Rob wrote:Gear6 wrote:that's a different beast (x3650 M3 version) - it should have twice the memory bandwidth (DDR3, 1333Mhz, QPI - new architecture), six-core CPUs,
and more importantly, should lower you power bill (32nm, Integrated power gates: Allows reduction to idling cores at near-zero power)
it will cost more, initially, but on the long run, it will scale very easily (12 core/ 24 threads, 288GB max RAM, 16TB in 16x 2.5" bays, etc), and it's a current CPU/chipset generation.
Okay. Bringing this back up.
I need some serious thoughts here guys:
I can get the following for
$2395 shipped
M3 server version
up to 16 HDD's. (Comes with 8 so we can definitely expand in the future) -
Appears to be biggest advantage!
IBM SYSTEM X3650 M3 SELLER REFURBISHED SERVER
2 X INTEL XEON QUAD CORE L5520 2.26GHZ 8MB L3 CACHE PROCESSORS
(HOW DOES THIS COMPARE TO THE 3 GHZ E5450 CPU's on the $1750 server??? The cache appears to be WAY less... Also the E5450 CPU was a MUCH higher priced CPU on the initial release according to Intel ARK) (Also, for an extra $100 I can get the 2.8GHz CPU's too (X5560) ($2495))
Okay, here's a cold comparison between the 3 CPU's (M2/ Core2 Quad, M3/ Nehalem 1 & 2):
http://ark.intel.com/compare/37109,40201,33083
I always recommend getting the most recent hardware generation you can afford, especially for long-term use and future expandability and performance.
1st) The old x3650 is a
DDR2 system and memory prices will only go up, as opposed to
DDR3 which has been dropping steadily over the years (that is, until DDR4 becomes mainstream). Also, the new one is triple-channel.
2nd) the M3 has the new
Nehalem-EP architecture, which integrates the memory controller into the CPU die, that being one of the reasons the CPU cache is smaller.
I think that drop in L3 size should more than compensated for by the faster access to memory (Quickpath), and ~double the bandwidth.
3rd) the new CPU's have 4 cores and HT, giving a total of
8 threads per socket, compared to just 4 on the E5450.
Even more, both have Turbo Boost, L5520 from 2.25Ghz to
2.53Ghz, and X5560 from 2.8Ghz to
3.2Ghz, and when idle would consume very little power. (I don't know what's the KWh/$ ratio there, but it won't hurt to pay less - it's a 24/7 server, after all.
Rob wrote:
I need some input here as this is going WAY above ($645 or $745 MORE) what we originally were seeking and I don't play the bait and switch game!!! You can thank gear6 for putting this in my head LOL!!!
I'm fine EITHER WAY and would be content with the original plan on the $1750 server. I've just learned that more hard drives in the future are a good thing
.
you're welcome
bottom line, the M2 is probably the most you can get from a Core2 Quad (Harpertown) architecture, and a good choice, but if you/we can upgrade to the M3, go for it, as it's the best choice on the long run.
PS. Oh, that $100 premium for the X5560 sounds very tempting, as you can see from the comparison, the X5560 was more than double the initial price than the L5520.
Oh, last but not least,
thanks to all that have donated $/parts for this upgrade, hat's off to you all, especially Ador ! 
My early donation when this thread started seems rather puny now. If we decide to go for the M3, I'll make another