I'm getting ready to build a new cruncher, and I have decided to go dual core. Now, I'm trying to decide between the Pentium D and the X2, or even comparable Opteron. I am concerned only with pure crunching production, not performance-per-watt, etc... My initial observations are that the Pentium Ds are outperforming similar offerings from AMD. At least, when using optimized seti apps. Is this correct? If so, is it because the optimizations are done using Intel compilers?

For comparison sake, would all you dual core guys post your crunch times when using Crunch3r's optimized app?

---

Seti likes large L2 cache memory and intels in preference to AMD's but between Pent D and X2 not much in it, but different projects like different cpu/os config's. Einstein likes Mac G5/OS X, and AMD seems to be better than Intel. CPND likes lots of memory.

So depends on where you want to be. Wopuld suggest that you also consider performance of mobo and memory, can make a big difference.

---

My Pentium D is here if you wish to look. It's running at stock 3.0GHZ and using DDR2-800 memory modules, 2 gigs. My main cruncher using Crunch3r's Seti application and Trux's Boinc module. Works great!

Hope this helps.

---

Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....

So studying the workunits crunched by Geek's computer I can see that he does about 68 or 69 per day, not counting any short bad-RFI units. That's a typical number of "normal" units he's crunching per day (rate) using about 42 minutes for two units.

---

So studying the workunits crunched by Geek's computer I can see that he does about 68 or 69 per day, not counting any short bad-RFI units. That's a typical number of "normal" units he's crunching per day (rate) using about 42 minutes for two units.

Actually, he's doing two units every ~25 minutes. Trux's Calibrating Client changes the reported crunch time like so:

<core_client_version>5.3.12.tx37</core_client_version>
<real_cpu_time>1517</real_cpu_time>
<corrected_cpu_time>2553</corrected_cpu_time>
<corrected_Mfpops>17483.1</corrected_Mfpops>

~115 units a day ain't bad.


kev

---

kev

X2 4400+,4200+ @2.75GHz, XP1800+ @1.65GHz, P4 @1.6GHz

By watching what is going on I have decided that it crunches each work unit in 25 to 27 minutes. Of course 2 at a time. Not bad at all.

This is an Asus P5WD2 Premium motherboard also in case anyone wants to know.

---

Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....

So studying the workunits crunched by Geek's computer I can see that he does about 68 or 69 per day, not counting any short bad-RFI units. That's a typical number of "normal" units he's crunching per day (rate) using about 42 minutes for two units.

Actually, he's doing two units every ~25 minutes. Trux's Calibrating Client changes the reported crunch time like so:

<core_client_version>5.3.12.tx37</core_client_version>
<real_cpu_time>1517</real_cpu_time>
<corrected_cpu_time>2553</corrected_cpu_time>
<corrected_Mfpops>17483.1</corrected_Mfpops>

~115 units a day ain't bad.


kev

Kev, could you please explain this in laymans terms? I was seeing about 2500 or a bit more seconds for each of Geek's units (except the short contaminated ones) and "two" processors on his machine. This would suggest 68 or 69 per day. I could understand half of 115 if Trux's calibrator were using seconds times processor devotion to Seti. That would appear to be 57.5/68.5 or about 84 percent.

---

I opened the viewing on my computers again for you. Right now Boinc has 148 work units for a 2 day and 5 hour cache for this computer. Showing completion times of 00:26:25 for each work unit. That should help you work it out.

---

Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....

get a new pentium D 900 series processor, seti loves cache and the new pentium D 900s have 2mb per core making a total of 4mb L2 cache!

---

get a new pentium D 900 series processor, seti loves cache and the new pentium D 900s have 2mb per core making a total of 4mb L2 cache!

Correct. I'd also recommend one of the the Pentium D's. The Intel compiler, which is used to build the optimized S@h crunchers, also favorites the Intel processors.

Intel have announced new prices for its 900-series, starting April 23rd:

[b]Model          Todays price   Price 23 April   Change[/b]
Pentium D 920    $ 241           $ 209         - 13,3 % 
Pentium D 930    $ 316           $ 241         - 23,7 % 
Pentium D 940    $ 423           $ 316         - 25,3 % 
Pentium D 950    $ 637           $ 423         - 33,6 % 
Pentium D 960      -             $ 637            - 

So studying the workunits crunched by Geek's computer I can see that he does about 68 or 69 per day, not counting any short bad-RFI units. That's a typical number of "normal" units he's crunching per day (rate) using about 42 minutes for two units.

