How many of you plan to build your own server

hi
a local server maybe your internet not soo good
u dont like the bandwidth limits on amazon servers

iv been planing a a nas server for a wiul but now its going to be a pa/nas server

im interseted in wot hardwaer the server side scails on best
as in lots of cores AMD 8core is like 100£ or 4 faster core's intel 200+£
since u can make a 8core amd so cheap i was wondering if it was possible to get 2 full computer's connected via 1Gbit lan working together on same game

allso ram lots of it or faster ram ?

I think you should wait and save your money until we know for sure what kind of system the server is going to need. My guess is that faster clock speed/more instructions per second will end up being better than having more cores. I also expect more memory to be more important than faster memory. The server only needs to run at 10 fps but it has a lot of data that it needs to track.

*Edit*
There's no answer in your poll for "I'll double my memory from 16 gb to 32 gb and then run the server on my Intel 4770 I7". My graphics sometimes struggle with the client, but I'm never maxing out all four hyperthreaded cores on this thing.

Assuming Uber really pushes to the place they want to be running the sim on as many threads as possible will be quite important. Dunno how far they are with that.
However it has been said that for normal games you'll need a server that is smaller than your actual gaming system. I don't think sharing the workload among multiple systems is planned.

For jokes I might put a PA server on the server behind pastats.com, just to at least once see that core i5/16GB system above a load of 0.5 xD

that's interesting. Don't you think that by now the devs have a much better idea of what is needed for a PA server? they're already realeasing server mods so we can assume that their server-side is almost ready (even if they'll hold off on it until all core features have been finished).

Do you think I should revive that old Server Spec thread I'd made and ask again? we did get some pretty good answers last time.

of course you should! poor thing's wasting it's youth away!!!

https://forums.uberent.com/threads/server-question.54087/#post-826879
here's what we last had.

We'll be running a few, for sure.

Of course they know better than I do. That's why I said to wait and not waste money buying a server before we know what the specs should be! Still, this is the internet so I'm going to speculate anyway.

Sure, why not?

There is no real 8 core consumer CPUs available on market, only server one and those isn't best for gaming. AMD FX CPUs don't have real cores and their cores isn't any better than i7 with Hyper-Threading. So if you want high-end CPU you need to go with Intel because AMD don't produce CPUs for high-end segment anymore.

And yeah some details on i7 5960x already leaked and it's will be real 8 cores (and 16 threads), but those will cost $1000 or more.

PA Matches will be renting out servers.

As for server specs, we don't really know what they will be. I've reached out to Uber recently about what the server specs will be, or what their server specs are, and they wouldn't provide any details.

Without sounding rude mate but what you said about consumer 8 core cpu's ect is absolute BS.. Intel are the ones who push the hyper threading BS such as 4 real cores 8 threads or 8 real cores 16 threads ect. AMD have produced cpu's with real cores since day one of multicore cpu's which why they said they made the first true 4 core cpu back when intel had that 4 core chip which was actually two twin core cpu's linked (in basic terms) back in like 2008 or when ever it was. AMD don't do the hyperthreading BS with their chips and i am glad as it helps me multiple task apps a lot better as i found out.

So no offence but please do some research into stuff like that instead of saying stuff you heard from other people who apparently have no clue either.

Both chip makers make good cpu's so i definitely would not say AMD don't make high end chips anymore as their performance to price ratio is truly amazing. But intel make faster chips if you are willing to spend 40-80 percent more which is fine if you got the money.

Id go with amd if price is a issue my friend.. check my post above to see why i suggest that.. but if you got the money then id go for a intel 8 core/16 thread : )

Sure thing, just for the lols I might turn this ancient Pentium E2140 machine that sits in the corner of my room into a server, just to see if it's good for anything.

Though, I think the 1 GB of DDR2 RAM it has won't really cut it.

Too bad AMD "cores" do not work for real world tasks except limited number of use cases like compilation.

