[QUOTE]Modern operating systems such as Microsoft® Windows® and Linux® use a “first touch”
policy. What this means is that when an application requests memory, the virtual address is
initially not mapped to any physical memory. When the application first accesses the memory
(read or write), the OS allocates a physical memory region and maps the virtual address to the
physical range. The OS typically allocates physical memory from the same NUMA node as the
CPU that executed the thread which first accessed the virtual memory block.[/QUOTE]
I found this here: [url]https://developer.amd.com/wordpress/media/2012/10/NUMA_aware_heap_memory_manager_article_final.pdf[/url]

My understanding is that it's possible to softball NUMA-awareness by having the workers manage their own memory, [i]maybe[/i] they don't need to malloc but they do need to be the first ones to memset. By softball I mean it should work as long as memory is not constrained, ultimately you're relying on the underlying OS but it's probably good enough.

Assuming you're running a program that doesn't do this, ie the "first touch" is by the main thread that may not be where the worker is, it looks like you can bodge it by using taskset in linux: [url]http://xmodulo.com/run-program-process-specific-cpu-cores-linux.html[/url]

You'd do this by running an instance of the program per worker, making sure that the program and worker is set to within the same node. A ballache to figure out but doable. I have taskset on my WSL bash in windows 10, so it may be a "cross platform" solution for commandline programs. I don't know if mprime or Mlucas need this extra taskset step if you're already doing 1 worker per instance, it's something I'll test in a few months although I'm sure someone else already has somewhere.

[QUOTE=M344587487;469134]Yeah I get that, AVX-512 is a big deal for Prime95/Mlucas specifically, I meant that I can't go intel when AMD is competitive in general. Bulldozer was a bust, I went with a 2500K.[/QUOTE]

You will of course decide on your own use cases, but I will say, my 1700 even overclocked falls behind my old 6700k at non-turbo stock for both large and small FFT tasks.

I should add one more thing about memory: dual rank memory works better for Prime95. The trade-off is that it usually doesn't clock as high. If you can get dual rank memory at 3200, go for it. Usually dual-rank will be higher capacity sticks, so it may not be worth spending the money depending on your priorities.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;469212]I should add one more thing about memory: dual rank memory works better for Prime95. The trade-off is that it usually doesn't clock as high. If you can get dual rank memory at 3200, go for it. Usually dual-rank will be higher capacity sticks, so it may not be worth spending the money depending on your priorities.[/QUOTE]
The last RAM I bought is Kingston HyperX, 2666MHz, Dual rank. I am running it at 3200MHz, with slightly higher voltage (1.22 vs 1.2) with timings set 1 clock slower. I got 8 MB parts. The HyperX page at Kingston lists the rank on many of DIMMs.

[QUOTE=kladner;469217]The last RAM I bought is Kingston HyperX, 2666MHz, Dual rank. I am running it at 3200MHz, with slightly higher voltage (1.22 vs 1.2) with timings set 1 clock slower. I got 8 MB parts. The HyperX page at Kingston lists the rank on many of DIMMs.[/QUOTE]

8 MB? Are you running Windows 95? ;)

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;469212]I should add one more thing about memory: dual rank memory works better for Prime95. The trade-off is that it usually doesn't clock as high. If you can get dual rank memory at 3200, go for it. Usually dual-rank will be higher capacity sticks, so it may not be worth spending the money depending on your priorities.[/QUOTE]

Ok thanks, I'll consider it. When looking at normal recommendations people rarely talk about rank, I think the only thing I've seen is to avoid it for some games because reasons. You're right that it's not available for 4GB sticks AFAIK. 32GB would be nice but man, RAM prices have pretty much doubled over the past few years.

[QUOTE=M344587487;469231]Ok thanks, I'll consider it. When looking at normal recommendations people rarely talk about rank, I think the only thing I've seen is to avoid it for some games because reasons. You're right that it's not available for 4GB sticks AFAIK. 32GB would be nice but man, RAM prices have pretty much doubled over the past few years.[/QUOTE]

Dual rank can have higher latency in some cases and it usually doesn't clock as high, so yeah, not for pure gamers.

I know what you mean about RAM prices. When I built my cluster the other year, I bought five i5-6600 systems with 32 GB of DDR4-2133 each. The cost for 32GB? CA$120. The price to buy now? $330.

So I'm sitting on a $1050 RAM appreciation. It's nuts.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;469227]8 MB? Are you running Windows 95? ;)[/QUOTE]
Well, there are two of them. :smile: If I had known where prices were going I would have gotten the other two up front. :sad:

[QUOTE=kladner;469253]Well, there are two of them. :smile: If I had known where prices were going I would have gotten the other two up front. :sad:[/QUOTE]

He was referring to your typo of 8 MB instead of 8 GB.

[QUOTE=ATH;469254]He was referring to your typo of 8 MB instead of 8 GB.[/QUOTE]
Oblivion rules at this hour (2300 CDT), fresh home from work. Actually, we ran 8MB total with Win 3.1. By Win95, or maybe 98 it was 256MB, I think.
Drives weren't measured in GB then. Our first machine, 486DX-33 had a 120 MB HDD. The second had more than twice that in RAM.

Actually Windows 95 could be installed with 4MB RAM but 8 MB recommended apparently:

[url]http://discussions.virtualdr.com/showthread.php?9796-Windows-95-System-Requirements[/url]


(It is 6:20 am here and I have been at work since 10:50 pm)