Best Unit for the Job?

[Primeinator]

Thank you for elucidating the inadequacy of my verbiage in my original question. I should clarify a few things. First, electricity cost. For the foreseeable future, the cost of electricity will be included in my residency meaning I will not have to pay more if I hook up a powerful machine. That being said, questions are going to be asked if I somehow place a server in my room that places a significant jump in energy demands.

As for using several less powerful and expensive machines as opposed to one more powerful machine, I do not necessarily have the room to operate a farm. Thus, one, possibly two machines (in addition to what I have running) is what I'm considering, but leaning more towards the one machine option.

For the cost of the machine, I do not have a fortune to spend. Preferably less than $700 USA dollars. However, if something could offer a significant jump in performance for little additional relative cost, then I would most definitely consider that option. As for waiting for new technology, my current focus is to find a new, world-record prime with a long-term goal of finding a 100M digit prime. Unless some new technology is planned to be released in the coming few years that promises a significant increase in LL speed, I would like to go ahead and get a machine now and in the future get a machine capable of testing a 100M candidate in a reasonable time (when such technology exists). The planned Intel Nehalem EX seems like a powerful candidate-- 8 cores at 16 threads per core w/ DDR4 (quad-channel) memory. However, such a processor is most likely going to be very expensive and is probably not meant for desktop use.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

(2) Maximizing "bang for the buck" is meaningless. You can always get more performance by spending more. OTOH, you can probably find a 10-year old used system for $5.00, which will be 50 times slower than a new system. But at only $5.00 you would be getting greater "bang for the buck" (i.e. price performance)

Your final sentence seemingly contradicts your opening sentence.

Maximizing "bang for the buck" is just what linear programming is good for.

Now, if you want to point out that Primeinator is not actually maximizing "bang for the buck" even though he's stated that as a goal -- IOW, he's not doing the linear programming correctly -- which is what you point out later -- that's okay.

[CRGreathouse]

So to (begin to) satisfy the linear program proponents, let's write this one out a bit more.

It looks like you want to maximize Prime95 throughput over a span of, say, two years for a total cost of $700 not including electricity, subject to the constraint of "not more than two computers at a time". Fair?

[flouran]

Goddamn it, that reminds me of the Simplex Method. Doing that by hand was horrible.

[lavalamp]

Originally Posted by Primeinator

Thank you for elucidating the inadequacy of my verbiage in my original question. I should clarify a few things. First, electricity cost. For the foreseeable future, the cost of electricity will be included in my residency meaning I will not have to pay more if I hook up a powerful machine. That being said, questions are going to be asked if I somehow place a server in my room that places a significant jump in energy demands.

As for using several less powerful and expensive machines as opposed to one more powerful machine, I do not necessarily have the room to operate a farm. Thus, one, possibly two machines (in addition to what I have running) is what I'm considering, but leaning more towards the one machine option.

For the cost of the machine, I do not have a fortune to spend. Preferably less than $700 USA dollars. However, if something could offer a significant jump in performance for little additional relative cost, then I would most definitely consider that option. As for waiting for new technology, my current focus is to find a new, world-record prime with a long-term goal of finding a 100M digit prime. Unless some new technology is planned to be released in the coming few years that promises a significant increase in LL speed, I would like to go ahead and get a machine now and in the future get a machine capable of testing a 100M candidate in a reasonable time (when such technology exists). The planned Intel Nehalem EX seems like a powerful candidate-- 8 cores at 16 threads per core w/ DDR4 (quad-channel) memory. However, such a processor is most likely going to be very expensive and is probably not meant for desktop use.

The Nehalem-EX aka Beckton, will be a server CPU designed for use in quad CPU servers (read: extremely expensive and you'll need 4), it will have 8 cores, and 2 threads per core for a total of 16 threads, so 64 threads for a quad CPU system. It will also use DDR3 memory which will be fully buffered (increasing the access latency and cost, but generally running at a lower frequency).

Put it this way, you will not be buying a fully kitted out Beckton system any time soon.

