• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

AMD 12 core folding leader?

Nice reading!

Imagine a four CPU setup or even a 8 CPU with the daughter card!!! 24 to 96 cores in one setup!
Supports 4 CPU boards. So looks like maybe the Xeon and SR-2 board might have competition!
Buy a 4 cpu board with two CPUs and expand as you have the cash!!

/totally cocky!! "I usually do 2 -bigadv a day"
 
Last edited:
Those 60k ppd numbers were making me sad until I realized that is without overclocking. SR-2 will only be $300 more than a cheap server board and it should consistently reach at least 3.8ghz and get optimal pp/w because of bonuses. Overclocking with the opterons will probably never be possible but cheap 4 socket boards would be interesting for huge bonuses as well but at 1k a cpu very expensive. The power consumption for both is the same but it seems high though, maybe they used a 70% efficient power supply.

12 cores in one chip 0.0
 
Despite the high numbers, I wasn't overly impressed. Think about it. It takes AMD double the physical core count to even approach Intel on the performance tests, and where it counts in this forum with the F@H benchmarking, both manufacturers are neck to neck. I understand that Intel emulates the same number of cores with HT, but it isn't an equivalence.

In any case, I'm glad there is greater competition arriving during a time where competition is somewhat lacking in the high end. I just hope that this will translate to lower prices down the line. We can sure use it.
 
It takes AMD double the number of cores and quad-channel memory just to meet the performance of a dual-Gulftown system. Pretty poor. On the technology front Magny-Cours is competing with Beckton, not Gulftown, and compared to 8 physical cores per CPU and quad-channel memory on the Intel side of things, it will be even less favourable for AMD.
 
Zero82z said:
It takes AMD double the number of cores and quad-channel memory just to meet the performance of a dual-Gulftown system. Pretty poor. On the technology front Magny-Cours is competing with Beckton, not Gulftown, and compared to 8 physical cores per CPU and quad-channel memory on the Intel side of things, it will be even less favourable for AMD.
Click to expand...

Exactly
 
I would think that if someone built a 4 - CPU AMD system with these "less favourable" CPU's it would beat 2 - Dual Xeon, SR-2 systems due to bonus system.
I thought 4 CPU's would give you more of a bonus then two?
A 4 CPU motherboard would cost the same as the "Holy Grail" that is the SR-2 and you could upgrade CPU's as you could afford them.

All with NO O/Cing
Dual Xeon = 18 min 10 sec TPF = 62,102 PPD
Opteron = 18 min 02 sec TPF = 62,792 PPD

Also,
AMD chip are at 2.2GHz
Xeons are at 3.3GHz

So for a 4 CPU Opteron to equal 2 - Xeon systems = 11 min 28 sec TPF = 124,111 PPD
If scaling was true, and completed in half the time, your looking at more like 9 min 1 sec TPF = 177,603 PPD
To equal this score. Both of your O/Ced Xeons would have to get you to 14 min 18 sec to equeal one 4 cpu system.

A 4 CPU system with a daughter card would be the sickest thing alive!!
If scaling was true for 8 CPU's, and completed in half the time, your looking at more like 4 min 31 sec TPF = 500,947 PPD
EDIT:
AMD declined to extend Socket G34 to eight-way operation citing shrinking demand of the >4-socket market. AMD is targeting Socket G34 at the high-end two-socket market and the four-socket market.

This is all contingent that you would be building more then one Xeon/SR-2 setup.
If you plan on building just one system, then this is all just academic!

Food for thought!!
 
Last edited:
Once I started building Skynet and realized that even with my 4 quad cores I'd only match a mildy OC'd i7, and with all 8 of my quads I'd match a OC'd hex core, I jumped ship asap

Now Ive got 2 Xeon 5530's and some RAM and a GPU and PSU here already for my SR-2 build :)
 
crawford60 said:
Do we know the price and power usage of these yet?

Click to expand...

heres the power usage.. was on page the first page..

It's not all raw horsepower though. At 2.2GHz this 12-core monster is supposed to be content with only 80 precious watts, and 115W at most.

and here are the numbers from anandtechs testing..
http://it.anandtech.com/show/2978/amd-s-12-core-magny-cours-opteron-6174-vs-intel-s-6-core-xeon/14

being that it is an opteron and the fact that the majority of opteron motherboards allow overclocking i dont see why these processors cant be overclocked..
 
I couldn't get a recomendation for any board for even just 4 of my quads that OCs or I may have saved a few
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
 
For those of you who are dissing AMD......

* * * * Y O U !

/feel the love!
 
Nothing against them, but they are a bit behind performance wise vs Intel, and add on that the SMP clients are compiled for Intel, folding just isn't their area

I used to be die hard AMD, and for what it's worth, they are still price champs for most average users, just nit folders

But it's good they are finally competetive again
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
 
It doesn't matter if the Intel matches the performance of AMD with half as many cores. The ppd/$ and ppd/watt are the only numbers that matter. I don't care if it takes 24 AMD cores to match 12 Intel cores. If the price and power consumption is the same for each system, why does it matter? Add in that socket G34 is new gen and will accept Bulldozer CPUs, while Socket 1366 is not going to scale past 6 cores and I see a better deal on the AMD side if performance numbers are equal.
 
