Computer question

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by jsmith86, Sep 24, 2010.

  1. jsmith86

    jsmith86 Well-Known Member

    Dec 5, 2006
    7,631
    246
    63
    Cedar Rapids
    Anyone know if I would get better performance from a 6-core Xeon X5680 or 2 quad core Xeon 5630s? I'm using it for computational fluid dynamics research and everything else in the computer will be fast enough that the difference in processor speed makes a real difference. My boss wants me to figure this out before we have 'the talk' with our IT people where we tell them what to buy.
     
  2. CycloneErik

    CycloneErik Well-Known Member

    Jan 31, 2008
    67,871
    2,081
    113
    Grad Student
    Jamerica
    I don't know, but I salute your victory in the hardware wars. Please don't tell my computer, because it will feel vastly inferior compared to that beast.
     
  3. jsmith86

    jsmith86 Well-Known Member

    Dec 5, 2006
    7,631
    246
    63
    Cedar Rapids
    Not much of a victory, due to the fact that if I were to install games on that computer, my boss would probably kill me.
     
  4. brianhos

    brianhos Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 1, 2006
    41,135
    735
    113
    Computer geek
    Trenchtown
    Is the program you are going to run multi threaded?
     
  5. jsmith86

    jsmith86 Well-Known Member

    Dec 5, 2006
    7,631
    246
    63
    Cedar Rapids
    It can be. I can set it up to run on as many cores as are available.
     
  6. cytech

    cytech Well-Known Member

    Apr 10, 2006
    6,346
    117
    63
    Hiawatha, Iowa
    The extra 12 mb of cache could come in real hand with the dual core setup. But honestly I doubt there would be a really big difference either way. I would go for the most bang for my buck.
     
  7. cycoticfan

    cycoticfan Member

    Dec 14, 2008
    463
    18
    18
    IT
    Johnston IA

    Just get 2 6 core processors and sleep better.
     
  8. jsmith86

    jsmith86 Well-Known Member

    Dec 5, 2006
    7,631
    246
    63
    Cedar Rapids
    Unfortunately that is out of the budget right now. We're getting a cluster once the next round of money comes in next July, but for right now all we can afford is either 2 quad cores or a single six core. The quad cores are each at 2.53 GHz while the six core is at 3.33 GHz.
     
  9. Wesley

    Wesley Well-Known Member

    Apr 12, 2006
    70,964
    542
    113
    Envr Engr/Program Manager
    Omaha
    Call up Intel.
     
  10. jsmith86

    jsmith86 Well-Known Member

    Dec 5, 2006
    7,631
    246
    63
    Cedar Rapids
    That is starting to look like an option, unlike calling dell. I called dell earlier today and was told, 'we don't provide benchmarks'. Almost made me want to say 'and we're not going to be buying our cluster from you next year'.
     
  11. cycoticfan

    cycoticfan Member

    Dec 14, 2008
    463
    18
    18
    IT
    Johnston IA
    I just finished setting up a hyper-v cluster with dual quads, running 30 virtual servers and it doesn't even break a sweat. If your testing can take advantage of 2 processors I would say that is the way to go.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. brianhos

    brianhos Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 1, 2006
    41,135
    735
    113
    Computer geek
    Trenchtown
    Wow, so you are that guy running hyper-v? I thought it was just an urban legend.
     
  13. pulse

    pulse Well-Known Member

    Mar 24, 2006
    5,900
    129
    63
    #13 pulse, Sep 24, 2010
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2010
    Without looking at any benchmarks, I would say the dual quad would be the way to go over the sex.
     
  14. iahawkhunter

    iahawkhunter Well-Known Member

    This is probably bad math, but 8*2.53 is almost equal to 6*3.33. This is just trying to look at the potential "total power" for each setup. With that in mind I think I'd be more likely to go with the 8-core setup. When you use multiple cores they won't always be running at 100%, and I'd personally prefer to have 8 cores running at whatever capacity as opposed to 6 cores running at the same capacity. I'm also assuming that your program would work just as well on 8 cores as it would on 6 cores.
     
  15. Cyclonepride

    Cyclonepride Thought Police
    Staff Member

    I'm going to make a prediction- whatever you choose, your IT people will think it wasn't the way to go.
     
  16. Cyclone42

    Cyclone42 Guest

    Can your application take advantage of a GPU (graphics processor)? Many math-intensive applications are going that route, because GPUs can be dozens of times faster than even a really fast multi-core CPU. Check out folding@home, for example. I've racked up a lot of work units using my $50 nvidia card, more than could be processed using a $3000 CPU-based system. Imagine what you could do with an nvidia Tesla card if your application could use it. Likely, it would blow even a 12-core Xeon system out of the water.
     
  17. 3TrueFans

    3TrueFans Well-Known Member

    Sep 10, 2009
    30,985
    1,273
    113
    Ames
    But will it play Crysis?
     
  18. jsmith86

    jsmith86 Well-Known Member

    Dec 5, 2006
    7,631
    246
    63
    Cedar Rapids
    I'm actually waiting for an email from the software support guys on the tesla. If it'll work, I might actually just double the ram in my machine and buy a couple Teslas instead of a whole new machine. 2x 488 CUDA cores would have the disadvantage of me having a puddle of drool outside my office door once word gets out.
     
  19. jsmith86

    jsmith86 Well-Known Member

    Dec 5, 2006
    7,631
    246
    63
    Cedar Rapids
    I'm gonna go out on a limb and say yes. I'm also going to go out on a limb and say that if my professor caught me playing Crysis instead of running sims, I would probably have a crysis of my own.
     

Share This Page