Quad AMD opteron 6220 http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-Opteron%206220.html
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
motherboard http://www.supermicro.com/Aplus/motherboard/Opteron6000/SR56x0/H8QGL-iF_.cfm
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.
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
motherboard http://www.supermicro.com/Aplus/motherboard/Opteron6000/SR56x0/H8QGL-iF_.cfm
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.
you will be disappointed in the chess performance.............
I don't think he will be disappointed, it will be a beast. But you do hit the law of diminishing returns with core count, with shared memory etc. I think this is why Vas went for his cluster approach instead.
david, were you blowing out crack smoke on that notion? it will be exellent on 32 cores.
It will be dreadful considering its cost, for all the reasons given below.
i am just waiting for Ivy Bridge then you can come and play with it Carl.
Any ideas when? I heard the end of this year...
Sorry never used a crack pipe but i have seen 32 core bulldozer in action and i can tell you its does not cut the mustard...........
This computer will be much slower for chess than an Intel 2x Xeon X5690 computer.
+3
How about a Primequest 1800E2 with 8 Xeon 8870s?
Much better - but can Houdini handle 80 cores?
And that computer costs a fortune. So chess performance per $ isn't that good.
And that computer costs a fortune. So chess performance per $ isn't that good.
how many cores can the rybka4.1 handle? just curious
1024 - in theory.
if rybka4.1 can handle 1024cores. i can just imagine how many cores the rybka cluster for rent can handle. awesome.
> 1024 - in theory.
Not according to Rybka 4.1 parameters, it says ''Max CPUs: 2048''.
Gaмßito.
Oh, yes, true
Is it not 1024 cores and 2048 threads?
No
It depends what he's using it for--if he's using it for correspondence or opening book analysis in Aquarium with IDeA, it should be quite good. But for pure speed...not as good.
> 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.
> 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.
The AMD Bulldozer architecture pretty much behaves like Intel's hyper-threading.
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 :(.
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 :(.
Robert , You seem to have very good hardware knowledge.
Where intel is much ahead is per core performance.It also looks like they will be ahead for atleast a few more years...
The problem isn't trivial. Basically the 2 cores of each Bulldozer module share the same L1 cache. If software is aware of it, it can work well. In all other cases performance won't be good if you use both cores of a Bulldozer module. In fact in most cases it's best to only use one core per module - reducing the number of cores to 50%.
A head-slapping reply! Thanks for this valuable explanation. Back to the drawing board!
If you're looking for a new system, just wait for a month and get 2x Sandy Bridge Xeons E5. (16 cores total, and much faster for chess than AMD)
That's my plan anyway
That's my plan anyway
And what would the price range for such a setup ?
I believe you cannot OC such a setup?
Wouldn't it be just slower than a good 12 cores OC at 4GHz ?
Rgds
I believe you cannot OC such a setup?
Wouldn't it be just slower than a good 12 cores OC at 4GHz ?
Rgds
> I believe you cannot OC such a setup?
I believe you can
Thanks.
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?
> Thanks.
> 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. Windows are for Republicans.
>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.
Alan and I are not really Republicans. We are libertarian-conservatives. We just want the government to leave us alone.
So true...
>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
from that link: 'and together with Gough Island is a protected wildlife reserve'
I guess the UNESCO won't accept me as wildlife
I guess the UNESCO won't accept me as wildlife
Yeah, but I suspect that if you sailed there, scaled the cliffs and created a habitation for yourself, nobody would bother you. You could stop paying taxes. You might be a wanted man in your former country, but nobody would come after you. The problem, of course, would be finding stuff to eat. Your Internet connection might be spotty, too.
Nelson,
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.
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.
You bring up a complex topic. I will try to answer simply.
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.
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.
i thought this is about 32 core machine. or is it about government?
It's about government.
might as well change the title from My 32 core machine to My Government.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill