- Apr 3, 2018
- 11,368
- 3,000
- 59,890
I am looking at building a new machine for a purely "storage" usage, as a NAS. Mostly just so I can put two 4TB drives in it and mirror them for redundancy. I will not be gaming on it, but might put it in a location where it can be used to watch TV on. It will be Ryzen based, or at least AM4 since I already have most of the components for the build. I am short the CPU. Mobo, storage, case, memory, etc is already taken care of.
In a situation like that, is there any reason why more cores would make sense?
I have a few ways I can go about this build.
a) I can purchase a new R7 2700x and upgrade my current desktop and step down the 1700 I have there.
b) I can purchase a R5 1600 for $79 and pair it with a GTX750ti I already own. It won't pull 4K resolution for the TV viewing at the frame rate I want, but is already proven to work well at 1080/60.
c) Buy one of the Athlon APU dealies for the cheap.
With option A I will be upgrading my main use machine, which I also plan to upgrade again some time after Ryzen 2 releases. I will not do that until the initial release rush dies down and we start seeing price drops. I will more than likely (if the rumors are true) be looking at a Ryzen 5 with similar core counts, just faster speed. The situation equates to "spend $200 to save the $70".
If I go with option B I know it will be more than fast enough. Probably overkill and power wasting. The only thing I really need the 750ti for is to see it on a screen on the rare occasion it will even need to be. (I am considering FreeNAS as OS anyway)
Option C just leaves me wondering if 2 cores/4 threads will be enough for good throughput and not wasting money. From the onboard video perspective it offers much value there. In time, regardless the R7 1700 I have in my main machine will come available. For this it will be overkill anyway.
As mentioned above, I may try to use FreeNAS for this. My past experience with that OS or any "Linux" base hasn't been awesome. I know my way around Windows pretty well and likely may end up using it anyway.
Your opinion?
In a situation like that, is there any reason why more cores would make sense?
I have a few ways I can go about this build.
a) I can purchase a new R7 2700x and upgrade my current desktop and step down the 1700 I have there.
b) I can purchase a R5 1600 for $79 and pair it with a GTX750ti I already own. It won't pull 4K resolution for the TV viewing at the frame rate I want, but is already proven to work well at 1080/60.
c) Buy one of the Athlon APU dealies for the cheap.
With option A I will be upgrading my main use machine, which I also plan to upgrade again some time after Ryzen 2 releases. I will not do that until the initial release rush dies down and we start seeing price drops. I will more than likely (if the rumors are true) be looking at a Ryzen 5 with similar core counts, just faster speed. The situation equates to "spend $200 to save the $70".
If I go with option B I know it will be more than fast enough. Probably overkill and power wasting. The only thing I really need the 750ti for is to see it on a screen on the rare occasion it will even need to be. (I am considering FreeNAS as OS anyway)
Option C just leaves me wondering if 2 cores/4 threads will be enough for good throughput and not wasting money. From the onboard video perspective it offers much value there. In time, regardless the R7 1700 I have in my main machine will come available. For this it will be overkill anyway.
As mentioned above, I may try to use FreeNAS for this. My past experience with that OS or any "Linux" base hasn't been awesome. I know my way around Windows pretty well and likely may end up using it anyway.
Your opinion?
Last edited:
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram