Jump to content

Atlasprime

Pathfinder
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    96

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Atlasprime

  2. Posted

    3 hours ago, Shadowsong said:

    Yep it is indeed and no it's not cheap 😛 more for curiosity's sake at the moment! Even with the expense though i think it would still be the cheapest way of getting a 5x5 on a single server while still  keeping things power/heat efficient. I did look a dual socket servers, but they are crazy money, generally less cores, not as quick and draw more electric.

    AMD's EPYC chips are the server version of threadripper, they are also nice but are clocked very low so not ideal for gamesevers.

    Someone posted a 32 core xeon server a week or so ago.  Atlas only recognized 20. I'm not sure what he might have been doing wrong but there may be a limitation for Atlas. If that is the case would need to turn to virtualization for the Ryzen as well.

    So very tempted to build a new rig. I think its the Ryzen 3 series im waiting to see. Only problem is justifying moving up from a 1080. Doesnt seem to be a value move lol

  3. Posted

    14 hours ago, Shadowsong said:

    On a seperate note, i'd be interested to hear peoples opinions on this single server setup for a 5x5 grid. @Sakura@Atlasprime 

    AMD 2990wx (32 core)
     128GB RAM

    My initial thoughts are it would provide 1 core/2 threads per server with some to spare for additional workload & things like territory map etc. Memory wise it would give up to 5GB per grid should they need it which is more than enough for 7 islands per grid.

    My only concern would be clock speed for lots of players, but i'd still be hoping to set 50 per grid. (Not that it would ever get close to that full)

    Too rich for my blood lol. This isnt the next gen of AMD CPUs is it? I feel like I heard the upcoming AMDs are gonna give intel a run.

  4. Posted

    1 hour ago, Shadowsong said:

    With my 12 servers (4x3), tick rate of 20 and 7-9 islands per grid,  I average about 45% usage overall when servers are empty. That goes up by 10% or so when 60 players are online. Should i need more performance, i can reduce tick rate to 15 like officials are and overclock to 5Ghz across the cores. 

    Power consumption wise is quite minimal currently, as i've not OC'd the processor is still within it's 95w power envelope. Other than that, all i have in there is 2 x m.2 drives, couple fans and a hydro cooler on the CPU. So likely sub 130w i'd guess overall, if not less. Also got an 80 Plus Titanium PSU so as efficient as i could make it.

    Very nice! Thank you for that info!

  5. Posted

    Aye, I'm familiar with i7/i9 vs xeon applications. Just didnt realize the core clock was THAT important. Raw processing power of non xeons has always been better. Also agreed on ECC ram. Didnt really cross my mind as needing it.

    Curious, what kind of usage are you seeing on the 9900k and under what conditions? (Number of grids and players playing). Id also be curious about system power consumption.

     

  8. Posted

    6 hours ago, Shadowsong said:

    You said that the 9900k was wasted on a server - It is not by any means. Price aside i think it is one of the best chips you could buy for a busy server where high core speed is required. 

    Also my original point of price/performance being in favour of the 9900k was comparing it to new Xeons and that point still stands. Obviously you can buy some cheap EOL server hardware for less money but that's not what i was stating. 

    I agree with @Sakura - For the most part, Xeons are not the best for gaming servers and it's why the decent hosting providers are not using them. I have nothing against Xeons and even brought one for my Ark cluster originally, but it soon became apparent that a quicker i7 would have been a better choice after cores on the Xeon started maxing out under high player load. 

     

    I think we are beating a dead horse at this point. You guys already made a good point that HT is garbage. My googling seems to reinforce that ideal. Again, will the 9900k perform well. Yes. Is it wasted. Also still yes. At this point you are trying to say the HT of the i9 is worth its addl price tag. It isnt. Not my words. 

    Your original point is... sure... valid versus Xeons. Ill take your word for it that core speed is the bees knees for Ark/Atlas. But why not a 9700k i7? Basically the same as the 9900k but cheaper and not HT. Just need the cores right? save yourself some money.

    Lastly. Fair point. You guys have taught me that Xeons are inferior to i7 series so I appreciate the take away. As to how inferior... I'd like to see some numbers. I wish I was rich so I could just tinker benchmarks all day lol. 

    Too bad servers are saturated right now. If it became apparent I needed an i7/i9 host id totally splurge but man its tough to get some people. Cheers to you guys and best wishes!

