System upgrade


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : System upgrade

1 · 2 · Next
Author Message
Fullsus
Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 08
Posts: 19
Credit: 538,775
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1385222 - Posted: 27 Jun 2013, 21:15:57 UTC
Last modified: 27 Jun 2013, 21:28:13 UTC

I've decided to upgrade my cruncher over the next couple of months. At the moment I have an AMD Athlon 2x 4600+ which is struggling to complete some of the bigger WU from SETI, CERN and others.
I always tended to buy AMD kit but they really do look to be a good bit behind intel at the moment so would be looking to build an i7 system using a 2011 socket CPU.
I Have a GeForce GTx 650 ti and might add a second card down the line.
I'm trying to work out whether a 4 core Like the 3820 would be more than ample power for my needs or should I wait to pick up a 6 core CPU like a 3930. My system isn't churning 24/7 hence why I struggle to finish some WUs. Lol

Any thoughts would be welcome.

Cheers
Fullsus

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13704
Credit: 31,700,095
RAC: 12,485
United States
Message 1385225 - Posted: 27 Jun 2013, 21:34:10 UTC - in response to Message 1385222.

I always tended to buy AMD kit but they really do look to be a good bit behind intel at the moment so would be looking to build an i7 system using a 2011 socket CPU.


The only thing the Socket 2011 platform gives you is tremendous memory bandwidth (quad-channel). If you are not memory-bandwidth constrained, you might want to consider a Socket 1150 for the latest 4th generation Core iN architecture.

I'm trying to work out whether a 4 core Like the 3820 would be more than ample power for my needs or should I wait to pick up a 6 core CPU like a 3930. My system isn't churning 24/7 hence why I struggle to finish some WUs. Lol


If you're struggling to complete work due to lack of uptime, having two extra cores will not help achieve deadlines better. It will simply give you more work to do to fulfill all cores.

It is also important to note that the 3xxx series Socket 2011 chips are not actually third-generation Core i7s (Ivy Bridge), but rather a modified second-generation (Sandy Bridge-E).

You would likely do yourself a favor and go with the current 4th generation Core i5 or i7 using the Socket 1150 platform and getting a motherboard with 2 PCIe x16 slots.

OzzFan

jravin
Send message
Joined: 25 Mar 02
Posts: 991
Credit: 106,242,003
RAC: 85,739
United States
Message 1385226 - Posted: 27 Jun 2013, 21:36:26 UTC - in response to Message 1385222.

I would ask you, what are your "needs"? I'm running an i7-3820 with HT on, and the 8 threads seem happy. The 6-core 3930 would (I assume it is HT) run 12 threads. What is the relative cost of the 2 CPUs? Does it matter to you?
____________

Profile HAL9000
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 99
Posts: 4664
Credit: 123,491,242
RAC: 99,506
United States
Message 1385227 - Posted: 27 Jun 2013, 21:37:51 UTC

If you are concerned about completion times. Then the quad core with the higher clock rate would probably be the better way to go.

The Ivy Bridge-E chips are suppose to be released in September. Which will use the same 2011 socket as the Sandy Bridge-E you are checking out now.
____________
SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours

Join the BP6/VP6 User Group today!

Fullsus
Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 08
Posts: 19
Credit: 538,775
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1385233 - Posted: 27 Jun 2013, 22:05:18 UTC

Cheers for the guys..

I don't use anything that is memory intensive. My thinking behind buying socket 2011 was that it a more likely upgrade path down the line..
Does ivy bridge e look like a better option when it comes around?

I've had 2 cores for long enough so an so 8 or 12 is huge difference.. Just trying to maximise my SETI rig whilst I have some spare cash.

An extra 4 cores in ht at the speed of an i7 might just be worth it
____________

Ianab
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 11 Jun 08
Posts: 678
Credit: 12,768,083
RAC: 1,958
New Zealand
Message 1385235 - Posted: 27 Jun 2013, 22:14:27 UTC - in response to Message 1385227.

More Cores isn't going to solve your issues, although any modern CPU will get through SETI work as long as it's running for maybe an hour a day? So any new CPU is going to work better than what you have now.

Heck even an I3 with HT turned off will run two tasks as well, or possibly faster, than an I5 or I7. Just the higher spec chips will run more tasks concurrently.

