I'm in the process of replacing my trusted server system after 13 years. For all this time, the Xeon X3470 run perfectly on an ASUS P7F-E in 24/7 operation. Three years ago I even upgraded to 32 GB UDIMM ECC (officially not supported) and NVME system disk giving this old Lynnfield CPU (first generation Core-i processor in server version) some more useful time.
The replacement machine should be of similar quality (here I'm unsure since I regret that Intel discontinued entry level server Xeons and AMD never really entered this market segment).
The machine has to drive two displays (iGPU is sufficient, currently an old nVidia Quadro NVS does the job), has plenty of memory (96 GB is the goal once modules are available), obviously ECC, three NVME-SSD and a fast processors. Since I will run it in Germany with high energy prices 24/7, idle consumption is of much more importance than full power consumption.
Since there is no real entry level server platform anymore (I would prefer an Raptor Lake Xeon or an AM5 based EPYC), I see the main choice between LGA 1700 or AM5. For both platforms ECC capable boards (server class or workstation class) are available and both platforms offer a wide range of CPUs (I will most likely use the top SKU and reduce power limits according to my needs in order to maximize flexibility).
On LGA 1700 side, I have experiences from work with an Supermicro X13SAE-F. BMC is not needed here, so the question is how much power that safes. The board at work idles around 35-37 W (at wall) with 13900K, 128 GB RAM, 2 NVME SSDs and a 10 GBe card. I will also measure this for two memory modules and without the 10 GBe card.
On AMD side, my last real experience (beside some experimental machines at work) dates back into Socket 939 times which is really LONG ago (this was the predecessor of the current Xeon).
So far, I figured out the following (which does not make decision simpler):
LGA 1700:
pro: lower idle, boards available with success reports (X13SAE, ASUS WS680...)
con: very high power at high load, no 4x4 PCIe bifurcation (I want to have the option of having more NVME connected to PCIe lanes of CPU)
AM5:
pro: lower power consumption at load, CPU supports 4x4 bifurcation (of board also supports it), fast USB ports directly from SoC
con: no real experiences on idle consumption found so far, seems to depend on a number of aspects, less reports on boards found.
On the AMD side, I like the options of the Supermicro H13SAE (escpecially the PCI-e layout giving two NVME connected to CPU and 16 more lanes on CPU hopefully with bifurcation in the 16x slot), but so far I have not found real experiences with that board and no figures on power consumption. It has an BMC but it is unclear if disabling it reduces power consumption. Furthermore, there are some boards from ASRock Rack but they also have BMC and do not expose all USB from CPU as Supermicro does.
What are your experiences? Is there any argument that I missed? Is there a real (same components) comparison between entry level server or workstation boards based on LGA 1700 and AM5 with respect to idle power consumption?
The replacement machine should be of similar quality (here I'm unsure since I regret that Intel discontinued entry level server Xeons and AMD never really entered this market segment).
The machine has to drive two displays (iGPU is sufficient, currently an old nVidia Quadro NVS does the job), has plenty of memory (96 GB is the goal once modules are available), obviously ECC, three NVME-SSD and a fast processors. Since I will run it in Germany with high energy prices 24/7, idle consumption is of much more importance than full power consumption.
Since there is no real entry level server platform anymore (I would prefer an Raptor Lake Xeon or an AM5 based EPYC), I see the main choice between LGA 1700 or AM5. For both platforms ECC capable boards (server class or workstation class) are available and both platforms offer a wide range of CPUs (I will most likely use the top SKU and reduce power limits according to my needs in order to maximize flexibility).
On LGA 1700 side, I have experiences from work with an Supermicro X13SAE-F. BMC is not needed here, so the question is how much power that safes. The board at work idles around 35-37 W (at wall) with 13900K, 128 GB RAM, 2 NVME SSDs and a 10 GBe card. I will also measure this for two memory modules and without the 10 GBe card.
On AMD side, my last real experience (beside some experimental machines at work) dates back into Socket 939 times which is really LONG ago (this was the predecessor of the current Xeon).
So far, I figured out the following (which does not make decision simpler):
LGA 1700:
pro: lower idle, boards available with success reports (X13SAE, ASUS WS680...)
con: very high power at high load, no 4x4 PCIe bifurcation (I want to have the option of having more NVME connected to PCIe lanes of CPU)
AM5:
pro: lower power consumption at load, CPU supports 4x4 bifurcation (of board also supports it), fast USB ports directly from SoC
con: no real experiences on idle consumption found so far, seems to depend on a number of aspects, less reports on boards found.
On the AMD side, I like the options of the Supermicro H13SAE (escpecially the PCI-e layout giving two NVME connected to CPU and 16 more lanes on CPU hopefully with bifurcation in the 16x slot), but so far I have not found real experiences with that board and no figures on power consumption. It has an BMC but it is unclear if disabling it reduces power consumption. Furthermore, there are some boards from ASRock Rack but they also have BMC and do not expose all USB from CPU as Supermicro does.
What are your experiences? Is there any argument that I missed? Is there a real (same components) comparison between entry level server or workstation boards based on LGA 1700 and AM5 with respect to idle power consumption?