Folding Forum

Your thoughts? Your votes? I don't have strong preference, should I?

AMD: newegg wishlist
intel: newegg wishlist


Thanks!
tear

P.S.
And yes, I am also considering cheapest 3870s [still less money than 3870 X2].

Intel, because you can overclock it to +3 GHz (remember that some small WU are CPU limited ... so the better CPU you get, the better GPU will perform in this case)

But I don't know if it will be enough as the two GPU will use only PCIe 8x (we might need an official comment about this) ...

Thanks toTOW.
Noted, though I usually do not overclock


tear

Ok, by the way, that's coherent with your choice of two 3850 instead of 3870 (which are more CPU limited)

If I bought a computer today, I'd have to go with a quad core rig, for the flexibility and "futureproofing". The wave of the future in all computing is toward multiple cores and parallel processing. The quads are not all that expensive now - and for the same processing power as two dual core CPUs you only have to buy one mobo, power supply, case, hard drive, videocard etc. Heh, I heard from one power folder that part of his reason for switching to quads is that his router table is getting full! Why not 8-way machines? Two quad processors and a server mobo together are too expensive for my hobby budget.

Speaking only as a long term Folder (and NOT in any official capacity, I'm just a peacekeeper here): As time passes the work units just get bigger and longer. When I first started in fall 2003 I folded my share of 33-point p241's and 20-point p729s, and the dreaded p1136 series TINKERs which took nearly 2 weeks to run on a 500 MHz PowerMac G4 and were worth 71 points (later upgraded to 241, IIRC). I started folding on a 700 MHz eMac which got (and still gets) 1 pph. It was somewhat below the mean for "Folding iron" when I started -- now it's falling off the low end of the equipment spectrum. Though the benchmark machine has changed, the current point structure is generally compatible with those older units, within a factor of 2 anyway. It's nearly 4 years since I started Folding, and I'm now routinely folding work units valued at 100x those early units. In another 2-3 years my dual-core machines, now a bit below the mean, will be low end in their turn. I might upgrade a low-end duallie (AMD 64 x2 3800, Opteron 165, Core Duo) to a higher speed processor but \right now I simply wouldn't build or buy new dual core machines.

I'd definately go Quad Intel with a 3870.

Many thanks for your input.

FWIW, machine's purpose is a dedicated FAH/GPU setup. That's where dual-core
idea came from (one core per GPU).

I also believe that today's mainstream machines should be good for two or so
years (fah-wise) and I think that either of two options gives some room
for future upgrades [shall they become necessary].

So... going dual-core saves me some money for, say... yet another
2x Xeon 53xx/54xx setup. That's my take at least.


tear

tear wrote:
FWIW, machine's purpose is a dedicated FAH/GPU setup. That's where dual-core
idea came from (one core per GPU).

Why limit yourself? Run 2 GPU, and also run 2 CPU clients.

And dual core GPUs seem to be following the trend of CPUs, so the extra 2 CPU cores of a Quad help to futureproof the system even more. And the price differences are small by comparison.

Am I the only one to wonder if PCIe 8x + 8x will be enough to feed to GPU or if he'd better go for a X38 motherboard with 16x + 16x

As a datapoint, AGP 8x is enough to saturate [98-99%] 3850 [P4711-P4713] here.

And I suspect that we're going to see more high-atom WUs rather than
low-atom WUs.


tear

I built AMDs for about 10 years. That was my pre-FAH period. My sole dedicated folder is a Q6600. The new one I built for my mother, also to fold, is an E4500. I'm current shopping the parts for another Q6600, and thinking about replacing my current gaming box (X2 6000+) with an E8500.

Bang for the buck-
General use and midlevel gaming- AMD all the way.
Speed folding and heavy gaming- I gotta go with Intel, much as it hurts me to say so

I'll probably get slapped for saying it, but with a quad you have 2 cores for the GPUs, and still have an idle "dual core" for the SMP. It should still be as fast as, or faster than, my 6000+ on an SMP WU.

Intel, but bust open the piggy bank and try to get the E7200.

I'd replace the PSU with a Corsair 550VX or 650TX.

uncle fuzzy wrote:I'll probably get slapped for saying it, but with a quad you have 2 cores for the GPUs, and still have an idle "dual core" for the SMP. It should still be as fast as, or faster than, my 6000+ on an SMP WU.

:slap: :slap:

The only problem with this idea is that as Stanford continues towards using all of the capatities that you're willing to donate. they may decide to give more difficult WUs to 4-core machines, compared to 2-core machines. (They've already been doing something like that, but not all of the time.) If your SMP machine tells the server that you have 4-cores, the server will not know that you've only got two of them available.

bruce wrote: If your SMP machine tells the server that you have 4-cores, the server will not know that you've only got two of them available.

Running SMP on a virtual linux machine (or the Notfred CD) through VMware takes care of that problem, doesn't it?