[SOLVED] Gaming PC vs Workstation vs Server, is there anything else?

UKTone

Distinguished
Feb 24, 2015
160
6
18,695
How do the components and uses differ, can you build a workstation and still use it as a pc? I just looked up a workstation motherboard semi accidentally, and an Asus motherboard is $1000. I knew the graphics cards were in the thousands, but i didn't know the boards were too. Is building a workstation worth it? Are there things you can't do with a max upgraded gaming pc that you can do with an actual workstation?

What uses does having server(s) have?
 
Solution
What uses does having server(s) have?
Dual CPU. This of course requires software that can take advantage. Games don't. A database server, for instance.

Dual PSU. Automatic failover, for no downtime.

More RAM. If you're hosting 200,000 simultaneous users and thousands of database transaction per second, 128-256GB RAM is not extreme. Not needed for a game system.

Reliability/stability vs "FPS".

Just like you don't need a dump truck to commute back and forth to work/school.
But if you DO need a dump truck, a Honda Civic won't work.
The same system can work well for pc, workstation, and server. Those are simply terms used to describe the actual use of a system. The basic components are all the same; your specific use should determine the differences in hardware and software. Workstations and servers have their gold when bought from the big guys such as Dell and HP where they are made to last and can be bundled with tons of professional support. This of course costs a lot more and you will find limitations when trying to upgrade some components for gaming. I know I saw some very good deals on low-end pc's from Dell over the holidays. They were cheaper than I could build the same pc. Other than that, a hardware savy person can typically build and maintain a mid-high end custom pc that will be more cost effective and faster than any other company. As far as building a workstation with a high-end desktop (HEDT) system such as AMD's Threadripper or Intel's X series, that should be determined by the specific need for a feature that it offers that you cannot find on a mainstream system. Intel isn't even trying to compete right now in that market because there isn't much need for it. Unless you need error-correcting code (ECC) memory or a huge number of CPU cores, just stick to the mainstream pc hardware.

I'm no expert in workstation and server, but two differences in hardware are the number of cores you can have and ECC memory. Neither of which are necessary to have a workstation or server (but they can be depending on your use case.)

Long story short, "workstation" and "server" describe the use of a system and not the actual hardware differences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UKTone
What uses does having server(s) have?
Dual CPU. This of course requires software that can take advantage. Games don't. A database server, for instance.

Dual PSU. Automatic failover, for no downtime.

More RAM. If you're hosting 200,000 simultaneous users and thousands of database transaction per second, 128-256GB RAM is not extreme. Not needed for a game system.

Reliability/stability vs "FPS".

Just like you don't need a dump truck to commute back and forth to work/school.
But if you DO need a dump truck, a Honda Civic won't work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UKTone
Solution