| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Community
Forum: Chat Room
Thread: WCGA Optimal machine setup. |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 8
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Sphelx
Cruncher Joined: Dec 5, 2006 Post Count: 4 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Hi there, I've been wondering about an "optimal" machine to run WCGA on.
I pretty much keep this PC on 24 hours a day now (I work a lot of long nightshifts, so I keep it crunching at 100% power during that time) so I can throw back as many results as possible. But I've been wondering if there was any kind of reccomended setup for machines to have? Sure there's the benchmark Intel CPU machine on which our devices are measured (Mine scoring 198 against it's 100, woo!). Since I've been thinking about spending a little money on some rackmount cases (maybe 5 or so) and kitting them out with some not-overly-powerful gear, purely to run WCGA on. Now, the machine I'm using at the moment cost me £1000 and unfortunately I don't have the money replicate that kind of hardware! So what I'm asking is; is there a reasonably cheap, yet powerful sort of CPU/RAM amount that'd be good just to push out results? It's all very well saying "A fast CPU and lots of RAM" but where exactly is the line here? If I bought 5 AMD Sempron 2800+'s (running at 1.6ghz each), and at only £22 each; would that be sufficient to run WCGA with or am I wasting my electricity bill by not going for something a tad meatier? I'm sure the whole "Is Intel better at this kind of data crunching than AMD" argument is best kept for another thread; I just like AMD so I'm using them as an example. Any thoughts? Sphelx, |
||
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
Welcome to the forum Sphelx and welcome to the WCG crunchers community,
----------------------------------------You might want to repost your question in the Chat Room . There are quite a few experts in the field of the best bang for the buck. WCG does specify Minimum System Requirements , to be able to participate in any of the projects. thanks
WCG
----------------------------------------Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! [Edit 1 times, last edit by Sekerob at Jan 19, 2007 10:11:19 AM] |
||
|
|
cio_redulla
Advanced Cruncher Philippines Joined: Apr 24, 2006 Post Count: 130 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Hi there, I've been wondering about an "optimal" machine to run WCGA on. I pretty much keep this PC on 24 hours a day now (I work a lot of long nightshifts, so I keep it crunching at 100% power during that time) so I can throw back as many results as possible. But I've been wondering if there was any kind of reccomended setup for machines to have? Sure there's the benchmark Intel CPU machine on which our devices are measured (Mine scoring 198 against it's 100, woo!). Since I've been thinking about spending a little money on some rackmount cases (maybe 5 or so) and kitting them out with some not-overly-powerful gear, purely to run WCGA on. Now, the machine I'm using at the moment cost me £1000 and unfortunately I don't have the money replicate that kind of hardware! So what I'm asking is; is there a reasonably cheap, yet powerful sort of CPU/RAM amount that'd be good just to push out results? It's all very well saying "A fast CPU and lots of RAM" but where exactly is the line here? If I bought 5 AMD Sempron 2800+'s (running at 1.6ghz each), and at only £22 each; would that be sufficient to run WCGA with or am I wasting my electricity bill by not going for something a tad meatier? I'm sure the whole "Is Intel better at this kind of data crunching than AMD" argument is best kept for another thread; I just like AMD so I'm using them as an example. Any thoughts? Sphelx, Hello Sphelx, Right now, in my opinion, the best deal is to invest in an Intel Core 2 Duo processor. You can overclock it if you want to, hehehe!  |
||
|
|
olympic
Senior Cruncher Joined: Jun 12, 2005 Post Count: 156 Status: Offline |
A single stick of 512MB RAM is plenty for a dedicated cruncher, even a dual core. You won't be able to run HDC but there's plenty of other work to keep it busy.
