Dual C32 & Opt 4234 (6c) - Any good?

J

johnnyfiive

n00b
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
17
Like the title says, will that combination with a gtx 580 get me a decent amount of PPD?
I won't be folding 24/7 as I will be using the workstation for VMs and the occasional gaming. During the winter however, it will be folding a good 18+ hours a day.
 
Personally i think you would be better off with a pair of 41xx chips, bulldozer based cpu's are not the best when it comes to folding and get beaten by their older cousins.
 
That is a tough one. If you happen to get the 2.6Ghz K10 generation 6 core CPUs, they could very well be on par or out perform the 3.3Ghz full turbo Bulldozer based 6 core CPUs. Doing some rough math (more research would be need to get conclusive answers) the Bulldozer hexacores would have to be at 3.46Ghz to be on par with the 2.6Ghz K10 hexacore.
 
My dual C32 4180 (6 Cores @ 2.6GHz) rig is generally good for around 88K PPD.

H.
 
I forget what the ipc reductions were...all I know is a IL 16core will perform the same as a 12core MC of the same clock... +4 cores to keep the same performance.
 
Patriot said:
I forget what the ipc reductions were...all I know is a IL 16core will perform the same as a 12core MC of the same clock... +4 cores to keep the same performance.
Click to expand...

We are talking 2.6Ghz 6 core K10 vs 3.3Ghz 6 core bulldozer.
 
Untitledone said:
We are talking 2.6Ghz 6 core K10 vs 3.3Ghz 6 core bulldozer.
Click to expand...

Yeah...I just hadn't run the numbers...I find mine in agreement with yours... a 1.33x scaling factor for required clock rate increase from MC to IL for equal performance (with equal core count).
 
johnnyfiive,

The recent BA re-alignment has seriously devalued dual C32's - I've gone from around 88K ppd to 38K ppd, more than a 50% reduction. My folding contributions are being re-evaluated.

My electricity used to be "free", but now it's not. The $2/day it now costs me to fold looks a lot more expensive than it used to before they cut in half the meaningless points Stanford gave me for my efforts. Yes the points are worthless, meaningless, but they have a measure for team intra-team competitiveness that kept it interesting, Stanford just devalued my interest. Hell, I even wonder if I'm the only person with a 12 core who is still folding - my 12 core folded 15 successive generations of the same WU. R7, C21, G216-230. There may have been more.

H.


H.
 
Sheesh. That is a huge drop in PPD. What made them lower the point value for misc. types of processors/cores?
(I'm not too familiar with how the points grade works)
 
THe Bigadv WU were designed to run on server class hardware, at the time this was mainly 2p machines with the very occasional 4p or 8p (this is in the folding world). However withthe advent of i7 CPU's with HT, you could overclock them and get good points for half the cost. This lead to an upsurge in people doing -bigadv on machines it wasn't designed for. 8 physical cores was the 1st recommendation, then 12, now 16. However cpu's were that good, points better and deadlines so slack they ended up with all sorts of cpu's. x6 phenom's, x4's were tried as well as Q9xxx cpu's. Eventually PG realised that something had to be done and annnounced in november last year that you would need 16 physical cores to complete in time. So despite the "needing latest server class hardware" to do the -bigadv they blocked all but the top 1% from doing them.

As well as stopping all the 6,8 and 12thread machines, they also managed to stop all the 16 thread intel machines, most of the 24 thread intel machines (x5660 or better), most of the 16 thread AMD machines and a few of the 24 AMD thread machines. At this stage to get Top PPD from -bigadv you need 32 or 48 AMD cores, or a 2p E5 xeon 8c/16t or better, 2p x56xx is only really worth running on an SR-2.

Check my sig and you will understand why that this pisses me off just a tiny bit
 
Wow, thanks for clarifying. I can clearly see why that would upset a ton of dedicated folders (Especially folks with multiple dedicated rigs like yourself).
 
johnnyfiive said:
Wow, thanks for clarifying. I can clearly see why that would upset a ton of dedicated folders (Especially folks with multiple dedicated rigs like yourself).
Click to expand...

I've cut the whole saga down to a couple of sentences but there are whole threads on the subject on here, foldingforum.org and most of the other top team sites. If i had older hardware i wouldn't be so ticked off but westmere is current tech and to sideline all but 4 of that cpu family just seems daft to me:confused:
 
My rig in sig cranks out 66k PPD on SMP and 116K PPD on bigadv 8101s. It's not dual processor and you might not OC it to a suicidal state but the price is right for a primary system. If you game or do anything intensive, run SMP and pause it when you need to, otherwise most misc tasks won't slow it enough to affect bigadv completion. My GPU does not fold.

Nathan_P, they really shot themselves in the foot doing this to people who purchased dedicated systems to help THEM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top