4ghz with 8 threads vs 2 ghz with 16 threads

Message boards : Number crunching : 4ghz with 8 threads vs 2 ghz with 16 threads

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
Orgil

Send message
Joined: 11 Dec 05
Posts: 82
Credit: 169,751
RAC: 0
Message 68581 - Posted: 11 Nov 2010, 16:38:43 UTC

Which one is better crunching that using a server with 2ghz 16 threads (can ECC Reg memory help on this?) or using regular desktop pc with 4ghz 8threads (can higher memory and bus help?) ?

ID: 68581 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Mod.Sense
Volunteer moderator

Send message
Joined: 22 Aug 06
Posts: 4018
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Message 68594 - Posted: 11 Nov 2010, 20:27:56 UTC
Last modified: 11 Nov 2010, 20:30:40 UTC

I've moved Orgil's thread from the Windows board. More people will see it here on the Number Crunching board.

Threads is not as significant as CPU cores, or virtual CPUs cores available. And cores available is only helpful if there is enough memory to accommodate their needs without swapping. High memory/bus bandwidth can definitely help.

If clock rates and number of cores were the only difference, (i.e. low page faults on both, one thread per core on both, similar CPU architectures) I'd expect the performance results to be essentially identical.

[edit] Another key factor can be the amount of L2 cache available, so I'd have to assume L2 cache hit ratio being similar between the two as well. This may not be achievable in real life because the amount of L2 cache and how it ends up being used between a 8 core and 16 core machine will likely be rather different.
Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense
ID: 68594 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile Chris Holvenstot
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 May 10
Posts: 220
Credit: 9,106,918
RAC: 0
Message 68596 - Posted: 11 Nov 2010, 23:32:46 UTC
Last modified: 12 Nov 2010, 0:27:39 UTC

Orgil -

Since you are talking 16 threads I am going to jump to the conclusion that you are talking about a server CPU - maybe even a dual Xeon.

I have a single Xeon 2.67 quad core Mac Pro with 6 gig of memory - and HT, which gives you a total of 8 virtual cores backed by the 4 physical cores just hums right along.

I see a 30 to 35% increase with HT turned on (8 virtual cores) vs just running the 4 physical cores.

Hope that provides a little insight for your decision

CH
ID: 68596 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile Chilean
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Oct 05
Posts: 711
Credit: 26,694,507
RAC: 0
Message 68597 - Posted: 12 Nov 2010, 2:08:58 UTC

Well, if RAM isn't a limiting factor, I'd say the 16 threads will give a better performance overall in Rosetta, irregardless if it's 2Ghz or 4Ghz (with the same architecture).
ID: 68597 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Orgil

Send message
Joined: 11 Dec 05
Posts: 82
Credit: 169,751
RAC: 0
Message 68598 - Posted: 12 Nov 2010, 4:28:38 UTC

Thanks! Now I'll crunch the provided information!! ;D
ID: 68598 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile Travis Krause
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 31 Oct 10
Posts: 8
Credit: 343,926
RAC: 0
Message 68621 - Posted: 15 Nov 2010, 2:43:16 UTC - in response to Message 68598.  

how do i set up virtual cores?

ID: 68621 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile Travis Krause
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 31 Oct 10
Posts: 8
Credit: 343,926
RAC: 0
Message 68622 - Posted: 15 Nov 2010, 2:46:18 UTC - in response to Message 68598.  

how do i set up virtual cores?

ID: 68622 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Mod.Sense
Volunteer moderator

Send message
Joined: 22 Aug 06
Posts: 4018
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Message 68623 - Posted: 15 Nov 2010, 3:49:55 UTC
Last modified: 15 Nov 2010, 3:51:13 UTC

In the BIOS you can define whether you wish to enable hyperthreading, on some CPUs anyway. If it is enabled then it runs as though twice as many cores are available, and there is some extensions in the CPU that help it do so more efficiently then a CPU that is not hyperthread enabled.

Since most Rosetta calculations involve floating point arithmetic, one actual bottleneck becomes a shared resource that does the math rather then the CPUs. So some workloads run significantly better under hyperthreading, others, such as Rosetta that are so specific to arithmetic, don't get as much of a boost. In essence you still only have so many clock ticks (GHz) to spread around.
Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense
ID: 68623 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile Travis Krause
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 31 Oct 10
Posts: 8
Credit: 343,926
RAC: 0
Message 68627 - Posted: 15 Nov 2010, 9:54:41 UTC - in response to Message 68623.  

In the BIOS you can define whether you wish to enable hyperthreading, on some CPUs anyway. If it is enabled then it runs as though twice as many cores are available, and there is some extensions in the CPU that help it do so more efficiently then a CPU that is not hyperthread enabled.

Since most Rosetta calculations involve floating point arithmetic, one actual bottleneck becomes a shared resource that does the math rather then the CPUs. So some workloads run significantly better under hyperthreading, others, such as Rosetta that are so specific to arithmetic, don't get as much of a boost. In essence you still only have so many clock ticks (GHz) to spread around.



