[SOLVED] Is i5-10600kf a good server CPU?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Mar 1, 2021
35
0
30
Hey,

I was wondering if Is i5-10600kf will make for a good server CPU ? My reason is that its pretty cheap 270$ CAD. I am trying to build a home server for a full web app that can support 1000 concurrent users. I was also thinking of slapping 32 gb ram and some storage.

Good idea? .. Bad idea?
 
Solution
Electricity is pretty cheap - I calculated using 700W power supply for whole year. Its less than 200$ / year. But I read that CPU overclocking does not kill it because it goes obsolete before that. Also, I was focusing on cooling very nicely. So thought it could work. Doesnt have to OC 24/7. 12 hours a day is ok I guess.

Vast generalization about Overclocking. If you're overclocking and fully loaded running 24x7 you certainly can wear out the CPU. And you will need to deal with downtime if you need to clean out dust etc. And turning an OC on/off isn't like flipping a switch, you'll need to take your server down to set the settings back to stock. Aside from the fact for your use case its completely 100% useless.

I feel like...

Rogue Leader

It's a trap!
Moderator
Thanks buddy. You answer was very elaborate and it cleared a lot of the things up for me.! I see a lot of other startups lik Vultr and stuff. DO you think they will survive or will AWS be the rockefeller of cloud ?
How do you see this going?

And No, I dont have the answer to everything you have asked. I "think" I have the answer to everything you have asked. Its like I have just woken up and you are asking me if I know where I am . Err.. I can see that its sunny outside haha.

AWS and Microsoft Azure are the 800lb gorillas, they aren't going anywhere and its easy for them to be cheaper. Maybe someone could make a little headway but I wouldn't bet on it.
 
If proceeding with your own server, I'd try jump it up to at least the 10700K or 10900K , and...get enough RAM (64 GB is always better than 32 GB for heavy workloads), and, a few very solid, reliable NVME SSDs with good capacity... (Samsung 970 EVO Plus, or 970 Pro, Intel's new 670)

Will this be Windows Server 2019 or Linux-based? Or both...?(Hyper-V, ESXi, ProxMox; and, certainly if running 2-3 VMs, more RAM and more cores are better)
 
Last edited:
Mar 1, 2021
35
0
30
If proceeding with your own server, I'd try jump it up to at least the 10700K or 10900K , and...get enough RAM (64 GB is always better than 32 GB for heavy workloads), and, a few very solid, reliable NVME SSDs with good capacity... (Samsung 970 EVO Plus, or 970 Pro, Intel's new 670)

Will this be Windows Server 2019 or Linux-based? Or both...?(Hyper-V, ESXi, ProxMox; and, certainly if running 2-3 VMs, more RAM and more cores are better)
Thanks bro.! This is what I was looking for from his forum. This is what I was thinking too. 10700 always better than 10700. Once I put together,,, i ll get a good idea of what machine are capable of. From there I can have it as a toy or .. something real.

EDIT: Actually I was thinking even this:
Intel® Core™ i9-10900KF
 
Again, I'm not an expert on servers stuff, but I think you've got quite wrong view on all this (at least when you opened this thread).
Yes, you can make server by using any CPU. "Server" is just a term that describes what purpose hardware has.. it's like saying "gaming PC". In that sense, even a $400 NAS can act as a server -which is usually the easiest/cheapest solution for "small community".
In your case (at least how you presented your expectations), you're trying to convert "home PC" into public server (without actually telling what kind & amount of data server needs to deal with). If it's an experiment, go with it. But if it's a more serious and long term project (also maybe making money out of it), then you will fail with such approach.

When building a server, you don't compare 4.6GHz vs 4.9GHz CPU (in sense 10900K is faster than 10600K) -that's gaming thinking! For server you need threads.. as many you can get. Saying that, a CPU like AMD 3950X (16cores/32threads) is a minimum to start with.

RAM.. again, as much you can get. Depends on data you deal with, but 64GB should do for start, I think. Similar as with CPU, RAM speed is less important than amount.

Storage... one 1TB SSD.. seriously? I know you aren't joking, even if it looks like you do. Ok, only you can determine how much storage you need, but keep two things in mind: RAID and backup.

UPS.. you can't afford your server will shut off unexpectedly and losing data, right? Don't say "power cut never happens here" (never say never -especially if we talking server). Let's say some 500$ UPS should be enough to start with.
 