It seems a bit excessive to spend hundreds of $$ on a high end CPU, that's only going to run for a few hours a day? Unless you have other needs for the computing power.

In that case a cheapo CPU and a better graphics card will give you more bang for the buck anyway.

A 6 core I7 will be just as obsolete in 5 years as a 2 core I3 that only cost you 25% of the $$.

Ian

Fullsus
Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 08
Posts: 19
Credit: 538,775
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1385237 - Posted: 27 Jun 2013, 22:28:23 UTC

I play about with my website so have adobe CS3.. So some graphics work and more and likely video editing down the line.. Apart from that I intend to play the odd game like assassins creed. But I'm not a big gamer.

Cheers again.
____________

Profile Wiggo
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 8564
Credit: 99,205,421
RAC: 51,775
Australia
Message 1385239 - Posted: 27 Jun 2013, 22:40:06 UTC - in response to Message 1385237.

An i5 or i7 K series CPU on a socket 1150/1155 platform would be a better solution for you and the money saved there, over a socket 2011 platform, is your other video card. ;-)

Cheers.

Fullsus
Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 08
Posts: 19
Credit: 538,775
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1385243 - Posted: 27 Jun 2013, 22:54:21 UTC - in response to Message 1385239.
Last modified: 27 Jun 2013, 23:07:36 UTC

Good point about using the savings for another graphics card.

So maybe the 3770 or a 4770 then?
____________

Profile Wiggo
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 8564
Credit: 99,205,421
RAC: 51,775
Australia
Message 1385248 - Posted: 27 Jun 2013, 23:14:02 UTC - in response to Message 1385243.

Good point about using the savings for another graphics card.

So maybe the 3770 or a 4770 then?

Either 1 will just blow your old rig away, but other than the later having a better video core there really isn't all that much performance wise between them though there are savings to be had again going with the 1st.

Cheers.

spitfire_mk_2
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 14 Apr 00
Posts: 463
Credit: 13,190,156
RAC: 5,411
United States
Message 1385251 - Posted: 27 Jun 2013, 23:33:13 UTC - in response to Message 1385243.
Last modified: 27 Jun 2013, 23:36:21 UTC

never mind.
____________

Profile HAL9000
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 99
Posts: 4664
Credit: 123,491,242
RAC: 99,506
United States
Message 1385253 - Posted: 27 Jun 2013, 23:40:16 UTC - in response to Message 1385243.

Good point about using the savings for another graphics card.

So maybe the 3770 or a 4770 then?

Personally I am looking at replacing my C2D E8400 with an i5-4670. In comparing the choices the extra $100 isn't worth it to me for HT, +2MB of cache, & +100MHz on the 4770K. I feel like the 4670 is a better "bang for the buck".
____________
SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours

Join the BP6/VP6 User Group today!

Profile arkaynProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 14 May 99
Posts: 3745
Credit: 48,777,915
RAC: 1,076
United States
Message 1385255 - Posted: 27 Jun 2013, 23:42:37 UTC - in response to Message 1385253.

Good point about using the savings for another graphics card.

So maybe the 3770 or a 4770 then?

Personally I am looking at replacing my C2D E8400 with an i5-4670. In comparing the choices the extra $100 isn't worth it to me for HT, +2MB of cache, & +100MHz on the 4770K. I feel like the 4670 is a better "bang for the buck".


I am looking at the 4430, just as much bang for the buck and I really only need it to drive the video cards and play games.
____________

Profile HAL9000
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 99
Posts: 4664
Credit: 123,491,242
RAC: 99,506
United States
Message 1385258 - Posted: 27 Jun 2013, 23:53:53 UTC - in response to Message 1385255.

Good point about using the savings for another graphics card.

So maybe the 3770 or a 4770 then?

Personally I am looking at replacing my C2D E8400 with an i5-4670. In comparing the choices the extra $100 isn't worth it to me for HT, +2MB of cache, & +100MHz on the 4770K. I feel like the 4670 is a better "bang for the buck".


I am looking at the 4430, just as much bang for the buck and I really only need it to drive the video cards and play games.