The next high end desktop CPU from Intel will be the Westmere with 6 cores (so 12 threads total), expect it to make a showing towards the end of this year or beginning of next year. Then after that it will be Sandy Bridge which will come in 4 and 8 core varients and have twice the performance per clock per core and run at a higher default frequency, expect that about a year after Westmere.

Do I assume you are in the US then? You didn't actually mention where you were when you asked for web sites.

[joblack]

Originally Posted by lavalamp

The Nehalem-EX aka Beckton, will be a server CPU designed for use in quad CPU servers (read: extremely expensive and you'll need 4), it will have 8 cores, and 2 threads per core for a total of 16 threads, so 64 threads for a quad CPU system. It will also use DDR3 memory which will be fully buffered (increasing the access latency and cost, but generally running at a lower frequency).

The Nehalem EX will be a nice processor but the price with be also impressive - you won't get the machine for $700 ... ;)

[lavalamp]

The system you linked to on TigerDirect will be a decently performing quad core system, though personally I'd like faster RAM in it. You could have two of those for your $700 budget and together they would outpace a single i7 system. They would use more power though obviously, which means it'd cost more to run and heat your place up more.

Here's how you could get a good i7 system for $700:

i7 920 & OCZ Reaper HPC 3GB (3 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1866 (PC3 15000)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.202682
$333.98 (- \10 rebate)


GIGABYTE GA-EX58-UD3R
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128375
$199.99 (- $15 rebate)


Recertified: Seagate Barracuda 7200.8 400GB
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148432
$39.99


ASUS EAH3450/DI/256M Radeon HD 3450 256MB
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121259
$30.99 (- $10 rebate)


Rosewill R222-P-BK Black Steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811147095
$19.99


RAIDMAX RX-400AF 400W ATX12V / EPS12V 80 PLUS BRONZE
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817152039
$49.99 (- $20 rebate)


LITE-ON Black 18X DVD-ROM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827106274
$17.99


$692.92 (- $55 rebates)

If you wanted to try your hand at overclocking, an aftermarket cooler is practically a requirement. Unfortunately all the better aftermarket i7 coolers seem to be arranged in such a way as to not take advantage of the vent and duct over the CPU in the case I picked, but you could still take the duct off and fit a side fan there if you wanted. It seems the best cooler on Newegg for the i7 is this one, which tacks on another $74.99, but $5 can be shaved off by changing the bundles slightly. So the final price would be $762.92 with $55 rebates, assuming they go through OK, the total price minus delivery and tax would be $707.92.

Edit: I didn't include an operating system by the way, I'll leave you to decide that. Whatever you go for though, I'd recommend getting a 64bit version.

[joblack]

Originally Posted by lavalamp

The system you linked to on TigerDirect will be a decently performing quad core system, though personally I'd like faster RAM in it. You could have two of those for your $700 budget and together they would outpace a single i7 system. They would use more power though obviously, which means it'd cost more to run and heat your place up more.

Here's how you could get a good i7 system for $700:

i7 920 & OCZ Reaper HPC 3GB (3 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1866 (PC3 15000)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboD...t=Combo.202682
$333.98 (- $10 rebate)

The number of ram sticks should always be even because of the memory interleave. Odd numbers decrease the performance.

[ckdo]

Originally Posted by joblack

The number of ram sticks should always be even because of the memory interleave. Odd numbers decrease the performance.

That is wrong for the i7. Helpful link (in German): http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,67...2009/RAM/Test/

[joblack]

Originally Posted by ckdo

That is wrong for the i7. Helpful link (in German): http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,67...2009/RAM/Test/

You're right, but that's obviously only true for the i7 - all other CPUs need even ram stick numbers ...

[Primeinator]

Edit: I didn't include an operating system by the way, I'll leave you to decide that. Whatever you go for though, I'd recommend getting a 64bit version.

Linux 64-bit is what I'm thinking. I've heard Prime95 is faster on Linux anyway.

Do I assume you are in the US then? You didn't actually mention where you were when you asked for web sites.

Yes, sorry. I should have indicated where I lived. I'm in the central United States.

So how much performance difference is there between the i7 920 and Q6700? Is the 6700 a 64-bit compatible CPU?