Twin quad cores a reality

[Fozzie]

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/Skulltrail-QX9775-D5400XS-Octo-Core,review-30180.html

Looks interesting. :D

[Beerknurd]

Wow... That is definately going on my Christmas list...

[Digital Parasite]

Only problem is that you need to use FB-DIMMs with it so expensive power hungry RAM... :(

[jasong]

Uh, yeah, that's nice. Only one problem(heh, heh), my super-awesome Core2Quad, which is supposed to be so much better than AMD's cheaper stuff; well, with 800MHz RAM, the cpu spends a lot of time waiting for data. Buying 1066MHz RAM would solve the problem, but it would be a bit like cramming 5 people in a car with 4 seatbelts and saying,"Yep, that last person fits just fine."

DDR3 is a possible solution. But if it's just going to be a cruncher, maybe the best thing is to not get the full potential of the cpu(the PHENOM cpu) until DDR3 prices come down.

[Fozzie]

you drinking and posting again or is this an habitual need to post completely off topic? :jabber::looney:

[meep]

Quite...

More cores per MB is the thought.

Foz, got a taster over the last few weeks of 4 Socket HP c-class Quad Core Xeon's at 2.4Ghz.... a mere 16 cores per blade. AMD's offering is equally good as low power, but the crunching power per blade is frustrating as it cannot be taped in to :)

Bloomin' systems management / nosey application developers ;)

[ACCS]

Twin quad cores a realityHuh? I've had my dual quad-core system for almost a year. They're not new. It's just more of Tom's CRAP.
Only problem is that you need to use FB-DIMMs with it so expensive power hungry RAM.FB-DIMMs are less expensive than the memory used in other dual-socket systems. Comparing them to the memory used in a single-socket system is not valid.

[meep]

ACCS that is quite probably the case, but was your config aimed at the enthusiast or the enterprise?

[Digital Parasite]

Huh? I've had my dual quad-core system for almost a year. They're not new. It's just more of Tom's CRAP.FB-DIMMs are less expensive than the memory used in other dual-socket systems. Comparing them to the memory used in a single-socket system is not valid.

It certainly is valid since SkullTrail is aimed not at the enterprise but enthusiast market where people would otherwise choose a single-socket system. For DC, people are going to look at either getting a dual-socket system or possibly two single-socket systems so taking into account the total cost and power consumption is totally valid.

[LAURENU2]

but the crunching power per blade is frustrating as it cannot be taped in to :)


Why is that ?? :confused: Does BOINC see 16 cores?

[PCZ]

People really shouldn't ask me to network HP 7000 blade servers.
Well if they do they should at least give me some processing time. :)

166 dual quad core Xeons 3.16Ghz, didnt know they had default clocks that high.

"We don't know what we are going to do with them yet, just using up the budget" :(

[Bok]

So, can you get to use them for a while ? :looney:

[IronBits]

People really shouldn't ask me to network HP 7000 blade servers.
Well if they do they should at least give me some processing time. :)

166 dual quad core Xeons 3.16Ghz, didnt know they had default clocks that high.

"We don't know what we are going to do with them yet, just using up the budget" :(
Holy crap!!!
I'll trade you PS3 time on OGR if you give me equal power on other projects :D
Let's see, 40 dual quad cores on project X should help me climb a ladder or three,
and still leaves you with 126 to stomp someone or something else. :rotfl:

[PCZ]

Unfortunately probably not.

Damm things will be monitored 24/7 by trigger happy first liners.
They will open remedy tickets if the CPU's hit 100%. :(

[IronBits]

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

[jasong]

you drinking and posting again or is this an habitual need to post completely off topic? :jabber::looney:
With all due respect, and it's a bit difficult at the moment, I I fail to see how my post was off-topic.

The topic was quad-cores, and then the topic was that the quad-cores being talked about used too much power. I then mentioned quad-cores that not only used less power, but were cheaper and had more throughput.

I have a lot of free time, what do you think the odds are that I could prove your statement hypocritical if I wanted to?

[gopher_yarrowzoo]

Unfortunately probably not.

