Author: David Mitchell
Date: 22:43:44 08/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 2005 at 20:28:08, Thomas Logan wrote: >On August 22, 2005 at 20:19:03, David Mitchell wrote: > >>On August 22, 2005 at 18:52:01, Thomas Logan wrote: >> >>>Dual 2.2 opterons 275 (dual core) >>> >>>Tyan thunder dual mb >>> >>>2 200mb western digital hardrives >>> >>>4 gig reg ecc 400/xxx/266 memory >>> >>>video card, speakers , dvd, cd-rw, floppy, keyboard and mouse >>> >>>window xp pro ? Does xp support 4 processors >>> >>>cost ~5,000 >>> >>>Can one do better for the price ? >>> >>>Tom >> >>Mo'betta: >> >>Go with the AMD64X2 4800, cpu. Considerably cheaper, and unless you're building >>a server, just darn near as fast, even faster for single threaded app's. I like >>the WD harddrives, but consider the Seagate Barracuda's for their longer >>warranty and 400GB capacity and speed. >> >>No ecc memory needed, but do go premium: Corsair TWINxs2048-3299C2 x 2, or >>equivalent. Put the money you save into a bigger, better, flat screen monitor. >>The Dell 2405FPW 24 incher LCD might be an extreme expense, but their 2001FP >>20.1 incher LCD is also a winner. >> >>Pick up the July issue of CPU Computer Power User Magazine, for a complete >>run-down on their "Build your ultimate PC", (and I do mean ULTIMATE), as well as >>a more budget-minded, but still impressive, PC. >> >>Opened my eyes wider with wonder to see what they're doing on the cuttin' edge >>these PC days. >> >>Whatever you get I'd be mindful of the noise they make, and what kind of cases >>and fans are needed for cooling. Some graphics cards nowadays even require >>little fans, and multiple drives, with multiple case fans, (the smaller the fan >>the more annoyingly they hum, imo.) and bigger power supplies with their own fan >>going non-stop, can make as much of a nuisance as a wonder. >> >>Dave > >Hi Dave > >Thanks for the input > >But is a x2 4800 really as fast as 2 dual core 2.2 opterons > >(and will windows xp support the two dual opterons) > >Ps I was looking at the x2 4800 but thought the dual opterons would be >quite a bit faster even with the slower reg ecc memory > >and one would match two deep engines and ponder with the quad > >Tom In single thread app's, a 4800 is usually slightly faster than the fastest opteron, BUT ONLY the opteron has the ultra fast Hypertransport between the dual CPU's, and there may be cache size differences, as well. The AMD64 will NOT communicate from one cpu to another (but in a dual core, how poorly could they communicate, I ask you, they're inside the same chip?) as quickly as the opteron, but you'll probably NEVER know the difference unless you have a lot of parallel processing going on (4 cpu's or more, (running Crafty for instance), where the CPU's have to communicate over a greater distance, and much more often (since the cpu's are now on different chips). Primarily, the opteron's are aimed for server use, and the AMD64's are aimed for the high end workstations/home PC's. Windows XP PRO ToTheBestOfMyKnowledge, WILL support both dual CPU's and 64 bit processing, as well. Home version of XP will NOT. Check with MS or Eugene N. for the specifics, however. Putting two deep chess programs into a match on a dual core with ponder on would be a mistake, imo. Both would want to use both cpu's, all the time, on the move, or not. Either leave ponder off or restrict each engine to just one cpu. YMMV, here. Dave
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.