Rogue Leader

It's a trap!
Moderator
Again, I'm not an expert on servers stuff, but I think you've got quite wrong view on all this (at least when you opened this thread).
Yes, you can make server by using any CPU. "Server" is just a term that describes what purpose hardware has.. it's like saying "gaming PC". In that sense, even a $400 NAS can act as a server -which is usually the easiest/cheapest solution for "small community".
In your case (at least how you presented your expectations), you're trying to convert "home PC" into public server (without actually telling what kind & amount of data server needs to deal with). If it's an experiment, go with it. But if it's a more serious and long term project (also maybe making money out of it), then you will fail with such approach.

When building a server, you don't compare 4.6GHz vs 4.9GHz CPU (in sense 10900K is faster than 10600K) -that's gaming thinking! For server you need threads.. as many you can get. Saying that, a CPU like AMD 3950X (16cores/32threads) is a minimum to start with.

RAM.. again, as much you can get. Depends on data you deal with, but 64GB should do for start, I think. Similar as with CPU, RAM speed is less important than amount.

Storage... one 1TB SSD.. seriously? I know you aren't joking, even if it looks like you do. Ok, only you can determine how much storage you need, but keep two things in mind: RAID and backup.

UPS.. you can't afford your server will shut off unexpectedly and losing data, right? Don't say "power cut never happens here" (never say never -especially if we talking server). Let's say some 500$ UPS should be enough to start with.

And all these things are exactly why AWS/Azure is cheaper and better for what he wants to do. There is no reason to host your own hardware these days.
 
Mar 1, 2021
35
0
30
And all these things are exactly why AWS/Azure is cheaper and better for what he wants to do. There is no reason to host your own hardware these days.
Hey- first of all - let me thank you for being able to chat with you guys all day yesterday!. After all the talking when I sat down to think it became clear to me what I was missing. THREADS.

If I have a 8 thread computer and even if the server is multi threaded it can process a max of 8 req concurrently. Actually 6 because I assume some threads (maybe 2) would be reserved for the system. If each of those requests takes 30seconds to complete - then the server can only serve 24 TPS. That is nothing.

And here I was thinking ThOuSand ConCurRent UsERs . I make myself laugh.

None the less I appreciate your guys' wisdom.
 
Mar 1, 2021
35
0
30
Again, I'm not an expert on servers stuff, but I think you've got quite wrong view on all this (at least when you opened this thread).
Yes, you can make server by using any CPU. "Server" is just a term that describes what purpose hardware has.. it's like saying "gaming PC". In that sense, even a $400 NAS can act as a server -which is usually the easiest/cheapest solution for "small community".
In your case (at least how you presented your expectations), you're trying to convert "home PC" into public server (without actually telling what kind & amount of data server needs to deal with). If it's an experiment, go with it. But if it's a more serious and long term project (also maybe making money out of it), then you will fail with such approach.

When building a server, you don't compare 4.6GHz vs 4.9GHz CPU (in sense 10900K is faster than 10600K) -that's gaming thinking! For server you need threads.. as many you can get. Saying that, a CPU like AMD 3950X (16cores/32threads) is a minimum to start with.

RAM.. again, as much you can get. Depends on data you deal with, but 64GB should do for start, I think. Similar as with CPU, RAM speed is less important than amount.

Storage... one 1TB SSD.. seriously? I know you aren't joking, even if it looks like you do. Ok, only you can determine how much storage you need, but keep two things in mind: RAID and backup.

UPS.. you can't afford your server will shut off unexpectedly and losing data, right? Don't say "power cut never happens here" (never say never -especially if we talking server). Let's say some 500$ UPS should be enough to start with.
Yup _ I am with you. i5-10600kf wont even make a dent. Probably will catch fire tho haha.
 

Rogue Leader

It's a trap!
Moderator
Hey- first of all - let me thank you for being able to chat with you guys all day yesterday!. After all the talking when I sat down to think it became clear to me what I was missing. THREADS.

If I have a 8 thread computer and even if the server is multi threaded it can process a max of 8 req concurrently. Actually 6 because I assume some threads (maybe 2) would be reserved for the system. If each of those requests takes 30seconds to complete - then the server can only serve 24 TPS. That is nothing.

And here I was thinking ThOuSand ConCurRent UsERs . I make myself laugh.