How old/new of a computer might have this feature?

In the bios it will be called hyperthreading right? Is it in the "advanced" area... or associated with anything that makes it easy to find?

My one "new" machine is an almost 2 year old mac. (I don't know how to access the bios on it)

As far as old machines goes. I got excited about the project and I have turned my last couple of PCs and converted them to just crunch rosetta using linux desktop as the OS. Over the years, I have also taken old discarded machines from friends and relatives over the years and cobbled together a couple more machines from parts. Most of these are machines that are 5-10 years old.

Thanks for the help.
ID: 68627 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile dcdc

Send message
Joined: 3 Nov 05
Posts: 1829
Credit: 114,368,944
RAC: 53,093
Message 68629 - Posted: 15 Nov 2010, 13:24:48 UTC - in response to Message 68627.  

In the BIOS you can define whether you wish to enable hyperthreading, on some CPUs anyway. If it is enabled then it runs as though twice as many cores are available, and there is some extensions in the CPU that help it do so more efficiently then a CPU that is not hyperthread enabled.

Since most Rosetta calculations involve floating point arithmetic, one actual bottleneck becomes a shared resource that does the math rather then the CPUs. So some workloads run significantly better under hyperthreading, others, such as Rosetta that are so specific to arithmetic, don't get as much of a boost. In essence you still only have so many clock ticks (GHz) to spread around.



How old/new of a computer might have this feature?

In the bios it will be called hyperthreading right? Is it in the "advanced" area... or associated with anything that makes it easy to find?

My one "new" machine is an almost 2 year old mac. (I don't know how to access the bios on it)

As far as old machines goes. I got excited about the project and I have turned my last couple of PCs and converted them to just crunch rosetta using linux desktop as the OS. Over the years, I have also taken old discarded machines from friends and relatives over the years and cobbled together a couple more machines from parts. Most of these are machines that are 5-10 years old.

Thanks for the help.


Hi

The only CPU families with HyperThreading are:
Pentium4
Atom
Core i3, i5 and i7
plus the xeon (server) versions of the above. Not all of the CPUs from any of these families have it enabled though.

Your Atom CPU can enable HT (if it isn't already - see how many cores show up in Task Manager), but as that CPU only has 512kB L2 cache, running 2 instances of Rosetta would almost certainly reduce throughput. I'd probably enable HT in the BIOS but set Rosetta to only use 1 core so other threads can run on the HT 'core' which should make it slightly more responsive than with HT off.

Your Mac won't have HT as it will almost certainly be Core2 based.

HTH
Danny
ID: 68629 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile Travis Krause
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 31 Oct 10
Posts: 8
Credit: 343,926
RAC: 0
Message 68676 - Posted: 21 Nov 2010, 4:53:14 UTC - in response to Message 68629.  

[
The only CPU families with HyperThreading are:
Pentium4
Atom
Core i3, i5 and i7
plus the xeon (server) versions of the above. Not all of the CPUs from any of these families have it enabled though.

Your Atom CPU can enable HT (if it isn't already - see how many cores show up in Task Manager), but as that CPU only has 512kB L2 cache, running 2 instances of Rosetta would almost certainly reduce throughput. I'd probably enable HT in the BIOS but set Rosetta to only use 1 core so other threads can run on the HT 'core' which should make it slightly more responsive than with HT off.

Your Mac won't have HT as it will almost certainly be Core2 based.

HTH
Danny


The Mac is an Intel 2.66 Core 2 Duo (I have not kept up with Chip sets for YEARS... but that sounds like two cores)

I found 2 machines that have the feature... but it was already turned on in those boxes.

If I am going to run them, I want to be efficient.

Thanks for the help.

-TK


ID: 68676 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile Chilean
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Oct 05
Posts: 711
Credit: 26,694,507
RAC: 0
Message 68680 - Posted: 21 Nov 2010, 21:14:05 UTC - in response to Message 68676.  

[
The only CPU families with HyperThreading are:
Pentium4
Atom
Core i3, i5 and i7
plus the xeon (server) versions of the above. Not all of the CPUs from any of these families have it enabled though.

Your Atom CPU can enable HT (if it isn't already - see how many cores show up in Task Manager), but as that CPU only has 512kB L2 cache, running 2 instances of Rosetta would almost certainly reduce throughput. I'd probably enable HT in the BIOS but set Rosetta to only use 1 core so other threads can run on the HT 'core' which should make it slightly more responsive than with HT off.

Your Mac won't have HT as it will almost certainly be Core2 based.

HTH
Danny


The Mac is an Intel 2.66 Core 2 Duo (I have not kept up with Chip sets for YEARS... but that sounds like two cores)

I found 2 machines that have the feature... but it was already turned on in those boxes.

If I am going to run them, I want to be efficient.

Thanks for the help.

-TK





No HT then, I'm afraid. The older P4 and new i7 chips have HT only.
ID: 68680 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote

Message boards : Number crunching : 4ghz with 8 threads vs 2 ghz with 16 threads



©2024 University of Washington
https://www.bakerlab.org