Damm things will be monitored 24/7 by trigger happy first liners.
They will open remedy tickets if the CPU's hit 100%. :(

Hmm now can you not "FAKE" the this isn't at 100% ;) or set it so it don't use 100% process power ;)
I know you wouldn't get 100% out of 'em but even 80% would be nice...
Or I know a guy :sniper:.. say no more ;)
<Side note the "more smilies window" needs a resize ;) >

[jasong]

Off-topic: I'd like to apologize to Fozzie for my harsh post in this thread a while back.

I was in a bad mood and felt like I was being picked on. That being said, if my post was off-topic, I either need a new brain or mind-reading powers, because it seemed very much on-topic to me.

[LAURENU2]

Off-topic: I'd like to apologize to Fozzie for my harsh post in this thread a while back.

I was in a bad mood and felt like I was being picked on. That being said, if my post was off-topic, I either need a new brain or mind-reading powers, because it seemed very much on-topic to me.
Oh darn just when it was getting fun:fight: the only thing better would be 2 gals:slap:===>:jester:

[Digital Parasite]

I was in a bad mood and felt like I was being picked on. That being said, if my post was off-topic, I either need a new brain or mind-reading powers, because it seemed very much on-topic to me.

The original topic of this post is Intel's new Skulltrail platform which has two processors (ie: sockets) on one motherboard so you could have an 8 core system. Your post was talking about how you want to make your own single processor system faster with DDR2 or DDR3 none of which are used in the Skulltrail system. To me that seemed totally out of the blue and not related to the original topic. Did you look at the link in the first post before you replied?

[ACCS]

Twin quad cores a realityHuh? I've had my dual quad-core system for almost a year. They're not new.ACCS that is quite probably the case, but was your config aimed at the enthusiast or the enterprise?Neither. It's my personal workstation at home. I use it as an OS/Application testbed, with VMware Workstation. It has 8GB of memory in it (could be done with a 1S board), and is scheduled to be updated to 16GB soon (can't be done with a current 1S board). I use an Intel S5000XVNSAS, which is a workstation-class board (not server-class).


Only problem is that you need to use FB-DIMMs with it so expensive power hungry RAM.FB-DIMMs are less expensive than the memory used in other dual-socket systems. Comparing them to the memory used in a single-socket system is not valid.It certainly is valid since SkullTrail is aimed not at the enterprise but enthusiast market where people would otherwise choose a single-socket system.I don't know where Intel "aimed" the system, but it should be obvious to any thinking person that to get maximum performance out of an 8-core system, you need an application that can use all eight cores. The applications that do this are NOT the applications that today's "enthusiast" runs. I believe that only ONE of the "benchmarks" that were used in Tom's was multithreaded to that extent (poorly), and most of the applications were only capable of using one or two cores.

Add this to the fact that the 5400 chipset is optimized for bandwidth, at the expense of latency (perfectly acceptable when eight cores are requesting data, not so good when only one or two cores are), and that Intel chose to limit each channel to a single FB-DIMM (limiting the peak bandwidth), it should come as no surprise that the performance suffered.

To resolve the bandwidth problems (with the appropriate applications), I would suggest that you look at the Supermicro X7DWA-N (8 FB-DIMM capacity, two video slots) (http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon1333/5400/X7DWA-N.cfm), Tyan S5396 (8 FB-DIMM capacity, two video slots) (http://www.tyan.com/product_board_detail.aspx?pid=562) or the Tyan S5397 (16 FB-DIMM capacity, two video slots) (http://www.tyan.com/product_board_detail.aspx?pid=560). None of these boards support overclocking.
For DC, people are going to look at either getting a dual-socket system or possibly two single-socket systems so taking into account the total cost and power consumption is totally valid.For DC work, multiple 1S systems will give a more cost-effective solution under the following conditions: The OS cost is negligable or free. If the OS is expensive, then a 2S system (only one copy of OS needed) may be more cost-effective. Most of the hardware would need to be purchased (little or no hardware reuse from previous system). If the 2S system can reuse a significant amount of hardware from a previous build, it may be more cost-effective.Anyone thinking otherwise is a fool (I mean Tom, and the Intel Marketing people). TTBOMK, this has always been the case (with the exception of a few P2/P3 2S boards). I expect this trend to become more pronounced in the future, as the capabilities of 1S systems continue to expand.