Hi all,
Can someone point me in the direction of a processor wu crunching time web site ( if there is such a thing ) as i'm looking to get an amd x2 4200 or 4400 and want to know the difference the extra 512kb cache has on the 4400 for crunch times.

Muchly ta,

Babyface UK

---

Hi all,
Can someone point me in the direction of a processor wu crunching time web site ( if there is such a thing ) as i'm looking to get an amd x2 4200 or 4400 and want to know the difference the extra 512kb cache has on the 4400 for crunch times.

Muchly ta,

Babyface UK

IIRC, as far as SETI is concerned more cache equates to better performance.

You might be able to glean some real time performance data from BoincStats processor stats page.

HTH,

Alinator

no actual times on Boincstats i'm afraid,

anyone else??

ta
Babyface UK

---

I for one would choose between 3800+ X2 and 4400+ X2, if you have the money go with 4400+ because it has more cache, if you don't it would be better to get 3800 X2 because it is the same CPU as 4200+ but on lower clock. That would save you some money, and you can overclock it just the same as 4200+.

---

no actual times on Boincstats i'm afraid,

anyone else??

ta
Babyface UK

True, but in any event with any of the X2's you're going to be in the "WU Slayer" class of crunchers. :-)

Alinator

True, but in any event with any of the X2's you're going to be in the "WU Slayer" class of crunchers. :-)

Alinator

True :-), just want to know if its worth the extra cash for the cache ( say that after a few pints )

Babyface UK

---

True :-), just want to know if its worth the extra cash for the cache ( say that after a few pints )

I looked real hard at the X2 4400 as my "dream choice" when I wound up getting my non-x2 3700 instead (the cheap choice...) and I did _some_ comparison on the 3800/4200/4400's. I agree with Hammer - the 4200 is pointless. If you have the cash, the 4400 is quite a bit better, and if you don't, the 3800 oc'd just a bit is just as good as the 4200, and the money savings can go into better "other" hardware (fast RAM, motherboard, power supply...)

True, but in any event with any of the X2's you're going to be in the "WU Slayer" class of crunchers. :-)

Alinator

True :-), just want to know if its worth the extra cash for the cache ( say that after a few pints )

Babyface UK

LOL.

Hmmm... Did you look at the optomized SETI app sites? I know they have done comparo's between CPU's in the past, but don't know if they have results for the X2's. Maybe some 4200 and 4400 owners will see this and pop in. Rooting through the SETI stats by hand to find the data would be about as much fun as a root canal. :-)

Other than that I guess you'd have to research it from a straight HW point of view to see if the added cost and effort to OC one of the smaller cache X2's to the approach the performance level of the stock 4400 makes sense for you. Whether that results in any cost savings or more bang for the buck is hard to say at this point.

Alinator

True, but in any event with any of the X2's you're going to be in the "WU Slayer" class of crunchers. :-)

Alinator

True :-), just want to know if its worth the extra cash for the cache ( say that after a few pints )

Babyface UK

LOL.

Hmmm... Did you look at the optomized SETI app sites? I know they have done comparo's between CPU's in the past, but don't know if they have results for the X2's. Maybe some 4200 and 4400 owners will see this and pop in. Rooting through the SETI stats by hand to find the data would be about as much fun as a root canal. :-)

Other than that I guess you'd have to research it from a straight HW point of view to see if the added cost and effort to OC one of the smaller cache X2's to the approach the performance level of the stock 4400 makes sense for you. Whether that results in any cost savings or more bang for the buck is hard to say at this point.

Alinator

Can't find much for the x2's on any of the op sites, so if there are any x2 owners out there, please tell me your times.

Ta

Babyface UK

---

i just got my x2 3800+ (2GHz) and i overclocked it to 2.6 (prime95 13hours without errors) and im dooing a wu every 45min/core. Thats with crunch3r's optimized app (sse3). My ram is running at 185MHz (damn new geil ultrax - its rated pc3200 5-2-2-2, but my pc wont even post at 200MHz (1:1) ), so im running it at 185MHz ATM. Ill rma it next week, so im hoping that the new one will do 260 (so, i can run it 1:1) and that should get me 7-10min better times. At least im hoping for 2WU every 35-37min.

So, if you have money, go for that x2 1MB/core ..but you can overclock x2 3800+ easy to 4400 speed. Imho that extra 512kB wont process wu's much faster, or i'm mistaken?

---

Imho that extra 512kB wont process wu's much faster, or i'm mistaken?

I know that the difference between the older AMD64 single-cores (512KB) and the newer ones (1MB) is considerable, which is why I went with a 3700 w/1MB instead of a 3800 w/ 512KB; non-overclocked, the 3700 was already faster on SETI. I think it makes _more_ difference when running the "stock" application, because it comes closer to fitting everything in cache. Crunch3r's app uses more memory for the trig tables, so the on-chip cache is probably less important with it.

Imho that extra 512kB wont process wu's much faster, or i'm mistaken?