None the less I appreciate your guys' wisdom.

Well I mean for a chat program there is no way its going to take 30 seconds to complete a request, but you have the basic idea down that the more concurrent users you have the more threads you need to be able to handle requests in a timely manner.
 
Mar 1, 2021
35
0
30
Well I mean for a chat program there is no way its going to take 30 seconds to complete a request, but you have the basic idea down that the more concurrent users you have the more threads you need to be able to handle requests in a timely manner.
Yes - This is the key info I didnt understand previously, and yes I understand that its not going to take 30 seconds. Even if it can sever 300TPS - its nowhere close to what I thought CPUs are capable of. Maybe this is my clue to earn about microprocessor design and help them build the next JUMP in capability.
 
Mar 1, 2021
35
0
30
there is nothing to do with microprocessor design.
if you code, you should know roughly what it should take.
Yes you are corect- this was just an idea when I posted this thread and I have a lot of homework now that needs to be done. One of that homework is load testing and stress testing. Only after that I can say how long it will take - but given that AWS is out of my budget. I wont be doing this project because I cannot fund it. And I am not sure how to get money for it.
 

Rogue Leader

It's a trap!
Moderator
Yes - This is the key info I didnt understand previously, and yes I understand that its not going to take 30 seconds. Even if it can sever 300TPS - its nowhere close to what I thought CPUs are capable of. Maybe this is my clue to earn about microprocessor design and help them build the next JUMP in capability.

There is really no need for a jump in capability. There are different types of processors for different things. Just like you don't use a shovel to hammer nails. Sure you could probably get a nail in eventually with a shovel, but they make hammers for a reason. The i5 is a great processor for gaming and normal PC usage, server processors are great for multiple users, or distributed multithreaded workloads, etc.

Yes you are corect- this was just an idea when I posted this thread and I have a lot of homework now that needs to be done. One of that homework is load testing and stress testing. Only after that I can say how long it will take - but given that AWS is out of my budget. I wont be doing this project because I cannot fund it. And I am not sure how to get money for it.

AWS or Azure wasn't that much more expensive than your original idea, however if your budget is that tight I agree you need to exponentially increase it, especially for unexpected costs.
 
Mar 1, 2021
35
0
30
There is really no need for a jump in capability. There are different types of processors for different things. Just like you don't use a shovel to hammer nails. Sure you could probably get a nail in eventually with a shovel, but they make hammers for a reason. The i5 is a great processor for gaming and normal PC usage, server processors are great for multiple users, or distributed multithreaded workloads, etc.



AWS or Azure wasn't that much more expensive than your original idea, however if your budget is that tight I agree you need to exponentially increase it, especially for unexpected costs.
Is it too optimistic to think that I can double the efficiency of microsops
 

Rogue Leader

It's a trap!
Moderator
Is it too optimistic to think that I can double the efficiency of microsops

Doubling their efficiency (which is already happening all the time) is not going to solve your issue. Thats just not how all this works.

If you're not in school for this already I suggest taking classes in Computer Science so you can understand this stuff better, before declaring you someday want to double chip efficiency. You are trying to make a square into a wheel.
 

USAFRet

Titan
Moderator
You could wait a couple weeks for rocket lake to come out, there seems to be a big improvement from comet lake.
Which, again, is the completely wrong way to do this.

Code first
Stress testing
Load factors
Code optimization
User testing


Buying hardware for a public server hosted at home is far far down the list. So far down the list as to equal Never.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kanewolf
Mar 1, 2021
35
0
30
Which, again, is the completely wrong way to do this.

Code first
Stress testing
Load factors
Code optimization
User testing


Buying hardware for a public server hosted at home is far far down the list. So far down the list as to equal Never.
BURRRNNN lol. You are right. I need to have some load testing done in local and in AWS to get some idea of how the app will work. Is this the right approach?
 

USAFRet

Titan
Moderator
BURRRNNN lol. You are right. I need to have some load testing done in local and in AWS to get some idea of how the app will work. Is this the right approach?
Mostly.

Get some running code together. See what happens.

Although, as has been said...you are recreating the wheel here. A very old wheel.

Even in something as basic as a Wix platform, there is a built in chatroom thing.
https://support.wix.com/en/article/wix-chat-creating-editing-and-managing-a-group-chat

Click click...poof, chatroom.