 |
KWSN Orbiting Fortress
KWSN Distributed Computing Teams forum
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ohiomike
Prince
Joined: 20 May 2007
Posts: 858
Location: Sometimes
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 1:48 pm Post subject: msattler: Good Job! |
 |
|
If looks like you have everything back on-line. Although the 23,xxx RAC is disappointing, can't you crank the voltage up from 240 to 480 and get it over 24,000! 
I've been debating buying a Quad (although I haven't made up my mind on a Q6600 or a dual-quad Xeon yet), you may have talked me into it.
_________________
 
Resident Linux fan and credit ho >My Shrubbers<
Proud member of the "Fry a CPU for breakfast club" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jimmy P
Knight
Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Posts: 30
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 In a few days we will have a new SETI point leader.
 MSATTLER
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lloyd M.
Prince
Joined: 02 Mar 2007
Posts: 521
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 9:52 pm Post subject: Re: msattler: Good Job! |
|
|
| ohiomike wrote: | If looks like you have everything back on-line. Although the 23,xxx RAC is disappointing, can't you crank the voltage up from 240 to 480 and get it over 24,000!
I've been debating buying a Quad (although I haven't made up my mind on a Q6600 or a dual-quad Xeon yet), you may have talked me into it. |
I hear that Xeons won't OC (or maybe it's just Xeon mobos), and Quads do. On another thread , Sir JerWA posted a list of price cuts and new processors (that will be available on the 22nd), and there look to be some pretty good bargains there.
Personally, I run almost all AMD, and I can't deny the distinct performance advantage that C2Ds currently hold.
In any case, I'm really glad that you're on our team! 
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JerWA
Prince
Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Posts: 1497
Location: WA, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The quads aren't overly happy overclocking either, until you get into the "extreme" chips like the QX6700 and new 6800. The difference is in the build quality, material quality, etc, but the price difference is huge. The Q6600 quad core, currently $533, is dropping to $266. The QX6700, currently $968, is dropping to $968. Makes me want to cry. Since I got this computer, my CPU has dropped from $300 to $200 and soon to $100, and the QX6700 has gone UP in price by $12 in that same time.
_________________
 
Stats: [BOINC Synergy] - [Free-DC] - [MundayWeb] - [Netsoft] - [All Project Stats] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lloyd M.
Prince
Joined: 02 Mar 2007
Posts: 521
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JerWA wrote: | | The quads aren't overly happy overclocking either, until you get into the "extreme" chips like the QX6700 and new 6800. The difference is in the build quality, material quality, etc, but the price difference is huge. The Q6600 quad core, currently $533, is dropping to $266. The QX6700, currently $968, is dropping to $968. Makes me want to cry. Since I got this computer, my CPU has dropped from $300 to $200 and soon to $100, and the QX6700 has gone UP in price by $12 in that same time. |
Well, phooey!
My take on this is, unless a Q6700 is actually 3 times faster than the Q6600, then it's not worth it. My guess is that even the Q6600 makes my Opty 170 look like a pocket calculator chip by comparison, anyway.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JerWA
Prince
Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Posts: 1497
Location: WA, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 1:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
No 3x increase, it's just the bleeding edge crowd as usual. You can clock the Q6600 up near 3.0 GHz I've heard without any drama. To go beyond that you'll need outstanding cooling, a good chip, etc. But still, 4 cores @ 3 GHz is amazing. The QX6700 will go much higher though. I've heard that at least one company actually offers them "stock" at 4.2 GHz!
_________________
Stats: [BOINC Synergy] - [Free-DC] - [MundayWeb] - [Netsoft] - [All Project Stats] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lloyd M.
