Dual-core P4 yet?

Ocean Archer
Ocean Archer
Joined: 18 Jan 05
Posts: 92
Credit: 368644
RAC: 0

RE: RE: Was at the

Message 14615 in response to message 14613

Quote:
Quote:
Was at the computer shoppe the other day, drooling over the fancy new motherboards. Saw one that supported four (that's right - 4!!) of the new AMD 64s. Would have taken my entire pension for the next year to buy and populate that monster!!

Just for grins, please give us a shock on how much you’d estimate the price to be??

Thanks
TA

My recollection says the motherboard was over $1100 itself (totally bare)


If I've lived this long - I gotta be that old!

Tom Awtry
Tom Awtry
Joined: 18 Jul 05
Posts: 100
Credit: 520861
RAC: 0

RE: My recollection says

Message 14616 in response to message 14615

Quote:
My recollection says the motherboard was over $1100 itself (totally bare)

How do you say nicely – “Thanks for the Bad News” – That would be one powerful system if configured properly, but Wow, what an expensive piece of power.

Thanks,
TA

Shaktai
Shaktai
Joined: 8 Nov 04
Posts: 183
Credit: 426451
RAC: 0

Okay, now that I have gotten

Okay, now that I have gotten some work units uploaded from my AMD 64 4200+ dual core I can compare it against my Pentium D 840 (No HT). Here are the results.

SETI
AMD 64 4200+ 4089.55 seconds per work unit average per core.
68.16 minutes or 42.25 work units per day with both cores running.

Pentium D 840 3378.40 seconds per work unit average per core.
56.30 minutes or 51.15 work units per day with both cores running.

EINSTEIN
AMD 64 4200+ 20498 seconds or 8.44 work units per day.
Pentium D 840 26513 seconds or 6.52 work units per day.

As you can see, Einstein loves AMD, and SETI loves Intel. Both comparisions are using optimized clients and apps where available.

Richard M
Richard M
Joined: 11 Nov 04
Posts: 78
Credit: 221549401
RAC: 1210867

I just started crunching with

I just started crunching with my new AMD 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4800+ and it seems to turn out results at a steady (+/- 1 minute) 18,450 seconds.

Shaktai
Shaktai
Joined: 8 Nov 04
Posts: 183
Credit: 426451
RAC: 0

RE: I just started

Message 14619 in response to message 14618

Quote:
I just started crunching with my new AMD 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4800+ and it seems to turn out results at a steady (+/- 1 minute) 18,450 seconds.

Richard. Have you tried it on any other projects yet? I would be interested in hearing of your results.

Betting Slip
Betting Slip
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 15
Credit: 308376
RAC: 0

RE: Just fine I Want

Message 14620 in response to message 14605

Quote:
Just fine

I Want One? Droooool

Perle
Perle
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 47
Credit: 1968603912
RAC: 500902

RE: Dual Xeons work fine

Message 14621 in response to message 14606

Quote:
Dual Xeons work fine too ... :)

Quad Xeons work better ! ;]

Now where did put that 8way Xeon box.....hrmmm 8)

cjohnston1158
cjohnston1158
Joined: 22 Jul 05
Posts: 1
Credit: 137033
RAC: 0

RE: Yea, I have a dual

Message 14622 in response to message 14608

Quote:
Yea, I have a dual socket Tyan mobo K8WE with a pair of Opteron 275's. (2.2Ghz) for a total of 4 cpu's. Each cpu does a Einstein wu in 5.5 hrs give or take a few minutes.
http://einsteinathome.org/host/336903/tasks

How much did that set you back?

[B@H] Ray
[B@H] Ray
Joined: 4 Jun 05
Posts: 621
Credit: 49583
RAC: 0

Any one here up to designing

Any one here up to designing and building there owu MB to hold all there CPU's? Even with slower P4's or AMD XP's having ten on one board would save a lot on other hardware. Having a whole farm in one box would be good.

Would still need a 2nd computer for a backup though.


Try the Pizza@Home project, good crunching.

Tern
Tern
Joined: 27 Jul 05
Posts: 309
Credit: 93404816
RAC: 854

RE: Any one here up to

Message 14624 in response to message 14623

Quote:
Any one here up to designing and building there owu MB to hold all there CPU's? Even with slower P4's or AMD XP's having ten on one board would save a lot on other hardware. Having a whole farm in one box would be good.

This is the basic idea behind the "blade servers" and rack servers - rather than one huge MB, there's a backplane that has all the "support" stuff, and "lower-cost" cards holding one or two CPUs each that slide into the backplane. If they weren't so &*%^(* expensive... but for whatever bizarre reason, most brands have hard drives and such on each "blade" and are priced over USD$2K each. Apple at least has a "cluster node" that leaves out everything but what is needed for raw CPU power, but with dual 2.3GHz G5's, it's still $3K - lots less than the $4K for the same rack-mount CPUs _with_ drives, video, etc., but still...

Bottom line is that mass production savings means the cheapest way to go is one or two CPUs per MB, one MB per case... sigh. Whoever it was that said S-100 should have won (Paul?) was right.

What we REALLY need for parallel computing to take off is for some company to build a "blade server" type box where each "blade" has _only_ a CPU, _OR_ RAM, _OR_ hard drives. The chassis would have the fans and the PCI slots and so forth. The customer could either put one CPU and one RAM and 14 hard drives in (for a data server) or one RAM and one hard drive and 14 CPUs in (for a compute server). Any hardware manufacturers listening?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.