-   Riesel Prime Search (
-   -   RPS benchmarks (

fivemack 2014-05-05 22:34

[QUOTE=pinhodecarlos;372706]Check this budget.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure what currency you're working in, and frankly I do not believe the budget. According to Intel's own site, the e5-4620 v2 is $1611 and the e5-4657L v2 is $4394, so the price difference between four of the first and four of the second is not going to be 285.99 of any currency!

pinhodecarlos 2014-05-05 22:35

€ without taxes.

EDIT: Forgot to say that I agree with you, sent the seller an email because I notice that price discrepancy as well but due to timezone only tomorrow when I wake up I will have probably an answer.

pinhodecarlos 2014-05-06 14:15

The values of the budget are correct, the way they present is not well formulated. The value €10.645,20 is what I have to sum to €10.359,21 if I want to upgrade the processor from e5-4620 v2 to e5-4657L v2.

VBCurtis 2014-12-01 07:30

Carlos PM'ed to ask about 5820k benchmarks, thought this thread the proper place to respond:
5820k @ stock settings 3.3Ghz, 4x4GB RAM at stock 2133mhz. Power readings from kill-a-watt at wall plug.
Tests are run on k=45 at 2M, 120k FFT size.
Idle 65W
1x LLR 93W, 0.433 ms/iteration
2x LLR 114W, 0.435 ms/iter
3 through 6 were all the same speed; perhaps a bit of turboclock for 1-2 cores used?
6x LLR 185W, 0.456 ms/iter

I then fired up 6 copies of ECM (B1 = 25M, 169 digit number). LLR slowed to 0.800 ms/iter. Half-speed would be 0.912, so I gain 12-13% total throughput with 6x LLR and 6x ECM. Power use dropped to 180W.

My core2quad at 3.3ghz drew 170W with the same video card (I didn't know 5820 had no onboard video, so grabbed the ancient card from the quad to get it up while I order a real one).

The memory is rated for 2666mhz, and the CPU has a water block, so I'll mess with overclocking and report results when available. I'll also get a n=4M run later, to see if memory saturates on bigger FFTs.

pinhodecarlos 2014-12-01 08:10

Could you turn off HT off and make those tests again? Thank you in advance. Carlos.

VBCurtis 2014-12-02 03:11

[QUOTE=pinhodecarlos;388778]Could you turn off HT off and make those tests again? Thank you in advance. Carlos.[/QUOTE]

I did so, confirmed in top 6 CPUs rather than 12. Timings were either identical, or 0.001 faster. Ubuntu.

Machine does not POST under any overclocking settings, even if I try to slow it down. I may have to wait a while for a BIOS update before posting more interesting timings, though I'll still test bigger FFTs sometime soon.

pinhodecarlos 2014-12-02 09:44

Thank you Curtis. Just keep this thread updated with your benchmarks. Next year I want to buy a new computer. I read somewhere else on this forum that the best option is not going to one 5820k but for two i5-4690K. Still have to digest this (costs vs performance).

VBCurtis 2014-12-07 07:13

320k FFT timings on 5820k, still all stock settings for CPU/memory: 127 @4950k

1x: 1.182 ms
2x: 1.201 ms
3x: 1.255 ms
4x: 1.255 ms
5x: 1.30 ms
6x: 1.36 ms

The 5 and 6 core tests had more variety among the timings, so I rounded to the hundredth.

Memory default is 2133mhz; my set is rated and XMP'ed at 2666, but I can't POST with any alterations to any settings. Does anyone have ideas for some weird setting (gigabyte X99-UD4 board) that interferes with even simple OCing (e.g. XMP profile on)? I would be pleased to find timings not increase for 5 and 6 cores at 5M if the memory were set to XMP profile/rated speed.

All times are UTC. The time now is 02:00.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.