Prince
Joined: 02 Mar 2007
Posts: 521
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 1:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JerWA wrote: | | No 3x increase, it's just the bleeding edge crowd as usual. You can clock the Q6600 up near 3.0 GHz I've heard without any drama. To go beyond that you'll need outstanding cooling, a good chip, etc. But still, 4 cores @ 3 GHz is amazing. The QX6700 will go much higher though. I've heard that at least one company actually offers them "stock" at 4.2 GHz! |
That's kind of what I figured. And the very reason I don't play out at the bleeding edge. Of course, we AMD guys have our own version of the same thing, though I don't know how soon we'll be able to catch up on the raw speed/power aspect.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JerWA
Prince
Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Posts: 1497
Location: WA, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 2:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, right now AMD has no counter for the QX6700/6800. The closest you can get is the QuadFX setup, and it gets hammered in every benchmark except memory throughput, and consumes a stupid amount of power in the process. When the 4-core AMD comes out maybe that will change (it better have lower power consumption or you'll need a 1kW PSU!), but the Intel dual 4 cores won't be long behind:
http://www.hothardware.com/News/8Core_Intel_Xeon_V8_Test_Rig__Sneak_Peek/
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/521/1/
The benchmarks in the 2nd one show how monstrous the v8 setup is, and it's underclocked (from 3.33 to 3.0) for that bench. The QX6800 I mention decimates the QuadFX74 by a pretty big margin, with much lower power consumption, but sure as heck isn't cheap ($1199). Here's a really in-depth look at the current AMD stuff vs the QX6800. http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2007q2/core2-qx6800/index.x?pg=1
From what that legitreviews article states, the 4 core AMD chip (not the QuadFX, but the chips that turns it into an 8 core setup) is well behind the Penryn "v8" setup, even underclocked. Doesn't bode well for AMD. I hope they pull a rabbit out of their hat though, I'd hate to see AMD become the next Mac.
_________________
Stats: [BOINC Synergy] - [Free-DC] - [MundayWeb] - [Netsoft] - [All Project Stats] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bpowe
KWSN ArchBishop
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 742
Location: San Angelo, Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have been shopping for a new c2d for myself - just got one for the spousal unit. But then I found this one:
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=04&kc=6W300&l=en&oc=bdcwyfz&s=bsd
If you select a Q6600 cpu and then select "I'll choose a 27" flat screen" under the monitor option, then don't pick the 27"  you can put it in your basket for $649!
I think this deal will only last until Aug 1, so if you want a c2d quad, don't delay!
bp
_________________
You can't leave footprints in the Sands of Time while sitting on your butt and who wants to leave Buttprints  in the Sands of Time? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JerWA
Prince
Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Posts: 1497
Location: WA, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not going near another Dell, thanks. The last thing I need is another unreliable locked-clock system that's down twice a month.
_________________
Stats: [BOINC Synergy] - [Free-DC] - [MundayWeb] - [Netsoft] - [All Project Stats] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lloyd M.
Prince
Joined: 02 Mar 2007
Posts: 521
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JerWA wrote: | | From what that legitreviews article states, the 4 core AMD chip (not the QuadFX, but the chips that turns it into an 8 core setup) is well behind the Penryn "v8" setup, even underclocked. Doesn't bode well for AMD. I hope they pull a rabbit out of their hat though, I'd hate to see AMD become the next Mac. |
Not much danger of that. AMD seems to be able to compete on price, at least most of the time. And their newer designs seem to be leading the way in power consumption.
I did find a review of an Opty 285 vs an Opty 2218 vs a comparable Woodcrest (same case, cooling, drives, etc). The Woodcrest was faster, though not "blow your doors off" faster (at least for the most part). The 285 had lower power consumption, and the the 2218 lower yet. Their benchmarks were more business-oriented (databases, etc.), and this makes sense sense these are technically server processors.
I think it's fair to say that Intel is still beating AMD in terms of raw performance. I don't expect this state of affairs to last forever, though it may be a while before AMD can catch up in that department. On the other hand, they're supposed to be releasing the "K8L" (whatever that is) later this year. I guess we'll all have to wait and see.
Companies really are starting to look at power consumption and heat generation, as they jam more computing power into the same space with blade servers and the like. I think AMD has the edge here (in fact, the 2218 actually beat the Woodcrest in one benchmark, with power saving features turned on), and will probably continue to have it for a while.
Interestingly enough, the reviewer concluded that it might actually be the RAM that is causing the Woodcrest setup to use more power
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JerWA
Prince
Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Posts: 1497
Location: WA, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's interesting, all of the testing I've seen shows a power advantage on Intels side. I guess it depends on what you're using it for. In my mind, max load is all I care about, and the Core 2s trash all commers in this area thus far. Idle consumption has always been better on the AMDs, but what do I care about that? I BOINC, idle is for sissies hehe.
