13
votes
[PC build] - AM4 or AM5 for low-power non-gaming build with lots of storage?
My main needs are:
- Not too pricey
- Very low idle power
- At least 6 x SATA
I don't need a beefy GPU (the iGPU will be more than I need) or lots of CPU performance (I'll probably pick one of the cheapest compatible CPU).
AM5 is still pretty expensive and the cheap(-ish) motherboards mostly only have 4 x SATA so I would need an extension card. But I'm considering it because 5nm vs 7nm should improve the power efficiency, right? What kind of improvements should I expect there?
Are there any other reasons to go for AM5? I might prefer it for emotional reasons (the lastest and greatest always feels better) so I could use some input from kind strangers.
I could also just wait a bit longer. When should I expect the low-end AM5 comonents to become cheaper?
I'd discourage AM5 for your needs, at least for now.
AMD socketed CPUs (Desktop and Server Zen) use chiplets with a IO Die. This IO Die has high, static power draw, increasing idle power usage. My 7950X3D uses a minimum of 34W for example, and that's with undervolting VSOC to 1.1V (from 1.24V board auto-prediction).
The AM4 platform has monolithic APUs available that avoids this problem entirely. (AM5 has similar APUs in the pipeline, but AFAIK they're not released yet.)
Also, AM5 boards with 6x SATA are really expensive ATM.
IMO, go Intel or AM4. AM5 is too immature for your usecase.
Thank you. That's very interesting. Does that apply to all AM4 APUs or only to some? How do I identify them?
I'm pretty sure the 5700G is a monolithic APU.
After doing some research, it looks like every 5xxx APU is monolithic. 3xxx APUs also might be, but I'm unsure.
You might also want to consider Intel. Depending on your location, it might be a cheaper option.
Nah, I'm not going to start researching Intel. I've spent so much time trying to figure out my AMD options, if I do that again, my head's gonna explode.
The 5600G seems to be really popular and a lot cheaper. But I'm a little worried because in reviews it draws 60W when idling and I was hoping to get below 30W, maybe even below 20W (disregarding any HDDs.) I remember reading about Ryzen systems in that range a while ago. Is that possible?
Intel's options are usually easier to parse in this space, because they don't sell separate "APUs" and "CPUs". All their low and mid-range chips have built-in graphics.
I use AMD for all my performance-sensitive needs, but my NAS runs Intel.
My most recent NAS build had similar requirements to yours. I ended up going with this:
You may have already done this part, but to contextualise those power requirements, the absolute worst case (40W difference, unusually expensive power where you live, machine left on 24/7/365) is a $100/year difference. At US average power costs it'd be $50/year maximum, and with more moderate uptime assumptions since it's a desktop rather than a server plus maybe a slightly narrower gap than 40W in reality you could be looking at <$20/year.
Obviously cost doesn't cover every aspect of why you might care about power usage, but it seems like a decent starting point to consider the comparable difference in hardware prices.
That's a good point, but this is more of a lifestyle decision for me. I try to avoid wasting resources just because I can afford it. And I know this isn't going change the world, but no individual's choices do. I don't want to be part of the problem.
Entirely makes sense, and it's a great attitude to take. I find that cost is still a good way to very broadly get a feel for the relative impact a decision might have - I genuinely wasn't sure what the numbers would look like when I stopped to figure it out, and now I've got a rough feeling that 40W switched on all day and night does indeed seem like a difference worth keeping in mind, whereas a smaller gap for something only on for 8 hours/day would probably fall below my personal threshold of big enough to consider wasteful even on a personal level.
What do you actually want to use the system for? For something like a NAS? Or some sort of data science application? Maybe desktop AM isn't even the right platform. Hard to judge without knowing the use case.
I'll use it as a normal PC and for data hoarding (hence my SATA requirements). Mostly programming, browsing, watching videos, that sort of thing.
I'm combining PC + NAS into one build because I don't have the budget for a separate NAS. I've been doing that for many years and it works very well for me.
I’ll second the vote for AM4, and raise you used AM4 to save you some dosh. You don’t have to spend a bunch of money on compute on this project, and by buying the less expensive compute hardware you can spend more money on storage.
Needless to say, still avoid the earlier generation AM4 stuff, for the sake of efficiency.
Right now mechanical hard drives still offer better price/GB than flash so the extra PCIe lanes really don’t matter; you’ll be using SATA for them. Even when flash finally beats spinning platters, you should still be able to buy them with SATA interfaces which will probably be good enough for your use case.
Ah ok cool. So the 'normal PC' requirement removes second hand server chips. The newer AM5 does support more PCIE lanes, but it's unlikely you'd fit enough drives into a single machine to really need them. Throw in the additional base power draw of AM5 chips and DDR5 memory and it's a lot more expensive in budget and power draw for your requirements.
However as you say it's cool having new stuff, and AM4 is no longer supported so it's more upgradable. It's doubtful whether AM5 lasts as long as AM4 though so will that upgrade potential be worthwhile? Maybe get a deal on AM4 and then upgrade to AM6 as and when you need it.
I'm very sure I'll be fine with AM4 performance-wise. My only concern was that AM4 uses more power, which doesn't seem to be the case, so I'll probably go with AM4.
I'd recommend an APU like the 3000G.
Check out the idle power draw here: https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-athlon-3000g-review,5.html.
You can efficiently run it for your NAS, and to make it even better, use it with Unraid OS.
Whatever you choose as long as you're not using a GPU you can always include a pcie sata card to expand the hard drive slots.
I don't know enough about AM5 to comment much, but it's a newer platform that will probably be supported longer.
I would also second getting a pcie sata card.
You could then go with a cheaper mATX motherboard, smaller case.
Totally guessing here, but if this is a home server or NAS type thing and you're planning to run a Plex/Jellyfin server on it (seems like there's a decent chance of that...) it might be a good idea to consider an Intel CPU for the better hardware transcoding.
Might not be the right choice, but if that is part of your intended use it would be worth taking a look at.
This is just a normal desktop, not a NAS and I don't think I'll be doing much transcoding. But thanks for the advice.
You probably should go for G skew. But definitely check if the processor you're gonna buy has an integrated IO die like the other comment said. My R5 3600 burns anywhere between 25-35 completely on idle with cores taking 3-5W total, the rest is IO die.
Technically speaking, you could undervolt it really hard and get it down to ~15W I believe, but definitely not worth the effort.
How do I check if it has an IO die? I looked here and here but there's no mention of it.
Also, do I need consider this when buying mainboard? Do they come with/without IO die or will the APU just disable it if it's not needed?
You can check if the chip has an IO die just by searching up it's delidded pictures online. 5600X has only one chiplet, so it doesn't have any IO die.
You don't have to check motherboard support for this, they'll all work exactly the same.
What a weird way to document CPU specs. "Just take a look at the circuits and figure it out yourself." :)
Unfortunately I don't think there are any databases for this. AMD doesn't have its own Ark either, so that doesn't exactly help.
It's extremely easy to tell if a chip is monolithic or chiplet design (which must have an IO die) just by looking at it.
If there's only one bump in the middle, it's monolithic and won't consume a lot of power on idle; if there are two or more bumps, it's a chiplet and will consume power.
This seems like relevant information to me, but I guess most people don't care about the extra power usage.
I think I found a good side-by-side comparison. The article also confirms that the 5600G should be a good choice for me.
Thank you for advice.