----------------------------------------As for the choice in CPU, obviously a dual core is the best choice since you can double the output with the same RAM, motherboard, power supply, etc. I have found that at equal GHz, Intel Conroe CPUs are only slightly faster than AMD A64's. So if you're not overclocking, a 3800+ x2 crunches about a fast as an E6300. Both CPU's have their positives and negatives. The intel uses less power, generates less heat and can be overclocked further(with the proper hardware). The AMD X2 costs less and runs on less expensive motherboards. I made a post a while back about my 4 dedicated crunchers, basically 4 machines in a home made canbinet: http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/forums/wcg/viewthread?thread=10211  [Edit 1 times, last edit by olympic at Jan 19, 2007 8:04:34 PM] |
||
|
|
cio_redulla
Advanced Cruncher Philippines Joined: Apr 24, 2006 Post Count: 130 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
A single stick of 512MB RAM is plenty for a dedicated cruncher, even a dual core. You won't be able to run HDC but there's plenty of other work to keep it busy. As for the choice in CPU, obviously a dual core is the best choice since you can double the output with the same RAM, motherboard, power supply, etc. I have found that at equal GHz, Intel Conroe CPUs are only slightly faster than AMD A64's. So if you're not overclocking, a 3800+ x2 crunches about a fast as an E6300. Both CPU's have their positives and negatives. The intel uses less power, generates less heat and can be overclocked further(with the proper hardware). The AMD X2 costs less and runs on less expensive motherboards. I made a post a while back about my 4 dedicated crunchers, basically 4 machines in a home made canbinet: http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/forums/wcg/viewthread?thread=10211 Hello olympic, I remembered your 4-machine setup, hehehe, I was planning to do something like that but I don't have enough cash right now, :-). Sphelx, the AMD dual cores are excellent crunchers. Check out the thread where everybody boasts about their Whetstone and Dhrystone benchmarks. cio_redulla [Edit 1 times, last edit by cio_redulla at Jan 20, 2007 3:26:41 AM] |
|||
|
||||
|
retsof
Former Community Advisor USA Joined: Jul 31, 2005 Post Count: 6824 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
1/16/2007 2:16:04 PM||Benchmark results:
----------------------------------------1/16/2007 2:16:04 PM|| Number of CPUs: 1 1/16/2007 2:16:04 PM|| 2224 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU 1/16/2007 2:16:04 PM|| 4348 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU 1/16/2007 2:16:04 PM||Finished CPU benchmarks Benchmarks like these? This is from one of two single core AMD64s at 2.4GHz, keeping up with a 3.0GHz Intel. MOBO is 37°C, CPU is 48°C. Another newer AMD64 Venice single core 2.0GHz is overclocked to 2.4GHz, and runs a lot cooler than the above stock machine. MOBO is currently 35°C and CPU is 39°C!!! Heat is less of an issue with newer AMD machine since I replaced an older 1.0GHz AMD blast furnace with the newest one. Dual core? In less than a year I will look at the AMD quad core.
SUPPORT ADVISOR
----------------------------------------Work+GPU i7 8700 12threads School i7 4770 8threads Default+GPU Ryzen 7 3700X 16threads Ryzen 7 3800X 16 threads Ryzen 9 3900X 24threads Home i7 3540M 4threads50% [Edit 6 times, last edit by retsof at Jan 21, 2007 6:04:30 PM] |
||
|
|
cio_redulla
Advanced Cruncher Philippines Joined: Apr 24, 2006 Post Count: 130 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
1/16/2007 2:16:04 PM||Benchmark results: 1/16/2007 2:16:04 PM|| Number of CPUs: 1 1/16/2007 2:16:04 PM|| 2224 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU 1/16/2007 2:16:04 PM|| 4348 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU 1/16/2007 2:16:04 PM||Finished CPU benchmarks Benchmarks like these? This is from one of two single core AMD64s at 2.4GHz, keeping up with a 3.0GHz Intel. MOBO is 37°C, CPU is 48°C. Another newer AMD64 Venice single core 2.0GHz is overclocked to 2.4GHz, and runs a lot cooler than the above stock machine. MOBO is currently 35°C and CPU is 39°C!!! Heat is less of an issue with newer AMD machine since I replaced an older 1.0GHz AMD blast furnace with the newest one. Dual core? In less than a year I will look at the AMD quad core. Hello retsof, Why won't you try looking at Intel's quad core? :-), you're loyal to AMD, I see, hehehe! cio_redulla |
||
|
|
knreed
Former World Community Grid Tech Joined: Nov 8, 2004 Post Count: 4504 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Moved to Chat room becuase it is more suited to this forum.
|
||
|
|
|