Hello, after a recent blackout and subsequent power surge, my newly dedicated seti cruncher is completely dead. I am now considering rebuilding a new core i5 2400 system, but I am also thinking about the i7 2600 or the AMD A8 3870 APU (which would run the Lunatics ATI app).

In terms of pure performance, which of these three would be most productive? I am particularly interested in the A8's performance with the integrated GPU.

Thanks, and remember: USE A UPS!!!

Personally I'd recommend the i5 2500K. The price is very good, it's good on the power bill and the 1 that I have is returning excellent results (I'm glad that I grabbed it instead of going with the latest AMD offerings in fact) at stock but once the cooler weather gets here I'll see how it goes turned up by a 1GHz.

Yes a UPS is excellent insurance investment (I've been using them for over a decade now).

Cheers.

---

In terms of pure performance, which of these three would be most productive?

Well, an i7 costs about as much as an i5 and a GTX 550Ti...

Oh yeah I forgot to mention, I am limited to CPU only as I want to keep it to a mini-itx form factor, so no dedicated GPU and little to no overclocking, just stock settings.

Oh yeah I forgot to mention, I am limited to CPU only as I want to keep it to a mini-itx form factor, so no dedicated GPU and little to no overclocking, just stock settings.

Now that makes a lot of difference so your pick of the i5 2400 is good then.

Cheers.

---

Hmmm okay, yeah my previous 2400 seemed like a speed demon.

So the AMD A8s aren't really worth it then? And what about the i7's, does hyper-threading assist in total throughput? I think it was about 15-20% or something?

Thanks :D

Hmmm okay, yeah my previous 2400 seemed like a speed demon.

So the AMD A8s aren't really worth it then? And what about the i7's, does hyper-threading assist in total throughput? I think it was about 15-20% or something?

Thanks :D

The only reason that I can see anyone going for the A8 in that format is if they want to do a bit of gaming on them.

Cheers.

---

I like my I7 920. I run with HT on. I also run with a little Nvidia GTS 250.

And now that we are getting semi steady work My rac just for this machine is still climbing, Its now over 11,000. I hope I can see what the peak is, assuming we still get work, that is.

---

[/quote]

Old James

I can confirm that AMD's APU are supported with both OpenCL apps.
I'm running C-60 APU-based netbook. RAC still not stable (and take into account that it's netbook and I travel with it so not 24/7). Also, C-60 one of the slowest APU, more powerful should run much better.
Also, I going to do special optimization for APUs (cause their CPU/GPU share same physical memory).
So, if APU price much lower than i7 it could be not so bad investement... but no promises sure ;)

Hmmm okay, yeah my previous 2400 seemed like a speed demon.

And what about the i7's, does hyper-threading assist in total throughput? I think it was about 15-20% or something?

Thanks :D

As for the 2600K I personally can't justify the price/performance but your pockets maybe deeper than mine.

Cheers.[/quote]

---

i have run both intel an amd....amd is cheaper, the amd is closer to the i5....but the amd is cheaper, so you can get a nicer gpu to help out. like gtx 550 ti....8 cores, 550 ti nice set up, and 8 gigs of ram....fast, powerful, more than you need for a couple of years, and cheap to run

:)

intel is nice, but costs more to buy

i have run both intel an amd....amd is cheaper, the amd is closer to the i5....but the amd is cheaper, so you can get a nicer gpu to help out. like gtx 550 ti....8 cores, 550 ti nice set up, and 8 gigs of ram....fast, powerful, more than you need for a couple of years, and cheap to run

:)

intel is nice, but costs more to buy

It is cheaper but that difference will soon disappear in the power bills. :D

Also remember that this is to be a Mini-ITX format setup so it must rely on its own in-built video. ;)

Cheers.

---

Believe me, no AMD is even close to i5-2500K@4500-4700 MHz. Rougly 50 minutes per mid-rage or VLAR WU. You can see mine, 4.65 GHz. Uses around 90 watts fully loaded. 10-13K RAC, CPU alone. Comparable to GTX 460. 2600K is even more "evil" :)

---

10-13K RAC, CPU alone. Comparable to GTX 460.

My i7 GTX460 RAC is around 29,500.
If the GTX460 is producing 13,000, that means the CPU is producing the remainder. I don't think that is the case.
A GTX460 should be good for around 18,000.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Your 460 is clocked to 1630 MHz shaders. And I'm modest about RAC generated by 2500К. Exact calculation is - 30 units per day per core, 4 cores, 100-120 credits per WU. Nets 12-14.5K RAC. RAC of my machine must not be used for calculations, it runs only two CPU cores. With two 460s(which are 7-8 % slower than than your 460, bcs they are 768 MB version, 192-bit bus), similarly clocked, at 1620 shaders + 2 CPU cores = 40K RAC.
And it is not unlikely your CPU to produce 16K on clock similar to mine, while GTX only 13K. I see your CPU time for GPU units is quite high, which means CPU not clocked that high or either you haven't left a core to feed GPU. Or you run two WUs per GPU. I can't comment without details.

---

CPU not clocked that high or either you haven't left a core to feed GPU. Or you run two WUs per GPU. I can't comment without details.

All of the above.
I used the Lunatics installer, set it for 2 WUs per GPU and just let it chugg along.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

http://www.canadacomputers.com/product_info.php?cPath=26_335&item_id=039489

and an 8 core bulldozer, 4 to 8 giggs of ram, and your rocking

:)

Does anyone know precisely how much more productive an i7 2600 (non K) is against say an i5 2500 (non K) for seti?

I keep seeing people say up to 50%, but this sounds too high to me.

Any idea?

Cheers

Anyone? Surely there is a knowledgeable setizen somewhere here :D

Does anyone know precisely how much more productive an i7 2600 (non K) is against say an i5 2500 (non K) for seti?

I keep seeing people say up to 50%, but this sounds too high to me.

The i5 doesn't have HyperThreading, the I7 does.
So the i7 can do twice the number of WUs the i5 can. Running 2 processes on a single core slows those processes down some, but over all the throughput is much higher than if there were only one process running.
The i7 has a larger cache, and it's base & turbo frequencies are 100MHz higher than the i5 (which is stuff all, but it all adds up).
So i'd expect the i7 2600 to put out 60% (or more) WUs than a i5 2500 over the same period of time.

---

Grant
Darwin NT