I know that the difference between the older AMD64 single-cores (512KB) and the newer ones (1MB) is considerable, which is why I went with a 3700 w/1MB instead of a 3800 w/ 512KB; non-overclocked, the 3700 was already faster on SETI. I think it makes _more_ difference when running the "stock" application, because it comes closer to fitting everything in cache. Crunch3r's app uses more memory for the trig tables, so the on-chip cache is probably less important with it.

you could be right on the cache, my 2 machines with 2mb lvl 2 cache had a much greater decrease in times with Crunch3r's app's than the others with 512kb cache, eg my P4 650 ( 3.4 2mb cache ) does 2 in about 35 min's, but my 3.2 P4c overclocked to 3.4 takes about 50 mins per 2 wu's, but I wanted to get away from the super hot P4's for a bit of quite at home.

Babyface UK

---

I'm averaging just under 45 minutes a wu per core on my X2 4400, also using Crunch3r's optimized app. Running at 2.2 GHz, no overclocking

---

Hi all,
Can someone point me in the direction of a processor wu crunching time web site ( if there is such a thing ) as i'm looking to get an amd x2 4200 or 4400 and want to know the difference the extra 512kb cache has on the 4400 for crunch times.

I have a reference listing on my website, but not all processors are listed.

Greetings,
Sander

---

Hi all,
Can someone point me in the direction of a processor wu crunching time web site ( if there is such a thing ) as i'm looking to get an amd x2 4200 or 4400 and want to know the difference the extra 512kb cache has on the 4400 for crunch times.

I have a reference listing on my website, but not all processors are listed.

Greetings,
Sander

thanks, found what I wanted,
Babyface UK

---

Imho that extra 512kB wont process wu's much faster, or i'm mistaken?

I know that the difference between the older AMD64 single-cores (512KB) and the newer ones (1MB) is considerable, which is why I went with a 3700 w/1MB instead of a 3800 w/ 512KB; non-overclocked, the 3700 was already faster on SETI. I think it makes _more_ difference when running the "stock" application, because it comes closer to fitting everything in cache. Crunch3r's app uses more memory for the trig tables, so the on-chip cache is probably less important with it.

I agree. All of my teammates use the same AMD64 3000+, 512kb cache, even on the same mobo. I recently bought an Opteron 144, same speed but double cache.
And it crunches a little bit slower (~5 min.) with same core speed of
1.8 GHz. Just wondering why...

Dan

---

I recently bought an Opteron 144, same speed but double cache.
And it crunches a little bit slower (~5 min.) with same core speed of
1.8 GHz. Just wondering why...

Socket 939 or 940?
If it is socket 940 it'd be slower due to the the use of registered DIMMs. If it's Socket 939 then it should be at least the same speed.
Run CPUZ to check it's core & FSB speeds.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Evening All

If you have a CPu that is not listed with Marisan's Site that information would help. It is the most complete reference that can be found!

Hi all,
Can someone point me in the direction of a processor wu crunching time web site ( if there is such a thing ) as i'm looking to get an amd x2 4200 or 4400 and want to know the difference the extra 512kb cache has on the 4400 for crunch times.

I have a reference listing on my website, but not all processors are listed.

Greetings,
Sander

thanks, found what I wanted,
Babyface UK

R/

Al

---

Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project.

Imho that extra 512kB wont process wu's much faster, or i'm mistaken?

I know that the difference between the older AMD64 single-cores (512KB) and the newer ones (1MB) is considerable, which is why I went with a 3700 w/1MB instead of a 3800 w/ 512KB; non-overclocked, the 3700 was already faster on SETI. I think it makes _more_ difference when running the "stock" application, because it comes closer to fitting everything in cache. Crunch3r's app uses more memory for the trig tables, so the on-chip cache is probably less important with it.

I agree. All of my teammates use the same AMD64 3000+, 512kb cache, even on the same mobo. I recently bought an Opteron 144, same speed but double cache.
And it crunches a little bit slower (~5 min.) with same core speed of
1.8 GHz. Just wondering why...

Dan

Check Opteron 144
Instruction set => 1. SSE2 or SSE3 ? ( AMD64 3000+ SSE2 & SSE3 )
Memory => DDR ? 266? 333? 400? (My 244 Support DDR-333 Reg But can use DDR-400)

My Opteron 244 limit @ DDR-333 Reg DIMM & SSE2.
Result http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/results.php?hostid=644688&offset=660
Botton neck at 2 CPU @ 1 dual memory channel on Tyan K8W S2875 S.-940

---

Check Opteron 144
Instruction set => 1. SSE2 or SSE3 ? ( AMD64 3000+ SSE2 & SSE3 )
Memory => DDR ? 266? 333? 400? (My 244 Support DDR-333 Reg But can use DDR-400)

My Opteron 244 limit @ DDR-333 Reg DIMM & SSE2.
Result http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/results.php?hostid=644688&offset=660
Botton neck at 2 CPU @ 1 dual memory channel on Tyan K8W S2875 S.-940

Opteron 144, FSB 200 MHz, HTT 1000 MHz, 1800 MHz core speed, SSE2&3, socket 939
512 MB DDR-400 memory non-ECC, not dual channel yet (still need the other ram in other pc) Would dual channel memory be a huge improvement?

AMD64s I'm talking about all have SSE2 and DDR-400 nonECC as well

Happy new year!

Dan

---