Sign in
Microsoft.com
 
Microsoft
 
 
 

locked
CPU that able to do all the job for "all" of Vail feature? RRS feed

 > 

  • Question

  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    Hello.
    I was wondering which CPU should I use for Final Vail version,
    so that it can do "all" the features that Vail will be including.

    *Edited: I will be using at my house as home purpose.
                 Not for any business purpose.
                 For low to middle power purpose
                 Able to do transcoding or similar features that WHS 2011 offers
                 Might run for 24/7 or 12/7 6/7



    • Edited by ajy0903 Wednesday, April 13, 2011 10:33 AM
    Monday, April 11, 2011 5:05 AM

All replies

  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    Can anyone answer to my question?
    Wednesday, April 13, 2011 7:05 AM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    I chose a Xenon 3450 because it renders video almost as well as a core i7, allows for HyperV use if you would want to run multiple os, and is less expensive.  Only time will tell if I made the right choice.  After all WHS 2011 is an Windows Server 2008 R2 based os.  Most Windows Server 2008 R2 inplimentations are done with Xenon 7400 or 7500 chips.  These way to powerful and expensive for WHS 2011.
    Wednesday, April 13, 2011 9:45 AM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    I chose a Xenon 3450 because it renders video almost as well as a core i7, allows for HyperV use if you would want to run multiple os, and is less expensive.  Only time will tell if I made the right choice.  After all WHS 2011 is an Windows Server 2008 R2 based os.  Most Windows Server 2008 R2 inplimentations are done with Xenon 7400 or 7500 chips.  These way to powerful and expensive for WHS 2011.

    Thanks for reply.
    Although, I will be using at my house as home purpose.
    Not for any business purpose.
    Hope people understands this.



    Wednesday, April 13, 2011 10:22 AM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    I use a cheap low power AMD x2 555.  It is more then enough to do all the features of Vail, and stream to a playstation 3.
    Wednesday, April 13, 2011 1:47 PM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    I am running now in production a 2.4 Ghz dual core Core2 Duo with 2GB of ram.  I am upgrading to 4GB of ram as I am seeing hard faults when browsing over the web my media library or performing other tasks.  So right off the bat at least 4GB of ram - If I were to do it all over again, go 6 or 8GB (if you can afford and will depend on your config - keep in mind make sure you keep to specs of a dual or three channel config of your memory)

    At this point I am not seeing any processor bottlenecks - this could change significantly if you plan on streaming video.  I am not planning on this as I stream the native content to my HTPC.  Streaming will invoke the internal transcoder which is VERY CPU intensive - this is where more cores will help over faster cores...

     

    Net net... If your focus is Media then go Quad Core with the fast Ghz you can afford.  If its media storage and more focus on music, pictures and backup then a low end dual core is sufficient.  4GB is the minimum for memory.

    Wednesday, April 13, 2011 2:34 PM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    I am running now in production a 2.4 Ghz dual core Core2 Duo with 2GB of ram.  I am upgrading to 4GB of ram as I am seeing hard faults when browsing over the web my media library or performing other tasks.  So right off the bat at least 4GB of ram - If I were to do it all over again, go 6 or 8GB (if you can afford and will depend on your config - keep in mind make sure you keep to specs of a dual or three channel config of your memory)

    At this point I am not seeing any processor bottlenecks - this could change significantly if you plan on streaming video.  I am not planning on this as I stream the native content to my HTPC.  Streaming will invoke the internal transcoder which is VERY CPU intensive - this is where more cores will help over faster cores...

     

    Net net... If your focus is Media then go Quad Core with the fast Ghz you can afford.  If its media storage and more focus on music, pictures and backup then a low end dual core is sufficient.  4GB is the minimum for memory.

    Oh, ok.

    What about transcoding?
    I'm sure not every CPU capable of doing it?