I had the 4430, 4570, & 4670 in my sights at first, but the 4570 is only $5 more in the shops. With the 4670 $25 over the 4570 it is a tougher choice. Honestly they are all good choices.
____________
SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours

Join the BP6/VP6 User Group today!

Fullsus
Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 08
Posts: 19
Credit: 538,775
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1385572 - Posted: 28 Jun 2013, 21:57:49 UTC

Yea the I5 certainly has become very powerful. I have a 4 core Xeon X3430 in another system and even the i5 4570 is probably at least twice as powerful as that. I love progress

Just think how much more an i7 would give me... MOOORRRE POOOWWWEEER!!!!! as the say. ;-)

cheers,

Steven
____________

Profile HAL9000
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 99
Posts: 4664
Credit: 123,491,242
RAC: 99,506
United States
Message 1385583 - Posted: 28 Jun 2013, 22:36:44 UTC - in response to Message 1385572.

Yea the I5 certainly has become very powerful. I have a 4 core Xeon X3430 in another system and even the i5 4570 is probably at least twice as powerful as that. I love progress

Just think how much more an i7 would give me... MOOORRRE POOOWWWEEER!!!!! as the say. ;-)

cheers,

Steven

The i7 does give a bit more. For some the extra expense is worth it.
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/436/Intel_Core_i5_i5-4670_vs_Intel_Core_i7_i7-4770.html
It just comes down to what you want. With loading up a GPU the HT might serve a bit better. As it is often suggested to leave a core free to feed the GPU.
____________
SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours

Join the BP6/VP6 User Group today!

zoom314Project donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 47128
Credit: 37,070,998
RAC: 4,104
United States
Message 1385599 - Posted: 29 Jun 2013, 0:15:44 UTC - in response to Message 1385227.
Last modified: 29 Jun 2013, 0:16:43 UTC

If you are concerned about completion times. Then the quad core with the higher clock rate would probably be the better way to go.

The Ivy Bridge-E chips are suppose to be released in September. Which will use the same 2011 socket as the Sandy Bridge-E you are checking out now.

That means a new X99 motherboard and DDR4 memory, since Intel said the new cpus won't work on older x79 motherboards, should be interesting what the motherboard designers decide what to do though. Also from Ivy Bridge up Intel has been using cheap heatsink compound in between the IHS and the cpu die instead of solder like in Sandy Bridge and before, so the cpus run hotter as a result, this can be fixed, but the fix is up on youtube and requires a box knife and steady hands, plus better heatsink compound. Oh and this fix voids the cpu warranty.
____________
My Facebook, War Commander, 2015

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13704
Credit: 31,700,095
RAC: 12,485
United States
Message 1385604 - Posted: 29 Jun 2013, 0:35:42 UTC - in response to Message 1385599.

If you are concerned about completion times. Then the quad core with the higher clock rate would probably be the better way to go.

The Ivy Bridge-E chips are suppose to be released in September. Which will use the same 2011 socket as the Sandy Bridge-E you are checking out now.

That means a new X99 motherboard and DDR4 memory, since Intel said the new cpus won't work on older x79 motherboards, should be interesting what the motherboard designers decide what to do though.


Actually, all signs point to the Ivy Bridge-E chips as being compatible with the current generation Socket 2011 - but the chips are only expected to be about 5-10% faster over Sandy Bridge-E chips.

There may be a newer Socket 2011 chipset to support a full range of SATA 6Gbps ports as well as native USB 3.0, but that remains to be seen.

JB
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 21 Jul 09
Posts: 46
Credit: 7,891,307
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 1385669 - Posted: 29 Jun 2013, 4:22:26 UTC
Last modified: 29 Jun 2013, 4:28:15 UTC

I guess you should wait with a new 1150- board until INTEL fixed the usb3.0 bug.

Grant (SSSF)
Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 5942
Credit: 62,343,094
RAC: 37,625
Australia
Message 1385694 - Posted: 29 Jun 2013, 5:26:11 UTC - in response to Message 1385669.

I guess you should wait with a new 1150- board until INTEL fixed the usb3.0 bug.

If your system never enters the S3 sleep state just as a request for data from a device connected to a USB3 port is made, it wouldn't be an issue.
____________
Grant
Darwin NT.

1 · 2 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : System upgrade

Copyright © 2014 University of California