Message boards :
Number crunching :
x2 4200 or x2 4400
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
Babyface uk Send message Joined: 28 May 03 Posts: 86 Credit: 1,972,184 RAC: 0 |
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 |
Alinator Send message Joined: 19 Apr 05 Posts: 4178 Credit: 4,647,982 RAC: 0 |
Hi all, 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 |
Babyface uk Send message Joined: 28 May 03 Posts: 86 Credit: 1,972,184 RAC: 0 |
no actual times on Boincstats i'm afraid, anyone else?? ta Babyface UK |
Hammer Send message Joined: 13 Dec 02 Posts: 74 Credit: 1,773,558 RAC: 0 |
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+. |
Alinator Send message Joined: 19 Apr 05 Posts: 4178 Credit: 4,647,982 RAC: 0 |
no actual times on Boincstats i'm afraid, True, but in any event with any of the X2's you're going to be in the "WU Slayer" class of crunchers. :-) Alinator |
Babyface uk Send message Joined: 28 May 03 Posts: 86 Credit: 1,972,184 RAC: 0 |
True :-), just want to know if its worth the extra cash for the cache ( say that after a few pints ) Babyface UK |
Tern Send message Joined: 4 Dec 03 Posts: 1122 Credit: 13,376,822 RAC: 44 |
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...) |
Alinator Send message Joined: 19 Apr 05 Posts: 4178 Credit: 4,647,982 RAC: 0 |
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 |
Babyface uk Send message Joined: 28 May 03 Posts: 86 Credit: 1,972,184 RAC: 0 |
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 |
BorisM Send message Joined: 31 Jul 03 Posts: 14 Credit: 1,888,005 RAC: 0 |
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? |
Tern Send message Joined: 4 Dec 03 Posts: 1122 Credit: 13,376,822 RAC: 44 |
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. |
Babyface uk Send message Joined: 28 May 03 Posts: 86 Credit: 1,972,184 RAC: 0 |
Imho that extra 512kB wont process wu's much faster, or i'm mistaken? 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 |
ai5000 Send message Joined: 1 Jan 01 Posts: 57 Credit: 2,805,412 RAC: 0 |
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 |
Speedy67 & Friends Send message Joined: 14 Jul 99 Posts: 335 Credit: 1,178,138 RAC: 0 |
Hi all, I have a reference listing on my website, but not all processors are listed. Greetings, Sander |
Babyface uk Send message Joined: 28 May 03 Posts: 86 Credit: 1,972,184 RAC: 0 |
Hi all, thanks, found what I wanted, Babyface UK |
biohazard Send message Joined: 4 Sep 03 Posts: 3 Credit: 508,765 RAC: 0 |
Imho that extra 512kB wont process wu's much faster, or i'm mistaken? 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 |
Grant (SSSF) Send message Joined: 19 Aug 99 Posts: 13765 Credit: 208,696,464 RAC: 304 |
I recently bought an Opteron 144, same speed but double cache. 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 |
Pappa Send message Joined: 9 Jan 00 Posts: 2562 Credit: 12,301,681 RAC: 0 |
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, R/ Al Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project. |
++ MTOS.PDN ++ Send message Joined: 13 Dec 03 Posts: 12 Credit: 157,310,544 RAC: 0 |
Imho that extra 512kB wont process wu's much faster, or i'm mistaken? 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 |
Dan the Man Send message Joined: 15 Nov 00 Posts: 28 Credit: 453,086 RAC: 0 |
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 |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.