    Wednesday, April 13, 2011 7:56 PM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    My Xenon chip transcodes well, was cheaper than most core i5/7 chips, and uses a motherboard with 4 gigabyte ethernet connectors as well as plenty of slots for RAID cards. I've had it since the fall so I don't know current pricing. 
    Wednesday, April 13, 2011 11:38 PM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    I am running now in production a 2.4 Ghz dual core Core2 Duo with 2GB of ram.  I am upgrading to 4GB of ram as I am seeing hard faults when browsing over the web my media library or performing other tasks.  So right off the bat at least 4GB of ram - If I were to do it all over again, go 6 or 8GB (if you can afford and will depend on your config - keep in mind make sure you keep to specs of a dual or three channel config of your memory)

    At this point I am not seeing any processor bottlenecks - this could change significantly if you plan on streaming video.  I am not planning on this as I stream the native content to my HTPC.  Streaming will invoke the internal transcoder which is VERY CPU intensive - this is where more cores will help over faster cores...

     

    Net net... If your focus is Media then go Quad Core with the fast Ghz you can afford.  If its media storage and more focus on music, pictures and backup then a low end dual core is sufficient.  4GB is the minimum for memory.

    Oh, ok.

    What about transcoding?
    I'm sure not every CPU capable of doing it?

    Transcoding is the process where a media file is re-encoded on the fly to the format that is native to the client.  In other words if your playing a MKV but watching it on a XBOX 360 it must transcoded as the MKV container is not supported out of the box by the XBOX.  Another example could be is that your storing WMV files and your playing them on an apple.. you must transcode them to something tha the apple supports like the quicktime format.  Another example may be that the movie is in H.264 codec but the client only plays MPEG2.  Transcoding (but really encoding) is very CPU intensive due to the fact the size of the data your dealing with.  I would agree that not every CPU has the right specs for this use BUT technically it will work.  The issue you have is that watching a movie each frame must be transcoded in real time... and in reality you want the frames to be transcoded faster than real time (real time = movie playback time).  If not you will get stuttering and the movie will not be watchable.  Thus the need for a faster CPU and/or more cores.  Ideally more cores are better than faster cores.  All transcoders now a days are multi threaded.  I do agree the Xenon chip is an excellent chip.  It has far more cache than other CPUs.

    Case in point now - Both my cores goes to 90% when streaming a AVC over the web... I suspect the Silverlight player that launches when viewing a movie over the WHS not natively support AVC thus why it is transcoding and why my CPU is going to 90% - of course that is bad as it tells me my machine is completely useless to watch a fullblown Hi-Def movie if the movie needs to be transcoded.  

    Sooo.. net net... get a quad core if this is important to you.. if not a dual core is sufficient.

     

    Thursday, April 14, 2011 1:42 AM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    Does Xeon x3450 requires lots of power or what?
    Cause I don't want to pay high electricity bills.
    Cause I might turn WHS on for like 24/7 or at least
    6-7 hours per day, for 7 days a week,
    if you got what I mean.


    • Edited by ajy0903 Thursday, April 14, 2011 2:00 AM Added stuffs
    Thursday, April 14, 2011 1:52 AM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
    I'm using an i5-2500, and it's working well.  Might be overkill but my theory is that there may be Quick Sync enabled transcoders out there at some point, so Sandy Bridge might be a good choice.
    Saturday, April 16, 2011 12:39 AM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    The power consumption on this Xeon chip is relatively low. At the time I made my choice, Sandy Bridge chips were not available. I wanted a quad core chip with low power consumption that was inexpensive and would power an entry level server. I'm sure by now the price points have changed and the Intel chip offerings have also shifted. I would not be surprised if a more powerful and less expensive Xenon chip could be purchased today.

    Saturday, April 16, 2011 9:45 AM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    Thanks everyone for the replies.
    I decided to forget about transcoding from WHS 2011.
    Well my main machine has windows 7 with Core i7 920.
    If I want to do transcoading, I could just use that.
    And if I want to buy more PC in future, I will buy Core i series.
    One question, does all of i3, i5, i7 series work well with transcoding, especially i3 and i5?
    Like for example, I want to transcode between at least minimum 1080p Full HD videos that I buy as blu-ray disc, to 720p or less.

    Saturday, April 16, 2011 10:16 AM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    Requirements and recommendations for transcoding to silverlight can be found here - http://www.wegotserved.com/2010/07/27/selecting-processor-windows-home-server-vail/

     

    Ben Ogilvie

    Ben Ogilvie www.hdtvtoyz.com
    Monday, April 18, 2011 1:31 AM