Comparing standard processors with T-series Intel chips highlights differences in performance and capabilities.
Comparing standard processors with T-series Intel chips highlights differences in performance and capabilities.
Hey fellow tech enthusiasts! Here’s a refreshed version of your message:
Greetings all those who spend their days hunched over computers, staring at graphs about big blue and red servers. I’m diving into a project I’m starting right now—building an affordable yet powerful NAS/Home server using virtual machines. My goal is to keep the system energy-efficient while still delivering solid performance, all in one machine. Since the NAS won’t be running constantly, I’m focusing on idle power usage.
I’m curious about CPU choices: how does the i5-11400 compare to the i5-11400T? What about the Ryzen 5 Pro 4650G? Or should I consider an older Xeon E5 instead? Also, with electricity costs around 0.38 Swedish kronor per kilowatt, I’m planning to buy parts from a Chinese second-hand market. Let’s get this project rolling!
These visuals still hold value. Most of them focus on low power consumption, but their main drawback is that they don’t deliver top performance compared to non-T skewed models. What are you aiming for? If you're running a NAS over gigabit Ethernet with a Plex server and a Discord bot, the -T skew should work well. I haven't gathered much data on power usage personally, but the key benefit here is ECC memory support. This feature could be crucial depending on your setup—especially if you plan to use ZFS as your filesystem. If you can locate a budget server case, that would be ideal. You’ll find C602 units (Xeon E5 V1 and V2) at extremely low prices if you know where to look, while C612 models (E5 V3 and V4) are slightly more expensive but still reasonable. For instance, someone in my area is offering a single-socket C602 system for $50, whereas I recently purchased a dual-socket Xeon E5 2630 V1 with 64GB ECC RAM for $125, complete with eight hot-swap bays. You’ll also get advanced features like IPMI, redundancy, and rack-mount options. Plus, the power cost is minimal enough that the price difference over time won’t be significant—unless your workload demands maximum speed (like Minecraft servers), then this setup might be the best choice.
It's essentially the same; these T models are designed when TDP is restricted, such as in SFF systems. For reduced idle power, the board and other components have a significant impact. These setups consume far more energy based on the specific configuration. I recommend the 11400 for general use—it runs faster and uses less power. If you choose this path, avoid the latest Chinese boards and opt for products from Supermicro or similar manufacturers that are proven to work reliably. They offer better quality and stability.
Another idea popped into my head, though ECC adds a bit more cost and would restrict me to AMD. Yeah, I’m sure of it. That’s why I thought about modern chips originally. But since I’m using virtual machines, I’m also thinking about i7/i9 Extreme or Threadrippers. Thanks for your thoughts, now I just need to locate a case that fits four HDDs without breaking the bank (under 50 dollars).
I bring some background to discuss. My setup originally had a 3900x + X570-Prime-Pro board, using around 100W when idle. After upgrading to an i3-10100 with a B560M chipset, power usage fell to roughly 50-60W. Community feedback from homelab forums suggests Intel generally uses less power when idle, while AMD tends to be more efficient under load and offers better value for money. I also have a 4750G in a desktop, but I don’t have a power meter to test its idle consumption.