wonder why? |
Message boards : Cruncher's Corner : wonder why?
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
I just started up my new computer Windows 7, 3.6 and 8 core versus the older one which is also Windows 7, but 3.2, and 6 core. My Einstein units take longer on the more powerful computer by about 40 minutes each. I have a GTX 580 and the cuda units crunch much faster than on the older one with a GTX 460. That I understand, but I am puzzled by the cores running slower. Does anyone have an answer? | |
| ID: 117326 | | |
|
Assuming you have bulldozer. Don't know about this project, but if they do use floating path math, you bulldozer shares those resources within the 4 modules, so each "core" gets 1/2 of a modules FPU (floating point unit). | |
| ID: 117328 | | |
|
Sorry, but could you repeat it in simpler terms for the novice here, please? | |
| ID: 117330 | | |
|
NOT TECHNICAL AT ALL AT THIS STUFF | |
| ID: 117331 | | |
|
Thank you Spot, it does help and it also made me realize that I should have taken more science courses in college. | |
| ID: 117338 | | |
|
BE CAREFUL IF YOU WISH TO DO THIS, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED | |
| ID: 117341 | | |
Thank you Spot, it does help and it also made me realize that I should have taken more science courses in college. Besides what 5pot said, and that all the overclocking stuff could be an interesting learning, the truth is that your gaining in terms of RAC will not be impressive. I used "RAC" not only thinking in the credits itself, but also as a meassure of your contribution to the science of the projects... One thing to take in account is that while your phenom take less time to do the work it does at most 6 Wus in that time, while the new CPU will do 8, that's a 33% more WUs, so if the crunching times are not longer than a 33% your will be doing more work anyway... ____________ ![]() | |
| ID: 117344 | | |
|
Think of Bull(crap)dozer "8 core" as being a 4 core with poorly designed hardware level hyperthreading and the most bizarrely useless cache design imaginable. | |
| ID: 117397 | | |
|
Foul- unnecessary roughness. | |
| ID: 117398 | | |
|
Assuming that aspects of this discussion refer to hyperthreading then see this thread for an interesting discussion. ( Alas I hadn't gotten around to any further Ix as I had alluded to there ). Also beware any effect ( thinking of GW analysis especially ) of variation between the work units themselves - they may not all be created 'equal'. | |
| ID: 117399 | | |
Think of Bull(crap)dozer "8 core" as being a 4 core with poorly designed hardware level hyperthreading and the most bizarrely useless cache design imaginable. Deary me, you obviously have no idea of processor design! Is "hyperthreading" 'crap' because it fools you into believing you have 2 CPUs and yet only delivers 1 CPU and 0.3 of a further CPU?... The Bulldozer design is rather clever and nicely high performance. The limiting factor is the utterly CRAP software and the uneducated Marketing steered unrealistic user expectations. Happy? Now please look again at what can be done and at what price. If you are wanting ultimate performance, then your best bet is to go for an "uber" GPU, and then whatever CPU is adequate to merely feed that GPU. On that count, my research suggests that AMD CPU + nVidia GPU are best for whatever price point you might want. Otherwise, please keep with the original goals of Boinc and acquire whatever computer best fits your needs and then donate only spare CPU/GPU cycles to the furtherance of science. Happy cool crunchin', Martin ____________ Powered by Mandriva Linux A user friendly OS! See the Boinc HELP Wiki | |
| ID: 117650 | | |
|
Thank you everyone for trying to explain modern technology to me. I appreciate your taking the time to do so. | |
| ID: 117716 | | |
Message boards :
Cruncher's Corner :
wonder why?