Any C2D boards with dual gigabit and integrated graphics

[lurpitus]

I'm building core duo based server (most likely E8400) and I need the board to have integrated graphics and two gigabit ethernet ports. So far I haven't seen any of those. Some of the ATX boards have dual gigabit but no integrated graphics and most mATX boards have integrated graphics but not dual gigabit.

If there is no such board I think my options are:
a) normal dual gigabit ATX board with fanless low end graphics card (I don't have any idea how much heat they produce or how much power they need)
b) mATX board and second network card

I prefer cool and quiet (as far as you can when using C2D) so I think option b) would be better because:
- most of them have 6 SATA ports so mATX doesn't seem to limit number of hard disks too much and I think if needed I can get add on card which would offer even more ports
- integrated graphics uses less power and produces less heat than fanless low end graphics card
- mATX board uses less power than ATX
- some mATX board support 16GB memory (good when running virtual machines which need more memory than CPU time e.g. low usage ftp server)

Any reason why I should go with option a) and full sized ATX board?

[Shamgar]

Option a) is not as expensive an option as you think.
For eg., you can get Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3P plus ASUS GF 8400GS 256MB / 512MB or ASUS Radeon HD4350 512MB / Low Profile version.
Gigabyte P45 board + C2D E8400 CPU will use up to ~100W idling on its own. Maybe less or more. Plus 10-15W for one of those low-end graphics cards.
You can look for alternatives to these motherboards and graphics cards if you wish. There are plenty of them.
As far as I know, there is not a current Intel chipset board (G43/45) that is ATX with integrated graphics. With AMD, there are a few available (ATX with IGP).

Option b) may work out well for you, depending on what network adaptor you get and how much it costs you.
On Intel platform, their "best" mATX IGP boards based on G45 chipset tend not to be as good as AMD's when comparing price-to-performance and features onboard.
However, older Intel chipsets like G31 and G33 are still available, albeit options are limited and not as many motherboards to choose from.
If you want power savings, mATX with IGP plus your additional network card is the wise option, and you also avoid having to buy discrete graphics card.
Nvidia also has GeForce9300/nForce 730i chipset with IGP for Intel CPU. SPCR reviewed it here. You can also try and find other boards with same chipset.
I do not know if Nvidia chipset is reliable or not these days, even though I am still using nForce2 chipset from 2003.

mATX board using less power than ATX is true when comparing mATX with IGP vs ATX without IGP.
But with ATX with IGP, sometimes larger PCB board proves to be as efficient as smaller PCB board, sometimes more, depending on actual boards in question.

Also, for CPU, you might consider Intel Pentium Dual Core E6300 with Virtualization Technology.
It is not as good performing as E8400 but still compares favourably and a lot cheaper as well.
For a server, you do not need high performance. Sometimes a compromise on performance/price is good if the task can be done with more affordable products.

[Mats]

Here you go, with dual GB LAN, VGA and 333 MHz FSB.
http://www.prisjakt.nu/kategori.php?k=4 ... =s40117802

Another list, this time not with 333 MHz FSB only.
http://geizhals.at/deutschland/?cat=mbp ... _2~325_VGA

[lurpitus]

Here you go, with dual GB LAN, VGA and 333 MHz FSB.
http://www.prisjakt.nu/kategori.php?k=4 ... =s40117802

Another list, this time not with 333 MHz FSB only.
http://geizhals.at/deutschland/?cat=mbp ... _2~325_VGA

Thanks! I didn't remember that those sites have pretty good ways to search motherboards. Unfortunately it seems that most of those boards are for real server usage and there aren't many reviews about those let alone user experience. I think I'll feel safer with a more common board after all.

[lurpitus]

If you want power savings, mATX with IGP plus your additional network card is the wise option, and you also avoid having to buy discrete graphics card.

I agree. I also think that mATX (with IGP) + additional network card produces less heat than ATX + discrete graphics card. The cost of additional card (network or graphcis) is not an issue for me at the moment.

ATX board would offer more in terms of expansion but I think (ok, hope) that for server purposes I might only need more SATA ports. Additional network cards seem to use PCI slot and RAID controller cards seem to use PCIe so that scenario would also work.

