Index  | Recent Threads  | Unanswered Threads  | Who's Active  | Guidelines  | Search
 

Quick Go »
No member browsing this thread
Thread Status: Active
Total posts in this thread: 5
[ Jump to Last Post ]
Post new Thread
Author
Previous Thread This topic has been viewed 2380 times and has 4 replies Next Thread
Apache_Pilot
Cruncher
Joined: Nov 22, 2005
Post Count: 12
Status: Offline
Project Badges:
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
L2 cache question

I am wondering if the Fight Aids project benefits from a CPU with a larger L2 cache or is it processor speed that helps crunch it faster. Perhaps both help I'm not sure. Who can step up and educate me?
[Dec 3, 2005 11:14:44 PM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
tezahon
Cruncher
Joined: Nov 26, 2005
Post Count: 3
Status: Offline
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: L2 cache question

With most raw number crunching tasks, processor speed matters a lot more.

The chip type also has an effect, with the higher speed Intel chips needing more L2 cache to reach their potential because the Netburst architecture (Pentium 4) is a bit of a sticking point (due to transport bandwidth) compared to the current AMD's. At least, that's what I understand.
[Dec 4, 2005 12:38:32 AM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Former Member
Cruncher
Joined: May 22, 2018
Post Count: 0
Status: Offline
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: L2 cache question

L2 would definitley help. If you are lucky, you are running a DEC Alpha 21164 with NT 4.0 and have 1 MB of L2 cache. THe P4 architecture is all rightm if you wanna be an artsie fartsie type, but than, you would not need a PC. THE AMD architecture, if I remember correctly,, has like, six math angines built into the core, and that really makes it fly for number cruching, like the grid :) Unlike Intel, which spent all their mony on mmx and dancing bunnies in a lab for commercials :) My AMD XP 2800 + is benchmarked to be 50% faster than a 3.5 Ghz P4. ANd I dont use alot of ram, I totally smoke the standard comparison of the grid computer. Its not always the size of the speed, but the architecture, and L2 is part of architecture in the fact that the faster a CPU gets, the faster it needs instructions, so get lots of L2 load it up before they are called, thats the theory and it seems to work for most except for intel.
[Dec 5, 2005 9:08:56 AM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Apache_Pilot
Cruncher
Joined: Nov 22, 2005
Post Count: 12
Status: Offline
Project Badges:
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: L2 cache question

I wish to thank you both for sharing the info. I opted for a Barton core over a Thoroughbred here and installed an XP3000+. I had a sneaky feeling that the extra L2 was worth it.
[Dec 6, 2005 12:54:29 AM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Former Member
Cruncher
Joined: May 22, 2018
Post Count: 0
Status: Offline
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: L2 cache question

Hello Niel12345
Can you tell me exactly how long each work unit for FAH takes on your machine? Thanks
[Dec 8, 2005 9:36:01 AM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
[ Jump to Last Post ]
Post new Thread