  14. Posted

    2 minutes ago, Sakura said:

    First of all, you are dead wrong. Xeon are not meant for performance game servers, they CAN run game servers but UE4 requires a strong CPU to keep its frame rate up. This is the same reason why everyone says Nitrado sucks, because they use high core count/ low freq Xeon servers. Yeah your Xeon can run servers, check your server fps when you start hitting 10+ players. I rather pay a little more to have a server that can handle 70+ players without stuttering and lagging than a server that can only handle 20.

    Fair to say i7/i9 perform better for ark. Never disagreed. The 9900k is still overkill. A 9700 wouldve peformed better for the money as you say the hyper threading is useless.

    I remain skeptical my xeons at 3.6 are gonna be a problem. If it happens ill admit im wrong on that point.  At under 300 dollars this entire thing has been doing just fine. It peaked at 80 players and no one noticed a hiccup. 

    Again my original troll on this thread is the 9900k is overkill. My server is irrelevant to that point. 

  15. Posted

    9 minutes ago, Sakura said:

    I seen your servers, you certainly have no problem running 9 empty servers on your 2.4ghz xeon. Architecture you say? Xeon and i7 are pretty much identical, with xeon supporting ecc ram which isn't a requirement for game servers. Raw power is a must for UE4 servers. Don't pretend to know what you're talking about.

    Yes they are empty now. Yes there was also 100 people on a shity bloomfield i7 i initially used at launch. (First gen i7 cause i know ud have to look it up). So no, you dont need raw power to run ue4 servers. I learned this with ark and if u somehow hadnt noticed, this is basically the same game.

    Look we dont need to compare dicks. Is the 9900k gonna be a boss are serving. Yes. All im saying is that box is 550 plus what... 100 bare min for a mobo. Ur gonna need ddr4 ram... and for a 4x3 at least 50gb would be good so lets say another 400 for that. Whatever psu, case.  Lets just call it 1000 bux. Im sure this 9900k has more money in it...

    A older xeon box meant for server computing is gonna offer waaaaay more bang for the buck. And this is where we arrive at my notion that this 9900k is wasted. Am i still wrong?  

    I considered comparing usage with you but i keep rerealizing the investment differences. There is no argument...

  18. Posted

    11 hours ago, Sakura said:

    You have no idea what you're talking about. Core speed matters a lot when you have populated servers. When you got 10 people only, you're right, that 9900k is wasted. But not everyone has only 10 players in their servers.

    Im not arguing the 9900k does well. Price performance just isnt worth it when applied as a server. If you dont understand that then  its you that needs a knowledge transfer.  550 for the cpu alone give me a break lol.  Enjoy bro.

  22. Posted

    15 hours ago, Sakura said:

    Except your 12c processor has crap for single threaded performance, which matters the most in Ark/Atlas.

    Except it doesnt actually matter cause its still more than enough performance while its still a fact that a 9900k is utterly wasted as a server. 

    21 hours ago, Shadowsong said:

    Normally i'd agree, but like with Ark, Atlas enjoys strong single threaded performance which is why so many servers favoured the i7 7700k including a lot of hosting providers. (GTX Gaming still use them now i believe).

    In addition to that, price/performance is in it's favour as well compared to the Xeon chips so it was an easy decision to make, not a waste in anyway.

     

    actually price/perf is def not in favor of a 9900k in any regard. its the high end consumer offering. Its not 2080ti bad but somewhere between 2080 and 2080ti. It leans novelty and bragging rights before any sort of efficient solution.

  24. Posted

    16 hours ago, Shadowsong said:

    To add to what CPSPOK has said, you don't necessarily need 1 core per grid if your buying high end processors. For example i run a 4x3 grid on a 9900k @ 5Ghz which is only 8c/16t but due to it being far more efficient in both multi and single threaded performance, it manages it just fine. 

    In addition, if it's a private server that's going to have < 10 people on it, you could make the grids even bigger if you have the memory for it. It's player numbers that ramp up CPU usage as they jump on.

    That poor 9900k should never be wasted on a server 😞

    2 threads per core / 4gb ram per instance.  Currently running a 3x3. its using 35gb of ram atm and just under 50% CPU on a dual socket 12C/24T blade. 

×
×
  • Create New...