Also, for CPU, you might consider Intel Pentium Dual Core E6300 with Virtualization Technology.
It is not as good performing as E8400 but still compares favourably and a lot cheaper as well.

That is a good advice, thanks! I'll see if those are available where I live or if I can get used one.

[Shamgar]

If you want power savings, mATX with IGP plus your additional network card is the wise option, and you also avoid having to buy discrete graphics card.

I agree. I also think that mATX (with IGP) + additional network card produces less heat than ATX + discrete graphics card. The cost of additional card (network or graphcis) is not an issue for me at the moment.

ATX board would offer more in terms of expansion but I think (ok, hope) that for server purposes I might only need more SATA ports. Additional network cards seem to use PCI slot and RAID controller cards seem to use PCIe so that scenario would also work.

You must keep in mind that majority of mATX boards have at most 2 legacy PCI slots, with many shifting to only 1. I would personally try to look for 2, in case you would need an extra device in the future.

Also, for CPU, you might consider Intel Pentium Dual Core E6300 with Virtualization Technology.
It is not as good performing as E8400 but still compares favourably and a lot cheaper as well.

That is a good advice, thanks! I'll see if those are available where I live or if I can get used one.

Yes, it should be available, although it is only two or three months old. It's not as high architecture as Core 2 Duo series, but cost savings make up for it and 2.8GHz, 2MB L2 RAM, 1066MHz (266x4) FSB with VT is not a piece of rubbish. But the choice is yours to make. I just give people other options to consider.

I think your Option b) is looking good at this point, depending on what board you can get that suits all your purposes. I have not much experience with Intel platform mATX IGP, but I can do some investigative work to find out more. But you may have already made your mind up by then.

Also, ATX, while preferred by many people (including myself for reasons I won't go into right now) doesn't offer any more practical worth over mATX other than graphics card expansion for gaming and a few extra connection ports on back IO panel and on motherboard itself. Usually, these extras are superfluous, although it feels good to have so many features when you buy an ATX board.

On the other hand, high featured mATX boards these days are focused on HTPC/Media PC use as this is now a profitable market. Depending on what a user needs out of a system, these extra features may cause more harm than good. Sometimes a simpler, less featured board is better, but reaching such compromises while still fitting all the user's needs can be difficult. In other words, don't be distracted by superfluous features but at the same time, extra features that enable more options to the user is also welcome.


Fortunately for you, there are many users here from your country of Finland (and nearby countries). I'm sure they will be more than happy to help you should you call on their advice.

Hope I have been of help to you.

[Hezu]

ATX board would offer more in terms of expansion but I think (ok, hope) that for server purposes I might only need more SATA ports. Additional network cards seem to use PCI slot and RAID controller cards seem to use PCIe so that scenario would also work.

There are also few PCIe Gigabit Ethernet cards, although these cost bit more (especially the models with multiple ports, but I suppose for most of us that is overkill) and are less widely available than PCI cards. But I suppose PCIe Ethernet card might offer little performance advantage and also save PCI slot(s) for other things since most modern motherboards have more PCIe slots than PCI ones.

[Wibla]

intel pci-e gige cards are cheap enough considering what you get compared to realtek/marvel crap

[smilingcrow]

Gigabyte P45 board + C2D E8400 CPU will use up to ~100W idling on its own. Maybe less or more. Plus 10-15W for one of those low-end graphics cards.

It’s much less than that. I have a Gigabyte EP45-UD3LR with an E8400 (E0) and it idles as low as 56W (I think when C4E is entered!).
It has a Radeon HD 2350 64MB (< $10), Hitachi 1TB 7,200, DVD-RW, Terratec dual tuner DVB-T PCIe card, 4GB DDR2-800 (2x2GB), Seasonic S12 II 500W (80Plus).
If I use a Radeon HD 4670 it jumps to 69W and the DVB-T card uses roughly 6 to 8W at idle so I can hit 50W with the HD 2350 without the DVB-T card.

I also have a Q45 system with an E7300 which idles at 33W. It has a Samsung 1TB HDD 5,400 F2, DVD-RW, 1GB DDR2-800 (1 stick), HP 80Plus P/S.

All voltages are stock as per the BIOS. The VCore at idle as reported by CPU-Z sometimes drops below 0.9V which I think is a feature of C4E.

