64gig 4 x 1600hz quad channel dominater Memory http://www.corsair.com/memory/intel-memory-upgrades/quad-channel-intel-memory-upgrade-kits/dominator-with-dhx-pro-connector-1-5v-16gb-quad-channel-ddr3-memory-kit-cmp16gx3m4x1600c7.html
PCI slot SSD 1000mb/s transfer 100gig
This is in my opinion the best setup to run houdini pro @ 32 cores
ordered and awaiting testing. Will post results.
And that computer costs a fortune. So chess performance per $ isn't that good.
> 1024 - in theory.
Not according to Rybka 4.1 parameters, it says ''Max CPUs: 2048''.
> This computer will be much slower for chess than an Intel 2x Xeon X5690 computer.
Really, 12 Intel cores faster than 32 AMD cores ? I guess scaling beyond 12 cores (or even less) is very much diminshing returns
> That's not so much a problem of diminishing returns, but mainly of bad OS support for AMD Bulldozer resulting in a very poor integer performance.
OS being Windows - I wonder how a Linux install and native Linux engine would do. Possibly not much better. That machine may well be excellent for certain applications and workloads, virtualisation, but for chess as you say it may not be as strong as you'd expect.
> bad OS support for AMD Bulldozer resulting in a very poor integer performance
That's a devastating judgment coming from you, as I was looking at precisely this setup for a 1-cpu parallel project in which 64 cores would run 64 instances of one application at suboptimal (i.e. slower than Intel) speed. But if the speed is super-slow due to "very poor integer performance" then one has to hesitate! Damn it, short the stock after Lukas says such a thing!
I wonder what AMD needs to pay MSFT to fix this shortcoming, or if it is an irreparable architectural deficiency. More to the point, why would they release a CPU with such a glaring problem working with Windows? And if this same deficiency will persist with the next (Piledriver) generation? I guess you wouldn't know the answers but if you have insight into the nature of the problem that might help me make an educated decision.
A "32-core" Bulldozer server is equivalent to a true 16-core server with hyper-threading.
Every second core in a Bulldozer module only adds about 30% to the performance - just like every Intel hyper-thread only adds about 20% to the performance.
The current Windows versions make the situation even worse.
Windows is aware of hyper-threading, and will avoid using hyper-threads until there are more threads than cores.
But Windows is not (yet) aware of Bulldozer modules, and will happily schedule 2 threads on the same module even when idle modules are available :(.
That's my plan anyway
I believe you cannot OC such a setup?
Wouldn't it be just slower than a good 12 cores OC at 4GHz ?
> I believe you cannot OC such a setup?
I believe you can
So what am I missing ?
Any idea of a price window for such a setup?
> So what am I missing ?
> Any idea of a price window for such a setup?
I don't know the price yet (I'm guessing at least £5000 for a decent system) and I can't PROMISE it can be overclocked, but lots of websites are saying it should get to 4Ghz without too much trouble. Just bear in mind it consumes 150 watts at 3.1 Ghz, so this thing won't be cheap to run.
Anyway in a month or so we can stop speculating - it'll be released.
> Anyway in a month or so we can stop speculating - it'll be released.
Or delayed until June ? I saw something about that recently
>That's why you run in native Linux.
Yes Linux helps - but the software must be prepared for it, too. In this case Bulldozer has a really good performance.
>Windows are for Republicans.
If all Windows users vote repubican and all Linux users vote democrat, you won't be happy, but Nelson and Alan will.
>We just want the government to leave us alone.
Tell me a place in this world where this is the case and I'll move there
I guess the UNESCO won't accept me as wildlife
I'm curious about how you and Alan would have fared financially if, in the spirit of libertarian-conservatism, the Federal Government had stood down and allowed the chips to fall where they may after the collapse of Lehman in Sept.,2008.
I,also, want the government to leave me alone but, after years of the Fed allowing private enterprise to operate with progressively less oversight, only the subsequent Fed intervention and massive bailout prevented me from losing the lion's
share of the assets I'd been able to accumulate from over 40 years of honest endeavor.
It's a sticky wicket and I'm unsure where the line should be drawn. Maybe,you or Alan have a better fix on this.
The financial woes facing the world right now are principally a result of pernicious government policies. Fiscal debts are the result of politicians designing gigantic Ponzi schemes in the guise of a social safety net; spending trillions on "stimulus" and bailouts which amount to central planning of the economy and offering political kickbacks to favored groups; spending trillions on sustaining a global empire in the name of national security; creating laws that actively promote moral hazards in the housing and financial markets; aggressive monetization of debt by the Federal Reserve; and generally adopting policies that are designed to avoid all politically difficult decisions for as long as possible rather than confront the actual and blatantly obvious issues facing the country. The misrule we have experienced over a period of several decades is monumental in scope.
So your telling me that the government saved the day in 2008 implies that getting into that situation in the first place had little or nothing to do with the government policies and incentives that created the problem, when they had, and still have, everything to do with it.
And I have only commented on fiscal debts. Similar comments could be made regarding our monetary policy, trade policy, energy policy, foreign policy. In each case the government has, through a diabolical series of short-sighted and philosophically bankrupt decisions, created the mess we are in. We the People deserve a significant share of the blame too for embracing the platitudes and monstrously unfunded liabilities of our lawmakers. A nation gets the politicians it deserves, who on the whole reflect the prevailing level of public virtue among its citizens.
So that's the history. The most important thing is to not get into these overleveraged situations in the first place. Constitutional limited government which shuns the notion of central planning, central bureaucracies and global empires is the best safeguard against debt and disaster. But once you get to the situation we now face the question then becomes: what is to be done?
Well, the plain fact is that there are no painless or easy answers and anyone who says otherwise is a charlatan. There is bound to be wrenching upheaval; it seems unavoidable. And given what I said about politicians reflecting the prevailing level of public virtue among the citizens, one would have to be incredibly optimistic to think that our voting public will eagerly embrace (and stick with) policies that will actually improve our situation in the longer run rather than prolong the agonies for decades. Just as it is for a heroin addict trying to kick the habit, things must get a lot worse before they get better. Are we capable of dealing with that "a lot worse" period, which might last several years? I seriously doubt it. Anyway there is no political consensus in that direction at this time and I doubt there ever could be, when people are conditioned from birth to look to the government for "benefits" and "rights" that have no constitutional or moral basis.
What is needed is a clear break and sweeping reforms that devolve power back to the people and shrink government to a level that prevailed back in the Jackson Administration or earlier. How we need a Jackson now! He hated central banks with a passion, as demonstrated by his great quote uttered right to the bankers of his day: "You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the grace of the Eternal God, will rout you out!" Imagine a statesman saying that today. Europeans, imagine Merkel or Sarkozy saying such words. Such an attitude certainly would be a great step in the right direction.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill