take a look at this monster:
351446
compare to 341221 (Number 2, soon number 1)

The daily average is almost double of the "Top20" number 2
Looks like Dual socket XEON quad core will be the king of the hill for quit some time ... You obvisouly don't need hypertransport to be fast, that was a nice hype, but confirmed to be untrue. Opteron is again ... I will be surprise if GrandFather 4x4 can make it in the top 20 list.

Core 2 Quad core is the Godfather!

on the other side, look at this 268485, a new prototype from AMD, Jul 2006 ... what can it be? K8L or 65nm K8????
It gets a 0.004167 credit per seconds while the Number 2 gets 0.00760 341221 credit per seconds for each processor core.
To compare the top 8 CPU Opteron gets 0.003367 credit per second per core, making this new "prototype machine" faster than the K8 based core, but way behind Core 2

The Proto

Owner Mats Pxxxxxxx
Created 4 Jul 2006 17:20:25 UTC
Total Credit 155,053.79
Recent average credit 1,366.09
CPU type AuthenticAMD
AMD Engineering Sample <====== HO HO! never saw this one before!
Number of CPUs 4
Operating System Linux
2.6.17-1.2139_FC4smp
Memory 6072.48 MB
Cache 1024 KB
Measured floating point speed 1346.79 million ops/sec <==
Measured integer speed 2297.07 million ops/sec <==
Average upload rate 16.95 KB/sec
Average download rate Unknown
Average turnaround time 1.82 days
Maximum daily WU quota per CPU 100/day

Of course, you should not take into account the 2 scored with arrows, because we all know those a "quick and dirty" estimate for the unit ordering mecanism.

Now, the real question ... what frequency it is running at????

Who?

take a look at this monster:
351446

Wow! It's only been a few days, and it already has a RAC of 1733 (#8) as of this post. AMAZING!

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

take a look at this monster:
351446

Wow! It's only been a few days, and it already has a RAC of 1733 (#8) as of this post. AMAZING!

Two XEONs Quad Core ... that's what we all need :)

who?

take a look at this monster:
351446

Wow! It's only been a few days, and it already has a RAC of 1733 (#8) as of this post. AMAZING!

Two XEONs Quad Core ... that's what we all need :)

who?

I forgot to say, and to be sure to be transparent, I did merge it with its secret identity ID it was using before the "launch" it got 300 credits from there.

who?

take a look at this monster:
351446

Wow! It's only been a few days, and it already has a RAC of 1733 (#8) as of this post. AMAZING!

Two XEONs Quad Core ... that's what we all need :)

who?

I forgot to say, and to be sure to be transparent, I did merge it with its secret identity ID it was using before the "launch" it got 300 credits from there.

who?

What Hz is the Xeon running, defualt 2.66 or at 4 like the other.

---

Team mauisun.org

take a look at this monster:
351446

Wow! It's only been a few days, and it already has a RAC of 1733 (#8) as of this post. AMAZING!

Two XEONs Quad Core ... that's what we all need :)

who?

I forgot to say, and to be sure to be transparent, I did merge it with its secret identity ID it was using before the "launch" it got 300 credits from there.

who?

What Hz is the Xeon running, defualt 2.66 or at 4 like the other.

At the stock 2.66GHZ, insane, isn't it?

who?

take a look at this monster:
351446

Wow! It's only been a few days, and it already has a RAC of 1733 (#8) as of this post. AMAZING!

Two XEONs Quad Core ... that's what we all need :)

who?

I forgot to say, and to be sure to be transparent, I did merge it with its secret identity ID it was using before the "launch" it got 300 credits from there.

who?

What Hz is the Xeon running, defualt 2.66 or at 4 like the other.

At the stock 2.66GHZ, insane, isn't it?

who?

Yes.




(how come you've not joined team intel over here like you have at seti ?)

---

Team mauisun.org

one week of running time, and 2,092 RAC :)
vrommmmm
Still running without hypertransport :) hehehehe

who?

And why would hypertransport make any sort of difference to Rosetta? Anyone claiming that would be as clever as saying that a Ferrari is better than a normal car in London City rush-hour traffic - it won't, because there's no room to benefit from the speed. As we've discussed before, a good machine (with large enough caches) will have 97%+ cache-hit-rate with Rosetta... You are the one who said you wanted to see a stop to performance gain claims that are based on "other" improvements. You've got a brand new core in your processor, it's not doing much memory access, I presume, to so even if you had a shared bus at 100MHz, it shouldn't make much, if any, difference at all.

--
Mats

---

And why would hypertransport make any sort of difference to Rosetta? Anyone claiming that would be as clever as saying that a Ferrari is better than a normal car in London City rush-hour traffic - it won't, because there's no room to benefit from the speed. As we've discussed before, a good machine (with large enough caches) will have 97%+ cache-hit-rate with Rosetta... You are the one who said you wanted to see a stop to performance gain claims that are based on "other" improvements. You've got a brand new core in your processor, it's not doing much memory access, I presume, to so even if you had a shared bus at 100MHz, it shouldn't make much, if any, difference at all.

--
Mats

I agree with you. Hypertransport is useless on Rosetta :), so does it on all the crunching workloads: A well programmed crunching algorythm will always fit in the case, or close to it.

I actually see performance improvement on Rosetta when i increase the front side bus speed, it is due to the fact that 3% can be compressed to 1% :)

In the racing world, 2% is great :)

who?

And why would hypertransport make any sort of difference to Rosetta? Anyone claiming that would be as clever as saying that a Ferrari is better than a normal car in London City rush-hour traffic - it won't, because there's no room to benefit from the speed. As we've discussed before, a good machine (with large enough caches) will have 97%+ cache-hit-rate with Rosetta... You are the one who said you wanted to see a stop to performance gain claims that are based on "other" improvements. You've got a brand new core in your processor, it's not doing much memory access, I presume, to so even if you had a shared bus at 100MHz, it shouldn't make much, if any, difference at all.

--
Mats

I agree with you. Hypertransport is useless on Rosetta :), so does it on all the crunching workloads: A well programmed crunching algorythm will always fit in the case, or close to it.

I actually see performance improvement on Rosetta when i increase the front side bus speed, it is due to the fact that 3% can be compressed to 1% :)

In the racing world, 2% is great :)

who?

I am upgrading the top machine to Vista, so, it will not be running over night.

who?

How's the CPU overhead on Vista? Much of a difference, or are the requirements mostly for GPU and RAM?

---

I am upgrading the top machine to Vista, so, it will not be running over night.

Be sure to tell us the new machine id#, so we can continue to track it. Thanks!

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

I am upgrading the top machine to Vista, so, it will not be running over night.

Be sure to tell us the new machine id#, so we can continue to track it. Thanks!

You can t miss them .. both my machines are in the top 2 :-P

just enjoying it, sorry ;)

Who?

then did you mistyoe the thread title - should it have been

who? will be the next king of the hill.

then did you mistyoe the thread title - should it have been

who? will be the next king of the hill.

The real king is Core 2, not me :)

The Dual Xeon 5355 is about to get a RAC of 3000, i think it will stop at 3600.

who?

I was thinking awhile back about how much a dual quad core would cost to build for a crunching box. What would it cost to build a serious cruncher?

---

(Click for detailed stats)

I was thinking awhile back about how much a dual quad core would cost to build for a crunching box. What would it cost to build a serious cruncher?

The dual quad core xeon machine can be put together for 4500$ ..
I know it is expensive, but it is a killer


who?

If your constraint is 'most crunch for $" rather than "most crunch per box", you'd be better off with several overclocked quad core2s boxes instead for the same $4,500 ... i.e., like Who?'s quad system rather than his octo system.


PS we're experimenting with an SSE2 version of the climate model using Intel Fortran 9.1, will be a month or two until we know whether it gives the same climate physics as the non-SSE2. The previous time SSE2 was tried it gave different results, but looking better this time round.

---

If your constraint is 'most crunch for $" rather than "most crunch per box", you'd be better off with several overclocked quad core2s boxes instead for the same $4,500 ... i.e., like Who?'s quad system rather than his octo system.

you can buy several nissan and drive them in parallel, or you can buy a lambo ... bragging right gets different with several nissan...
and if you use more machine, your density of computing will be terrible .. a lot of space, and your power usage will be almost double ...

your idea sound like a good idea, but if you considere that people doing processing only pay attention to processing power density and electric power, that is a very bad idea.

Based on this, the 8 Cores machine is the best choice.

PS we're experimenting with an SSE2 version of the climate model using Intel Fortran 9.1, will be a month or two until we know whether it gives the same climate physics as the non-SSE2. The previous time SSE2 was tried it gave different results, but looking better this time round.

well, SSE2 did not try to do anything, the programmer who did try to generate SSE2 didn t properly configure the SSE2 setting for x87 compatibility ... that is reality, SSE2 does to try by its own to change the calculation mode. the computers don t do errors, the errors comes from the operators!

who?