Actually, he's doing two units every ~25 minutes. Trux's Calibrating Client changes the reported crunch time like so:

<core_client_version>5.3.12.tx37</core_client_version>
<real_cpu_time>1517</real_cpu_time>
<corrected_cpu_time>2553</corrected_cpu_time>
<corrected_Mfpops>17483.1</corrected_Mfpops>

~115 units a day ain't bad.


kev

Kev, could you please explain this in laymans terms? I was seeing about 2500 or a bit more seconds for each of Geek's units (except the short contaminated ones) and "two" processors on his machine. This would suggest 68 or 69 per day. I could understand half of 115 if Trux's calibrator were using seconds times processor devotion to Seti. That would appear to be 57.5/68.5 or about 84 percent.

Sure. The 2553 seconds is the corrected cpu time that trux's calibrating BOINC client uses to calculate a more accurate credit claim (if I understand it correctly :). Geek@play's actual cpu time is 1517 seconds. Using 1500s/WU (25min/WU), that works out to 57.6 WUs per core per day or about 115 a day.


HTH,
kev

---

kev

X2 4400+,4200+ @2.75GHz, XP1800+ @1.65GHz, P4 @1.6GHz

You might be interested in this, but read the conclusion.
AMD Athlon FX-60's Dual-Core Assault.

---

You might be interested in this, but read the conclusion.
AMD Athlon FX-60's Dual-Core Assault.

They are one hell of a CPU. I only wish i had the money to get one.
:-(

---

Grant
Darwin NT

You might be interested in this, but read the conclusion.
AMD Athlon FX-60's Dual-Core Assault.

They are one hell of a CPU. I only wish i had the money to get one.
:-(

Me too.

---

Me too.

"Me Three"...

(If you want to know WHY, take a look @ "Geek At Play"'s benchmark scores from his rig below!)

My Pentium D is here if you wish to look. It's running at stock 3.0GHZ and using DDR2-800 memory modules, 2 gigs. My main cruncher using Crunch3r's Seti application and Trux's Boinc module. Works great!

Hope this helps.

Sure does help - that's a BAD ASS set of scores man! Unreal Floating Point POWER!!!

The only hassle is?

My mobo is Intel socketed type, & only takes Intel Pentium 4 "Extreme Edition" 478-pin cpu's as their FINAL upgradability!

I.E.-> The most I can hope for is 3.4ghz edition with 2mb L3 cache onboard.

Downside is the price, @ $950 per cpu, according to pricewatch, was here:

http://www.starmicro.net/detail.aspx?ID=556

Currently, I run a std. Pentium 4 @ 3.2ghz now (512kb L2 cached)...

I know that I would get a GOOD boost outta that CPU I list above for this project because the faster/closer L3 2mb cache levels, the faster SETI/BOINC processing occurs... but the PRICE = OUTRAGEOUS!

I just cannot find them cheaper...

(BUMS ME OUT, because the pricing on those "Pentium D's" from the table that was posted below by Prognatus is FAR LESS, probably to compete with the AMD CPU you guys posted about no doubt!)

Here it is again for your references:

Intel have announced new prices for its 900-series, starting April 23rd:


Model Todays price Price 23 April Change


Pentium D 920 $ 241 $ 209 - 13,3 %


Pentium D 930 $ 316 $ 241 - 23,7 %


Pentium D 940 $ 423 $ 316 - 25,3 %


Pentium D 950 $ 637 $ 423 - 33,6 %


Pentium D 960 - $ 637

:(

Heh, competition's GOOD for 1 thing - forcing Intel to lower their prices for once! The newer Intel Pentium "D" units are cheaper than the fastest one I can nab for MY mobo, & it's an older mobo, circa best of 2003 pretty much (Abit IC7-Max3)... & that "EE" cpu I want is older, makes almost NO sense...

(Ah, will wonders never cease!)

APK

---

http://torry.net/authorsmore.php?id=1781

"The object's hull is made of SOLID neutronium: A single StarShip cannot combat it!" quote Mr. Spock, Star Trek original series, episode title: "The Doomsday Machine"

Only thing I got to say about Geek@play's machine, holy F!!!!

Measured floating point speed 19068.81 million ops/sec

This is my Pentium D but not using an optimized client.

---

My mobo is Intel socketed type, & only takes Intel Pentium 4 "Extreme Edition" 478-pin cpu's as their FINAL upgradability!

I.E.-> The most I can hope for is 3.4ghz edition with 2mb L3 cache onboard.

Downside is the price, @ $950 per cpu, according to pricewatch, was here:

Yeah, you could probably buy a new Dual Core CPU + Mobo + fast DDR2 RAM for less.

AMD is now charging less for all its Athlon 64 X2 dual-core desktop parts.

The 4800+, 4600+, 4400+, 4200+ and 3800+ now cost $643, $556, $467, $362 and $301, respectively, making for reductions of 19.9, 13.5, 7.9, 11.3 and 8.2 per cent.

Some other processor prices are also cut.