Before I bought my current i7 4771 I did pretty good research on CPUs performance and specifics. I actually think a lot about buying FX 8350 because it's support ECC RAM and work better for hardware visualization. Unfortunately from side of performance FX8350 will lose even to some i5 and it's doesn't looks like AMD planning any new CPUs for desktop PCs.

FX 8350 was released 1.5 year ago and there is was no announcements on new high-end CPUs since then and CPU power of APUs a lot worse than FX had.

And I don't even want to talk about this bad 220 watt TDP joke called AMD FX-9370.

AMD FX8350 cost about $180-190 while i5 4690 it's just about $200-210. And in most of applications this FX not going to beat this i5 and most likely will be 10-25% slower. So AMD high-end CPUs just not worth the price. And especially considering that Intel CPUs have integrated graphics too and even if it's slow it's can be be useful in number of use cases like mine.

So yeah AMD low-end APUs and middle-end FX might be have good price for those who need them, but there just no real competitors for Intel in high-end CPUs.

I was going to write a reply with technical details but i after reading your post again i decided it was going to be a complete waste of Explaining why i went from a modern intel cpu back to amd.. But i will say this i have owned a intel i7 before i went back to amd on their new 8 core fx and i have to say i am very very happy with what i got. But i am leaving at there but you should try out a amd machine in the future.. I think you would be surprised at how they are when you look past all the review sites who only look at fps stats ect mate.

i am planing to go solo, offline

What objective measure do you use? What applications do you run?

Sorry, but SXX is still right when he says that the design of Intel CPUs is superior in terms of efficiency executing code with a lot of sequential constraints.

Both AMDs and Intels architectures are superscalar in every single stage, but Intel definitely has the better schedulers and a shorter pipeline which allows them - especially in combination with SMT - to utilize the components of the CPU much better.
AMD went the cheap way and reduced the number of redundant units per "core" and only pooled certain expensive components like the FPU per "module". That simplifies scheduling a lot, but also reduces peak IPC per core and therefor per thread.
Intel CPUs have a higher peak performance per thread as they can parallelize "single-threaded" code much further than the AMD CPUs.

Intel CPUs have a surprisingly small advantage or even a disadvantage if the application is properly threaded and the workload on all threads is similar. However, they completely outperform AMDs current architecture when executing poorly optimized code.

And there's yet another issue:
Intel has access to an advanced fabrication process. Structure size isn't the only spec which matters, but also how efficient the structures are which you are building. This reduces the power required to operate a given circuit by a significant amount.

PS:
As soon as GPGPU is used by an application, Intel CPUs are outperformed by far! About 14 times in terms of energy efficiency, even with the inferior production process. So most modern AMD APUs with there embedded GPU can actually pack a hell of a punch - if the developers know how to use it. And with the HUMA architecture, using GPU becomes increasingly simple. Intel's GPUs however - well we can safely agree that they still suck.

It all depends on how much you want to spend...
AMD has the best value to dollar. There is a reason why Sony and Microsoft is using AMD APUs.

As far as the high end enthusiast market goes, Intel is just plain faster than AMD in every stat.
But seriously, what video game hobbyist really wants to spend north of $400 on a CPU/Motherboard combination to just play console ports and indie games?

Exactly.. My laptop runs a A8 apu and it is amazing but as you said as well as i.. Value goes AMD still wins by a wide margin even if you exclude the apu's.

If you don't mind me being stupid then let me ask: how, exactly do these servers work?

Well he wasn't because he was going about saying that amd produce cpu's with fake cores which was a load of rubbish because AMD always took the correct approach to a multicore even if it made them late to the market.. So naturally i had to do the community a service if you know what i mean but i am not getting into this performance rubbish any further as no one is reading to what i was actually saying in between the words because performance stats do not show the true picture of day to day performance of a cpu.

Because what i'm seeing here is the same kind of discussion on why its better to have a mercedes A class than a alfa romeo giulietta which is always amusing to watch develop.