[ilovejedd]

I also have a Q45 system with an E7300 which idles at 33W. It has a Samsung 1TB HDD 5,400 F2, DVD-RW, 1GB DDR2-800 (1 stick), HP 80Plus P/S.

Wow, that's nettop-level power consumption. Are you sure that's accurate? If so, the Q45 is looking like a very good choice for a low-power motherboard chipset.

Also, what's C4E? I know about C1E but this is the first time I've heard about C4E.

I do agree that 100W is a pretty high estimate. My system is using around that much at idle and it's got quite a few more parts:
Antec P182
Corsair 550VX
Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3R
Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 (stock)
Wintec AMPX 2x2GB DDR2 800
Sapphire Radeon HD4550
3xWestern Digital Caviar SE16 750GB 7200RPM
1xWestern Digital Caviar GP 750GB 5400RPM
1xSamsung Spinpoint F 1TB 7200RPM
1xSeagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5TB 7200RPM
2xSony NEC Optiarc AD7190A

[Shamgar]

smilingcrow: Thanks for your input and for correcting me. As I don't have hands on experience with the Intel P45 platform, I was giving a "safe" estimate for the OP's consideration. I realise it is much lower than the ~100W figure I gave. It is very encouraging to hear that it can idle as low as the 50s W.

[smilingcrow]

I also have a Q45 system with an E7300 which idles at 33W. It has a Samsung 1TB HDD 5,400 F2, DVD-RW, 1GB DDR2-800 (1 stick), HP 80Plus P/S.

Wow, that's nettop-level power consumption. Are you sure that's accurate? If so, the Q45 is looking like a very good choice for a low-power motherboard chipset.

I’m confident that it’s accurate as I’ve measured it multiple times; the figure is helped my the HP power supply being only 240W and 80plus certified
It’s also inline with a review at Tomshardware which shows 36W at idle for a G45, E7200, 4GB RAM, WD 500GB 7,200 RPM, BD-RW. That system uses a 220W 80plus P/S which also helps the power consumption. They tested with a Q9550S (2.83GHz Quad, 12MB cache) which only added 3W at idle.

[smilingcrow]

Also, what's C4E? I know about C1E but this is the first time I've heard about C4E.

Mobile CPUs have had power states lower than C1E for quite a while but it’s taken time for them to migrate to desktop chips.
The problem with C4E is that it isn’t usually entered as at ‘idle’ there are usually too many things actually going on.

Nehalem seemingly has better power management so it’ll be interesting to see how the mainstream parts turn out especially at 32nm and with the GPU on die.

[jessekopelman]

Mobile CPUs have had power states lower than C1E for quite a while but it’s taken time for them to migrate to desktop chips.

I think the bigger issue for states beyond C1E has been BIOS support, not missing features on the chip. Definitely not wrong that they were on mobile first, though.

[smilingcrow]

I think the bigger issue for states beyond C1E has been BIOS support, not missing features on the chip. Definitely not wrong that they were on mobile first, though.

The original 65nm C2D chips (E6600) only supported C1E.
The next generation (E6850) also supported C2E.
C3E and C4E didn’t arrive until the 45nm generation.
You probably also need the correct chipset and VRM to support the lower power states regardless of BIOS support which is the last piece of the chain.

I’m basing the above observation on a quick look at Intel’s Procesfinder which lists a fair amount of detail for each CPU.

[jessekopelman]

I think the bigger issue for states beyond C1E has been BIOS support, not missing features on the chip. Definitely not wrong that they were on mobile first, though.

The original 65nm C2D chips (E6600) only supported C1E.
The next generation (E6850) also supported C2E.
C3E and C4E didn’t arrive until the 45nm generation.
You probably also need the correct chipset and VRM to support the lower power states regardless of BIOS support which is the last piece of the chain.

I’m basing the above observation on a quick look at Intel’s Procesfinder which lists a fair amount of detail for each CPU.

Right. Second Generation C2D came out > 2 years ago -- in IT terms that is a long time ago. What I'm saying is that there were (maybe still are) BIOS that supported such chips without supporting anything beyond C1E. Board vendors are very bad about including such features until customers complain and few people even knew that there were such things as deeper halt states to be missing. Eh, our argument is really just nitpicking. I don't disagree with what you're saying.