Vaulter98c said:
I couldn't get a recomendation for any board for even just 4 of my quads that OCs or I may have saved a few
Click to expand...
In this forum not many people would know if there are any. Excluding the DC and MP forums, [H] is highly focussed on single sockets. It's possible that if such a board exists you might only find out at XS or 2CPU.com. That's where most of the ultra high-end enthusiasts lurk.

Vaulter98c said:
Nothing against them, but they are a bit behind performance wise vs Intel, and add on that the SMP clients are compiled for Intel, folding just isn't their area

I used to be die hard AMD, and for what it's worth, they are still price champs for most average users, just nit folders
Click to expand...
That's essentially the situation in a nutshell. For the typical home user or budget enthusiast AMD is a good buy. I was also hardcore AMD for the better part of the last decade and folding was a large reason for it. However, AMD hasn't really offered anything compelling to the folder since I started folding again at least 3 years ago. That's a huge amount of time to be second fiddle in the computer industry.

But it's good they are finally competetive again
Click to expand...
Yes and we all benefit from increased competition. The only question in my mind is if this architecture has arrived timely enough to cover some lost ground...?

flogge said:
It doesn't matter if the Intel matches the performance of AMD with half as many cores. The ppd/$ and ppd/watt are the only numbers that matter. I don't care if it takes 24 AMD cores to match 12 Intel cores. If the price and power consumption is the same for each system, why does it matter? Add in that socket G34 is new gen and will accept Bulldozer CPUs, while Socket 1366 is not going to scale past 6 cores and I see a better deal on the AMD side if performance numbers are equal.
Click to expand...
/true .dat

The bottom line is always the bottom line. We will just have to wait until we can get a better grasp on some hard numbers not only performance-wise but more importantly, cost. I am expecting a very high initial price tag because M-C is slated to replace Istanbul and the latter are very expensive processors. It's hard to tell at this point what would be a better folding investment without prices but I have a suspicion Intel will be a better PPD for the dollar. Time will tell.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
being that it is an opteron and the fact that the majority of opteron motherboards allow overclocking i dont see why these processors cant be overclocked..
Click to expand...
Where do you get the idea that the majority of Opteron boards support overclocking? All the motherboards that will support these CPUs will be server boards, and server boards don't overclock.
 
But it's good they are finally competetive again
Click to expand...
They are not 'finally competitive' again. The only thing they can do is throw more cores into the die and hope Intel doesn't follow them, because they need almost twice the cores to get the same performance. The problem is that their architecture and process haven't evolved that much, while Intel's have improved leaps and bounds - 2 years ago we had dual and quad-core processors on 45nm. Now, we have those same dual and quad core processors squeezed to literally the bottom of the market, while at the top end we have an entirely new, more efficient architecture on a 32nm process that allows clocking a hex-core to 4.2, 4.3GHz reliably on air. Whereas AMD's best-performing consumer CPU retails for the price of Intel's mid-range, and can't get their CPU to even push 4GHz on air with any reliability. The only things going for them at the moment are their cost and AM3.

It doesn't matter if the Intel matches the performance of AMD with half as many cores. The ppd/$ and ppd/watt are the only numbers that matter. I don't care if it takes 24 AMD cores to match 12 Intel cores. If the price and power consumption is the same for each system, why does it matter? Add in that socket G34 is new gen and will accept Bulldozer CPUs, while Socket 1366 is not going to scale past 6 cores and I see a better deal on the AMD side if performance numbers are equal.
Click to expand...
And currently the energy efficiency of Intel CPUs are about double AMD's. And I remember when we all said 1366 would never scale past 4 cores. This is all speculation. Don't pass it off as fact.
 
Ya, I was talking about 2cpu, the subject matter experts if you ask me.SR2 is truly something new and revolutionary, especially since you can mix CPUs, that's unheard of in the amd camp
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
 
Vaulter98c said:
Ya, I was talking about 2cpu, the subject matter experts if you ask me.SR2 is truly something new and revolutionary, especially since you can mix CPUs, that's unheard of in the amd camp
Click to expand...
It's hitherto unheard of in the Intel camp as well. In the past, there were attempts at mixing different AMD processors on the same motherboard with varying results. One notable case was THG installing a dual-core and single core processor on a SMP AMD board for a total of three cores. It worked, ie. the board recognized the processors but there were issues as might be expected. The benchmarks were interesting. The fact it even worked was quite the surprise back then.
 
/me still cant wait, wants his AMD super rig NOWWWW!

/me readies the oven!
 
Well have to start our own "[H]ard Rigs" section, where we can put pics of all our monster folders

take that evga mod rigs lol
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top