I wouldn't suggest any fewer. Get a good quality motherboard either way around. I have been using the gigabyte ep45-ud3p and it is a great motherboard.

Also agree I would take a slower quad over a faster dual on a server any day.

[S_M_E]

Overclockers always claim that their OC doesn't hurt but I've seen way too many issues that went away when the OC was removed. Virtually any tech forum has posts about problems that are fixed like that. While some people may or may not have issues it "can" cause problems and that's why I'd personally avoid it. If I need a faster clock, I'll buy a faster CPU...but that's just me.

[PLUCKYHD]

This can be true some people don't know enough about voltage and clock speeds to properly overclock.

I run a 1.8 duo core @ over 3ghz running for 2 years without one problem.

But after thinking I shouldn't recomend it to people unless you have the knowledge.

[S_M_E]

Of course there are also heat related problems with the OC too. Even a slight OC can cause "weirdness" sometimes. To me it's just not worth the potential problems even if I never would have noticed them. I see no reason to OC a server, especially a dual/quad core.

[SWKerr]

All things being equal more SATA connections is better but you can always add a card later to support more drives. Also the case needs to support that many drives in order to make it worth it as well. Two things to consider before making it a absolute requirment and therfore limiting your cost effect solutions.

[spyork]

Thanks for the replies everyone. Can anyone recommend a nice case and a high efficiency power supply? I don't want the thing to sound like a vacuum cleaner as it will set out in the open in my office. Thanks...

[wayner]

Originally Posted by spyork

Thanks for the replies everyone. Can anyone recommend a nice case and a high efficiency power supply? I don't want the thing to sound like a vacuum cleaner as it will set out in the open in my office. Thanks...

I would suggest checking out http://www.silentpcreview.com/ . They have great reviews on all types of components for making your PC as silent as possible - but be careful as it can become an obsession, not unlike Sage.

The Seasonic S12 is good and quiet as are the Enermax Modu/Pro 82+ . It also may make sense to get an aftermarket CPU cooler.

[TorontoSage]

I agree with most of what was written. Over-clocking is simply not necessary for SageTV. I only started going through the same exercise as you about a month ago and have never built a server. As such, except for my leaning towards Intel cpu's, I wasn't affected (too much) by any prior biases. Currently, building the server is on hold as I have only recently received my HD PVR, installed SageTV and am testing everything on a laptop, with the first HD200 coming next weekend. Once this all works well I'll buy and configure the server.

I must say I was very skeptical about getting what I thought might be a weak processor so I did extensive research on CPUs, reading everything I could on the internet (you'll see a lot of info about my research in the thread quoted above, http://forums.sagetv.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39447) and posting and reading on here. Post 24 on that thread specifically discusses my analysis of the cpu choice.

Right now, I am only running SageTV on a Dell Latitude D620 with an Intel Dual Core 2 GHz processor. I tested recording live HD TV and playing a previously recorded HD program in SageTV, playing an HD video previously recorded using SageTV using the Arcsoft TotalMedia Theatre software that comes with the HD PVR and playing another video using VLC Media Player (which I had been using to watch videos) ALL at the same time and there were no hiccups. I was amazed. It really is true that playing back recorded video just doesn't use much horsepower. Recording video while playing back doesn't seem to use much horsepower either as the HD PVR is doing all the work.

The cost of the case, power supply, fans, memory, hard disks, SageTV software, tuners (2 x HD PVR's in my case), HD200's, extra HD Cable boxes, etc. and your time will be pretty well the same no matter what processor and motherboard you choose. And, compared to the total cost of the system, the price of these two items is not significant unless you are on a super-tight budget. But then, I do like to save where I can. With motherboards I found that the price difference between them was not great. I too am going with the Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3P which has all the USB and SATA ports you need plus everything else. Gamers even love it (available around $115 USD on sale, $135 regular, but if you go with a less expensive motherboard you could save up to $50).

So that leaves the CPU decision. From my tests so far and the great input on here, quad or dual core is not going to make a difference with recording and playback. It likely will make a difference with commercial skipping software if the software can take advantages of multiple cores (ie, in this case of dual vs quad, that it can take advantage of more than 4 cores which comskip, at least, can). But, as someone says, if you do not run your commercial detection software in real time then it really doesn't matter.

Having said all that, there is something to be said for future-proofing. The Intel Q9550 seems to be the quad core chip of choice for a lot of people. Gamers, who really are looking for performance and many you are also looking for value really love it. It runs at 2.83GHz and overclocks well if you are leaning that way. The only other Intel quad core that has a faster clock speed is the overpriced Q9650, at 3.0 GHz. The Q9550 has the largest L2 cache (at 12MB) in the Intel quad core lineup and Dell US has it on sale now for $240 USD if you click here. It's one of the best values out there in quad core cpu's even when it goes for the regular $275 and up.

I hope this helps.

[TallMomof2]

I highly recommend the Antec Three Hundred Case It is super quiet and if you're not going to load up with a lot of drives then the Antec EarthWatts are also very quiet. I'm using the stock CPU cooler and it's fine. My mobo has built in video so another major noise source is gone.