Hi, been looking around, wanting to see what sort of setups peeps out there have and how they fare. Thinking of going for something with much more than 4 processors.
Currently using a 3 gig HT P4, and 2 laptops for the moment.....

---

Hi, been looking around, wanting to see what sort of setups peeps out there have and how they fare. Thinking of going for something with much more than 4 processors.
Currently using a 3 gig HT P4, and 2 laptops for the moment.....

Look at the top cop computers on the Stats page.

But, and it is only my perception, I think the core 2 quads are probably the best way at the moment. But Xeons built on same technology might be ok.

Andy

Hi, been looking around, wanting to see what sort of setups peeps out there have and how they fare. Thinking of going for something with much more than 4 processors.
Currently using a 3 gig HT P4, and 2 laptops for the moment.....

Look at the top cop computers on the Stats page.

But, and it is only my perception, I think the core 2 quads are probably the best way at the moment. But Xeons built on same technology might be ok.

Andy

This information is possibly correct. I base this on to premises -- the first, is that the Intel Mac Pro makes use of dual Xeons dual core 51xx processors. The main processors run at 2.67GHz (5150) and 3.0GHz (5160). These are dominating the top 20 top computers. The second point is the recent release of Quad core Xeons (Intel Xeons 53xx), of which you could have a dual CPU Xeons rig with each CPU having for cores (an 8 way system).

That would crunch some SETI WUs, that may run into bandwidth problems. Also, it may give you some pointers on the Intel processor bases of the top computers. However, AMD with their quad core Optrons are still in the game.

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

This information is possibly correct. I base this on to premises -- the first, is that the Intel Mac Pro makes use of dual Xeons dual core 51xx processors. The main processors run at 2.67GHz (5150) and 3.0GHz (5160). These are dominating the top 20 top computers. The second point is the recent release of Quad core Xeons (Intel Xeons 53xx), of which you could have a dual CPU Xeons rig with each CPU having for cores (an 8 way system).

That would crunch some SETI WUs, that may run into bandwidth problems. Also, it may give you some pointers on the Intel processor bases of the top computers. However, AMD with their quad core Optrons are still in the game.

Please come and visit this thread, where I'm trying to test out the differences between Xeon Quads and Core 2 Duos for Seti. So far, the Core 2s seem to be winning dollar-for-dollar, but I'm looking for advice and suggestions on how best to tune up the Xeon testbed.

This information is possibly correct. I base this on to premises -- the first, is that the Intel Mac Pro makes use of dual Xeons dual core 51xx processors. The main processors run at 2.67GHz (5150) and 3.0GHz (5160). These are dominating the top 20 top computers. The second point is the recent release of Quad core Xeons (Intel Xeons 53xx), of which you could have a dual CPU Xeons rig with each CPU having for cores (an 8 way system).

Over on AnandTech, they took a stock Mac Pro, and were able to swap the 51XX with 53XX. No OS or FW change needed. And with alexkan's app, I think Macs will stay at the top, even with similar HW on the Windows or Linux side.

That would crunch some SETI WUs, that may run into bandwidth problems. Also, it may give you some pointers on the Intel processor bases of the top computers. However, AMD with their quad core Optrons are still in the game.

Per AMD, "AMD expects to begin shipping native Quad-Core AMD Opteron processors that incorporate four processor cores on a single die of silicon to customers in mid-2007. The first AMD quad-core processor line-up introduced will be for the two- to eight-socket server and workstation market. " So you have some waiting to do if you want to go the opteron route.

---

Dublin, California
Team: SETI.USA

Over on AnandTech, they took a stock Mac Pro, and were able to swap the 51XX with 53XX. No OS or FW change needed. And with alexkan's app, I think Macs will stay at the top, even with similar HW on the Windows or Linux side.

I guess if the Mac Pros are using Xeon 51xx or 53xx series and FB-DIMMs, there goes the theory in Richard's other post that the RAM is keeping the Xeons from performing as well as the Core 2 Quads.

It is true that FB-DIMMs (and ECC DIMMs in general) will produce extra latency, it just goes to show that higher speed RAM is more important than lower latency RAM (if the Xeons use dual channel, interlaced DDR2-667).

---

Over on AnandTech, they took a stock Mac Pro, and were able to swap the 51XX with 53XX. No OS or FW change needed. And with alexkan's app, I think Macs will stay at the top, even with similar HW on the Windows or Linux side.

I guess if the Mac Pros are using Xeon 51xx or 53xx series and FB-DIMMs, there goes the theory in Richard's other post that the RAM is keeping the Xeons from performing as well as the Core 2 Quads.

It is true that FB-DIMMs (and ECC DIMMs in general) will produce extra latency, it just goes to show that higher speed RAM is more important than lower latency RAM (if the Xeons use dual channel, interlaced DDR2-667).

The top Mac Pros all have 2GB RAM, and looking at the Apple Store, that usually seems to be configured as 4 x 512MB. I've got 2 x 1GB, but otherwise the specs seem to be identical.

I suspect I may be ensnared into doing some RAM shopping before testing is over... :-(

Edit - I suppose a cheap way of testing that theory would be to throttle back the CPU count for a while, and see if the timings were different running say 4 at once. It would cut down on bus contention, at the very least.

Over on AnandTech, they took a stock Mac Pro, and were able to swap the 51XX with 53XX. No OS or FW change needed. And with alexkan's app, I think Macs will stay at the top, even with similar HW on the Windows or Linux side.

I guess if the Mac Pros are using Xeon 51xx or 53xx series and FB-DIMMs, there goes the theory in Richard's other post that the RAM is keeping the Xeons from performing as well as the Core 2 Quads.

