Anyone have any hard figures on folding performance difference

B

Bill Clo

Gawd
Joined
Jan 24, 2002
Messages
959
for A64 processors and an equivalent speed Barton core? I'm specifically looking at the differences between a Barton 3200 (2.2ghz) and a A64 (3200, 2ghz).Here's what I got, price-wise...

Barton 3200, mobo, 512mb memory $217
A64 3200, socket 754, mobo, 512mb memory $276
A64 3200,socket 939, 90nm, mobo, 512mb memory $321

From what I've been able to find, the 90nm A64 will have a power consumption about 20-25% less than the a64 3200 130nm, and about the same versus the Barton. I'd save about $60 over 3 years in electric costs. This does not quite justify the extra $104 price difference between the Barton and 90nm A64. However, if there is a large performance difference, then perhaps this can be forgiven.

Anyone have good figures?
 
Bill Clo said:
for A64 processors and an equivalent speed Barton core? I'm specifically looking at the differences between a Barton 3200 (2.2ghz) and a A64 (3200, 2ghz).Here's what I got, price-wise...

Barton 3200, mobo, 512mb memory $217
A64 3200, socket 754, mobo, 512mb memory $276
A64 3200,socket 939, 90nm, mobo, 512mb memory $321

From what I've been able to find, the 90nm A64 will have a power consumption about 20-25% less than the a64 3200 130nm, and about the same versus the Barton. I'd save about $60 over 3 years in electric costs. This does not quite justify the extra $104 price difference between the Barton and 90nm A64. However, if there is a large performance difference, then perhaps this can be forgiven.

Anyone have good figures?
Click to expand...

I need to get off my ass and get a Kill-a-watt. I have 10 boxes here that I need to test. Pentium, A64 130mm, Sempron 90mm, Barton, Thunderbird, etc.

If I ever get my act together I will let you know.

I like my 90mm Sempron 3000+ and it O/C's to 2.0Ghz at 1.35v (underclocked voltage). Smaller HDD also are much more efficient. Low capacity 2.5" HDD would be the best way to go and probably save 10-20 watts.
 
get whatever 90nm chip you can and a DFI board. OC the chip by 500+mhz. tada!

and yeah, semprons (754, 90nm) seem to be best bang/buck now with the possibility of overclocking. you get the 1.8 or whatever, and put it at 2.5.

just IMO. i haven't seen any actual figures yet, though.
 
It all depends on the protiens that you get.
This is the difference worked out in Points per Hour per Ghz between my MP's and Opterons.
Tinkers:- Zero real increase in speed. You may get a 1% or 2% increase in speed.
Ambers:- About 15% increase in PpHpG.
Gromacs:- Tend to be like Ambers with a 15% increase but you can get some that will give a +50% increase in speed.

I've found that the ones that fold fast on an MP at around 2 PpHpG will fold even faster on an Opteron at around 2.4 PpHpG.
The ones that fold slow at around 1.6 PpHpG will still fold slow at around 1.8 PpHpG.
So with a good set of protien you will fold a lot faster and with a bad set you will fold at the same speed.

Luck.......... :D
 
I would choose the 90nm socket 939 board just because AMD has publicly committed that the socket 939 is going to be the one which will be made dual-core. DUAL CORE. All you would need is a bios upgrade and drop in a new CPU. Double your production with no significant increase in electrical cost. That works for me.

GwilyaGwees
 
GwilyaGwees said:
I would choose the 90nm socket 939 board just because AMD has publicly committed that the socket 939 is going to be the one which will be made dual-core. DUAL CORE. All you would need is a bios upgrade and drop in a new CPU. Double your production with no significant increase in electrical cost. That works for me.

GwilyaGwees
Click to expand...

wha? how is it no significant increase in elec. cost? i'm probably sounding real stupid, but isn't 2x the core 2x the power consumption?
 
no. adding a second core is like having two processors. there is overhead from the motherboard/hdd/whatever in adding a second system, but having two processors is much more efficient. i think dual cores are slightly more efficient (power consumption wise) than two discrete processors.

there is an increase in power consumption, but it is far less than adding a second box. the cpu is just one of the many components that draw power.
 
I would guess that you will be getting almost a double performance increase for about 10 watts extra. Well worth it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top