Author: Thomas Logan
Date: 04:56:09 08/23/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 23, 2005 at 01:43:44, David Mitchell wrote: >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 Hi Dave But with 2 dual core opterons (4 cpu's) each deep program set at two threads why would there be a problem ? Tom
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.