I'm planning a new server for SBS2011(exchange server) and I was wondering if it is worthwhile to upgrade to an actual server processor/MB/ECC memory.

The server I'm replacing has been running for 4 years on a now dated desktop architecture, and everything has been fine but I'm wondering what things I may be missing out on using a desktop system.

...what? Are you asking how to upgrade a server to run exchange better?

@extomar: I'm building a brand new server and I'm wondering if spending $700 on a 8 core server cpu is worth it over a $300 i7; the clock spends on server CPUs are much lower so I'm not sure if the other benefits of a server cpu are worth it seeing how I'm currently running on a very old AMD desktop cpu.

server cpu's are expensive cause.... companies buy them, and they have company size wallets.

they are usually the cpu's that get the higher binned, that means they are of a higer grade, which does not make them perform better magically, but means they dont need as much voltage to be stable, which mean they run cooler, and also stay alive longer.

you're going to have name that server cpu and the i7 if anyone is going to have a decent chance in telling if it is better than the i7 or not.

Technically "server grade hardware" is way more expensive replace and maintain. You really need to look into the specs of the machine where it may only hold style CPU (although the socket is the same, the profile is different) and requires drivers not found on the normal desktop install of Win7.

Take the money you were going to use to buy whatever CPU you were going to use and buy one for an entirely new desktop. You are basically asking if you can save money on taking your uncle's old 300k mile disel truck instead of buying a new car. You might but you are probably in for more work than you expect along with the tiny fact it is already slipping into obsolescence now or they wouldn't have gotten rid of it.

Just to clarify, cost isn't an issue here, but I'm not interested in throwing money away for no benefit.

I'm currently running Exchange server 2003 it has been fine up till this January, though I'm running a very old 3 core AMD cpu, the issue and why I need to build a new system is because Exchange 2003 is a 32 bit OS so it's limited to 3gb of RAM and that isn't cutting it anymore, So I'm upgrading to Exchange 2010 which can handle the 32gb of RAM I intend to put into it.

Since I'm building a new system now, is it worth while to build a system around a lower end $700 server CPU vs a high end $300 desktop CPU.

If all your running on it is Exchange then I think you should be fine with the desktop CPU, but out of curiosity, how many users are we talking about here?

@tycobb: not very many, 13 right now but I intend to have 20 on the new server.

@kidavenger: Oh crap, that's it? Desktop CPU all the way. Server CPU would just be a waste of money and can now go towards most or half your RAM cost.

@tycobb: Ok thanks, that was kind of what I was thinking, I just have zero experience with server hardware so I wasn't sure if I was missing out on anything.

@kidavenger: Not really. If you were running 50 users I would have leaned more towards the server CPU. But for the most part Exchange just sits there listening for messages and with such a low volume of users and inherently email itself, it will be pretty much idle 90% of the time. Good luck moving mailboxes. I forget if it was a pain to move from 2003 to 2010 or if it was 2003 to 2007 that took forever. Luckily I personally have never had to deal with it.

Yeah, maybe find something cool to do with the rest of that CPU's time.