I've also not looked at any server processors. The Penryn aren't server procs either, at least not dedicated, those are Xeons. The Penryn family will encompass the whole range, desktop, mobile, and server. And Penryn, being smaller architecture (45nm), drops power consumption yet again, while increasing performance. That said, I have no idea where things fall in the server market. I'm not in it. <shrug>
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38566
Old news, but an interesting (and amusing) read.
_________________
Stats: [BOINC Synergy] - [Free-DC] - [MundayWeb] - [Netsoft] - [All Project Stats] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lloyd M.
Prince
Joined: 02 Mar 2007
Posts: 521
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JerWA wrote: |
Old news, but an interesting (and amusing) read. |
I'll have a look at that when I get a chance. In the meanwhile, you might find that article I linked interesting. I'm pretty sure that both AMD processors thrashed the Woodcrest right across the board in power consumption.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JerWA
Prince
Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Posts: 1497
Location: WA, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lloyd M. wrote: | | JerWA wrote: |
Old news, but an interesting (and amusing) read. |
I'll have a look at that when I get a chance. In the meanwhile, you might find that article I linked interesting. I'm pretty sure that both AMD processors thrashed the Woodcrest right across the board in power consumption. |
Actually that article says exactly what I was saying. http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2892&p=7
Between 80 and 100% usage, the Woodcrest suddenly jumps into the lead by a >10% margin. Below that, AMD rules hehe.
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2892&p=11
I'm not sure what this test involved, but the results were much closer both ways.
The point is valid, that servers are rarely running on the raged edge for long before someone upgrades, but that's not the market I follow. I was briefly dabbling with the idea of a Xeon box for awhile but the price is prohibitive.
_________________
Stats: [BOINC Synergy] - [Free-DC] - [MundayWeb] - [Netsoft] - [All Project Stats] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lloyd M.
Prince
Joined: 02 Mar 2007
Posts: 521
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JerWA wrote: |
Actually that article says exactly what I was saying. |
Okie dokie.
What the heck to I know?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JerWA
Prince
Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Posts: 1497
Location: WA, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You know that under most circumstances the AMD boxes are doing better. I think Penryn is out to take that away from them too, with preliminary tests showing Intels numbers to be very conservative. I guess we'll see.
Anywho, my point was just that, with BOINC, idle consumption is pretty irrelevant, because your idle time should be zero. Likewise, you should never be below 100%, and above 80% the Intel server setup consumes less power. In the real world, i.e. servers not built just to BOINC, it's much more likely the AMD setup would actually be more effecient.
_________________
Stats: [BOINC Synergy] - [Free-DC] - [MundayWeb] - [Netsoft] - [All Project Stats] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lloyd M.
Prince
Joined: 02 Mar 2007
Posts: 521
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JerWA wrote: |
Anywho, my point was just that, with BOINC, idle consumption is pretty irrelevant, because your idle time should be zero. Likewise, you should never be below 100%, and above 80% the Intel server setup consumes less power. In the real world, i.e. servers not built just to BOINC, it's much more likely the AMD setup would actually be more efficient. |
Like you said, we'll see. Some of the benchmarks look pretty impressive on the AMD, though that seems to be in the server end of the spectrum. Who knows what that will translate to in CPUs that you and I would be likely to buy.
The 6550, et al look like a good deal, though I haven't found a mobo with a fast enough FSB, at the kind of price I would like to pay.
In the meanwhile, I just can't believe that AMD is taking this lying down. I go back to the time when everyone (myself included) thought that the near-3 gHz Pentium 4s were all that, and AMD came along and just blew them out of the water.
In the meanwhile, I thought that AMD chips had the price and performance leads. Now, price/performance is debateable, and performance is just plain a done deal for the time being, with Intel beating the stuffing our of AMD.
The thing is, I can get a very nice NVIDIA-chipset mobo for any socket AM2 available, and at a price I'm willing to pay.
While one can hardly argue with the performance-increase-through-jacking-up-the-FSB strategy (yes, I know there's a lot more to it than that, and the FSB issue has the most impact), it does make it annoying for a bargain shopper like me. AMD is selling factory overclocked 5200+ chips which will (as far as I know) run on any AM2 socket mobo ever made, which is more my speed (pun intended)
BTW, they don't include a HSF with those special edition CPU's, which is probably just as well, because their intended market would likely just toss it or sell it on ebay anyway.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
