Well i don't know for sure. If there comes HT support Intel usually wins in other DC projects but it uses a lot more power. Keep that in mind.

Well, I plan on dedicating this cluster specifically to the Human Proteome Project. No other apps will be running. So HT with the Intel P4 is a non-issue. In fact, I will be disabling HT in the BIOS if I go with the Intel.

I do know that on the SPEC web site, in the CPU2000 benchmarks, the Athlon 64 killed the Intel P4 with regards to the SPECfp 2000 score.

So, if the UD agent uses primarily the FPU, then the Athlon is definitely the way to go.

With regards to integer calcs and the SPECint 2000 score, the two CPUs were much closer in performance.

The amount and kind of processing power on your builds will totally depend on the software you will be running on it.
When it comes to number crunching, nothing beats a multi-processor platform. Unfortunately, this software doesn't utilize more than one physical processor. So therefore, a single physical CPU platform is the only choice for now. The Intel 3.4EE (Extreme Edition) was the best MultiMedia/Number Crunching Consumer CPU out there (It was actually a modified 800FSB Xeon Core) until AMD pumped out their FX-53 series, now surpassed by the FX-55 series (Based on the 800 series 64Bit Opteron Core).

I would have to say that in your case of deciding on a P4 3.2 (C or E) or the Athlon 64 3200. Well the A3200 is the underdog here. The P4 3.2 will blow it out of the water for mathematical crunching.

Also, there are several kinds of P4's. Socket 478, Pin775, Northwood, Prescott, etc. The Prescott's offer 1MB of L2 cache. Most math calculations take place within the CPU's L1 and L2 cache. A 3.2E (Prescott) has it's L2 cache hammering out +27,000MBytes/sec. Whereas, the A64-3200 (Socket 754) has its 640K L2 cache at only +9,000MBytes/sec.

As same for the A64-3200; there's the Socket 754 and then the 939.

Intel is holding off on any new CPU's, as they've reached their GHz limit at 3.8. In 3 months, they will be coming out with multi-core CPU's. A CPU chip with 2 cores, instead of 1. AMD are already ahead again, since the FX series has provisions built into their chip layout for dual core architecture.

Anyhow, I'd go with this:

INTEL P4 3.2E
ASUS P4C800-E Mobo
2 x 512MB DDR-400 REG-ECC (Samsung K4H560838E-TCCC)
74GB WD Raptor-II SATA (10,000rpm, 8MB cache, 6.5ms)
Radeon 9200SE (Not for Gaming)
Pioneer A08 DVD-RW
Enermax 460Watt or PC-Power 350Watt (Good for 24/7)
Mid-Tower Aluminum Case with atleast 2 case fans.

To make this into a gaming system;
Replace the Radeon 9200SE with an x800Pro, or 9800Pro.
Add an Audigy-2 ZS
Add a 160 WD SATA for game storage
Replace the mobo with a P4P800-SE
You can use less expensive non-ECC memory like Hynix chips.

If you have any questions, I'm happy to help.
kcptech@gmail.com

If you're running these some place where you'll be paying the electric bill, you might want to go with the AMD Winchester core 939 3200. It'll save you a few pennies on your electric bill. Heck, you could even OC it on the Nforce motherboards.

Of course, the downside of buying the 939 is that there are no mbs I can find with integrated video, so, you'd have a small additional cost for a cheapie video card. Perhaps you could go refurb? Either way, you can get a video card for $34 if you look hard enough. :-)

As far as comparing the P4 to the AMD 64, I read another message on this board stating that the 3500 had ranked at 228, whereas the Intel P4 3400 had ranked at 220, so it looks like they might be about even, although, that depends, of course, upon how much else the user was doing at the time it was running.

Justin