More info: Reg Hardware


(And to repeat the Intel cuts:)

Intel have announced new prices for its 900-series, starting April 23rd:

[b]Model          Todays price   Price 23 April   Change[/b]
Pentium D 920    $ 241           $ 209         - 13,3 % 
Pentium D 930    $ 316           $ 241         - 23,7 % 
Pentium D 940    $ 423           $ 316         - 25,3 % 
Pentium D 950    $ 637           $ 423         - 33,6 % 
Pentium D 960      -             $ 637            - 

Yeah, you could probably buy a new Dual Core CPU + Mobo + fast DDR2 RAM for less.

You know, you're right Yoda: I probably COULD get all that!

The price asked for the Intel Pentium 4 "Extreme Edition" @ 3.4ghz (with onboard L3 cache level of 2mb) - to replace/upgrade upon my current Intel std. edition Pentium 4 @ 3.2ghz w/ 512kb L3 cache onboard...

$950 U.S. Dollars is WAY too much:

http://www.starmicro.net/detail.aspx?ID=556

(& it has held @ that price for over a year now, & hasn't budged a penny!)

I'd go for it, BUT, I am also out to nab the newest Western Digital "Raptor" 10,000 rpm 16mb buffered SATA @ 150gb size for a new disk also!

($350, & I already own the older 36gb model & 74gb models, both fast, but 'only' 8mb buffers on them, & 1/2 - 1/4 of the size, but both have 10k rpm speed & FANTASTIC seek/access times, but still behind their latest/greatest that just came out 1-2 weeks back (kind with the see-thru cover) - they're getting "rave" reviews, bigtime, every place they have been reviewed, such as http://storagereview.com/articles/200601/WD1500ADFD_1.html)

* LOL, after all - You can only spend so much, before you start digging a hole you cannot get out of... well, that or starve, lol!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I did, however, find a 3.2ghz Pentium 4 "Extreme Edition" (200mhz slower than the one listed above, BUT both are for 478-pin socketed mobos, so I could also use this one) for $500, here:

http://www.stalliontek.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=CPP4-101310

* What matters to me is the fact BOTH have the 2mb L3 cache level, & this is what matters MOST for SETI@Home #2 using BOINC clients nowadays. Not the 200mhz speed-diff. imo (though it matters as well, but imo, not as much).

(Still, I'm the kind of person that wants the best there is out there, otherwise I get kind of 'bent' that I did not go for it when I could have with a little more patience... thing is, I have been patient & waiting for a year for the 1st "EE" P4 listed above & like I said earlier? Price hasn't move 1 iota in a year now...)

=============================================================================

Only thing I got to say about Geek@play's machine, holy F!!!!

No doubt ThePhantom86: All I can say is, if that is the sole diff. between your system, and his? Nab either Trux's or Crunch3r's optimized BOINC/SETI client combinations...

I agree - I have NEVER seen scores THAT HIGH on the boincmgr.exe/boinc.exe built-in benchmark systems, not ever...

(Geek@Play's GOTTA be able to rip thru SETI units faster than heck with that type of power available to him...)

:)

All-in-all - thanks for the feedback folks, & this was a GOOD thread to read: You guys are ALL 'hardware-fiends' it seems, & this helps me stay informed on that front, as I usually only research that area when I go to buy once every 4-5 years or so!

APK

P.S.=> Prognatus' table he put out (I rated his post up +1 for it in fact) has me thinking to do what you said Yoda!

Which was basically - dispense with my current mobo + CPU + RAM type combination & possibly go the route of entirely new stuff!

HOWEVER, this Abit IC7-Max3 mobo was rated VERY highly the year (best of that year by many reviewers, etc./et all) I purchased it, and it really IS a good setup on it now!

(Video = AGP slotted GeForce 6800 GT OC by BFG included)

That said - I truly would dislike having to part with it since I put time & money into making it... I am sure you guys can understand! The 2nd CPU "EE" edition is 1/2 the cost of the 1st one I posted (fastest 478-pin socket P4 "EE" edition possible afaik), so it MAY be the way I go, because I put time/effort/money into this particular setup.

Ahhhh - Decisions, decisions!

Well, off to work now... apk

---

http://torry.net/authorsmore.php?id=1781

"The object's hull is made of SOLID neutronium: A single StarShip cannot combat it!" quote Mr. Spock, Star Trek original series, episode title: "The Doomsday Machine"

That said - I truly would dislike having to part with it since I put time & money into making it...

Then keep it and build a new box with a new mobo, dual core CPU (Pentium D 900 series with 2*2MB Cache) and matching RAM in a cheap case. Put one of the old HDD's in it and you have an extra PC for crunching!

You can only spend so much, before you start digging a hole

Yeah, I'm in it :-) Every time I get a power bill I decide to switch my two slowest PC's off as they produce very little anyway, but then I get to the point that I just want that little more credit, so there we go again!