It is true that FB-DIMMs (and ECC DIMMs in general) will produce extra latency, it just goes to show that higher speed RAM is more important than lower latency RAM (if the Xeons use dual channel, interlaced DDR2-667).

The top Mac Pros all have 2GB RAM, and looking at the Apple Store, that usually seems to be configured as 4 x 512MB. I've got 2 x 1GB, but otherwise the specs seem to be identical.

I suspect I may be ensnared into doing some RAM shopping before testing is over... :-(

Edit - I suppose a cheap way of testing that theory would be to throttle back the CPU count for a while, and see if the timings were different running say 4 at once. It would cut down on bus contention, at the very least.

I think when use all 4 DIMMs you will get four channels system. Maybe for Macs is different, but serverboards for i386 Xeons gets 4 channels from FBDIMMs.

PS. Richard Haselgrove, I see that you use E5320 for crunching. If you want to overclock these nicest CPU-s may try this 5xxx Xeons overclocking

---

I think when use all 4 DIMMs you will get four channels system. Maybe for Macs is different, but serverboards for i386 Xeons gets 4 channels from FBDIMMs.

PS. Richard Haselgrove, I see that you use E5320 for crunching. If you want to overclock these nicest CPU-s may try this 5xxx Xeons overclocking

Just a correction to prevent misinformation, but it isn't actually four channel or quad channel memory. It is actually dual channel, interleaved memory, using two dual channels. This is not the same thing as four channel or quad channel memory.

It would be like RAID Striping two hard drives, then RAID Striping two other hard drives, then interleaving the two RAID Stripes for best performance.

---

I think when use all 4 DIMMs you will get four channels system. Maybe for Macs is different, but serverboards for i386 Xeons gets 4 channels from FBDIMMs.

PS. Richard Haselgrove, I see that you use E5320 for crunching. If you want to overclock these nicest CPU-s may try this 5xxx Xeons overclocking

Just a correction to prevent misinformation, but it isn't actually four channel or quad channel memory. It is actually dual channel, interleaved memory, using two dual channels. This is not the same thing as four channel or quad channel memory.

It would be like RAID Striping two hard drives, then RAID Striping two other hard drives, then interleaving the two RAID Stripes for best performance.

Ooh, I see, is this what Supermicro naming "Memory Mirroring"?

---

Ooh, I see, is this what Supermicro naming "Memory Mirroring"?

No, memory mirroring is exactly what it sounds like from the RAID world. It halves your available memory (if you have 4GB, it will only show 2GB) and all RAM is mirrored to a second stick or set. This provides greater fault tolerance for servers with RAM chips that can go bad (ECC can correct single bit errors, but will still give messages with double bit errors). If the RAM in one set goes bad, you can use the other set with minimal downtime, just like a RAID 1 array.


Supermicro lists the dual channel, interleave option in their BIOS simply as "interleaved". Set it to this for best performance when using 4 RAM modules.

---

hmmm, sounds all good advice so far.
general plan is to hit some of the auction websites for parts as the final machine I'm looking for would typically be much too expensive to obtain new! Have seen a few 4 * quad core servers out there, unfortunately timing was off with fending off the hoarde of moths in my wallet when trying to find some money, lol
Unfortunately no further as whether to go for intel or amd, usually stick to intel, but looks like I may end up with a server so may aswel try something new

---

Righty, am holding off in the processor thing the now. found a PCI version of a hard drive that speeds everything up a treat. will see what diff that makes when it arrives through the week, then push on with the botty kicking machine.

anyone got any further suggestions of ways to kill delay time??

---

sorry, weird type, is a ram drive card. anyone out there got any interesting bits that may be relevant to my quest for an insanely fast multiprocessing/processor system??

---

any one know how many CPUs Windows Media Center supports?

---

any one know how many CPUs Windows Media Center supports?

XP bases it on sockets. XP home is one socket, regardless of number of cores. XP Pro is two sockets, regardless of the number of cores. I have no idea about XP MC.

---

Dublin, California
Team: SETI.USA

any one know how many CPUs Windows Media Center supports?

When I asked in Vista and multiple processors. I got this reply from OzzFan

Andy

any one know how many CPUs Windows Media Center supports?

When I asked in Vista and multiple processors. I got this reply from OzzFan

Andy

I have read that XP MCE is the same as XP Pro - it supports 2 SOCKETS. So if you have 2 x 4 core CPUs, it is supposed to support all 8 cores.

Er - hold on a moment, here.

Quoting from Microsoft's FAQs (about half way down the page):

"Can I connect a new PC running Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 to a work network or domain?
While you can access network resources on a work network or a domain, you cannot join a Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 PC to the domain. PCs running Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 are designed specifically for home use. Windows XP Professional features, specifically Domain Join and Cached Credentials (Credentials Manager for logons) are not included. As a result, you will be prompted for your logon user name and password to access network resources after you reboot or log back on to the PC. In addition, file shares or network resources that are set to require a domain-joined PC for access will not be available. Remote Desktop and Encrypting File System support are still included."

So unless tombew can provide an accredited source for his information, I wouldn't spend any money just yet....

I'll keep looking for a better answer.

I'm also getting this Vista upgrade path info:

Windows XP Home Edition --> Windows Vista Home Basic
Windows XP Media Centre Edition 2005 --> Windows Vista Home Premium
Windows XP Professional --> Windows Vista Business
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition--> Windows Vista Business x64

(source: Dell)

which again puts MCE in the 'Home' camp.