• 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.

Dual Core P4's

S

Shadowchild

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
199
So I was thinking about how much of a beast the HT P4's are, and I got to thinking about the near future: What kind of a beast of a folder would a dual-core HT P4 be? I mean, my P4 at 3.2GHz with HT already cranks out the work units, imagine doubling that power in the same amount of real estate! And, once again, I had a crazy thought: What if we, as [H]ardOCP sanctioned folders, were able to convince Intel to let us have the demo P4's they send to Kyle for evaluation to fold on? Or, better yet, what if we were able to convince them to let us have the samples that they were planning on getting rid of because they couldn't keep the rated clock speed up, or the FSB was a bit too low, or they put out more heat than normal? We could have a [H]ardGarden with 4 high-powered processors in a minimal space. It would mean whoring ourselves out to Intel, but we could become a sort of "Street team" and go out to conventions and tout them as official sponsors of the [H]orde! Anyone else think it's possible? I mean, we could probably walk around at computer fairs sponsoring the [H]orde and Intel in exchange for a little bone tossed to us now and then. So, who wants to brainstorm on this one and see what we can work out with, and maybe make a proposal to Intel?

 
as cool as that would be, i think we would lose a lot of respect in the minds of a lot of people, all the AMD fan boys. alos we would lose credit when it comes to comparing AMD vs Intel it we were sponsered ny intel.

as not to spoil all the fun, think what a super beast a duel duel core system would be. lol. 8 X3=24Ghz worth of [H] folding power
 
step1: check in places like anand that do hardware (p)reviews and see if their folding team gets anything.

personally i'd go for dual core AMD systems ;)

 
me too, the xeon 2 or whatever its called get used and abused by the duel opteron. due to the opteron actually being a REAL duelcore cpu
 
lozaning said:
me too, the xeon 2 or whatever its called get used and abused by the duel opteron. due to the opteron actually being a REAL duelcore cpu
Click to expand...
dualcore, even ;)

 
What would be neat would be a long term contest of a dualcore Athlon and Dualcore Pentium on the [H]ardOCP front page. Idea: Set up 2 "comparable" systems and have them fold for 2 weeks (maybe with a live link) and see which system comes up with the most points. It could even have a how-to on the configuration of FAH and pros and cons of multi-instance folding.....

You figure at least 1500+ current folder read HardOCP articles so it should be well received.
 
Not a bad idea Hito, but fatally flawed in one way, the randomness of the assigned units. You get a P4 cranking out the QMD's or something, or the AMD gets hammered with tinkers. The only way to minimize stuff like this is maybe to run timeless. Even then though that would still introduce too many variables into the equation. :(

 
Unless you pitch it to stanford and get special id's for it and describe whats going to happen with the project

"Brought to you by the number one team, and the number one university..."
 
lozaning said:
8 X3=24Ghz worth of [H] folding power
Click to expand...

Where did you get the 8 from ?
If only a twin dual core system, so only 4 true cores are running.
If your counting the hyperthreading then that adds only around 15% more not 100%.
So it should be 4 x 1.15 x 3 = 13.8 Ghz.
Nice but not quite so impresive...... :p

Luck......... :D
 
p[H]ant0m said:
Not a bad idea Hito, but fatally flawed in one way, the randomness of the assigned units. You get a P4 cranking out the QMD's or something, or the AMD gets hammered with tinkers. The only way to minimize stuff like this is maybe to run timeless. Even then though that would still introduce too many variables into the equation. :(

Click to expand...


I disagree. If run long enough, two weeks might not be long enough, them it would be a fair assessment of how work is handed out. Yeah, an AMD might actually fold faster, but if Stanford doesn't give them QMDs then they don't get as many points. It wouldn't be a scientific benchmark, but it would be a "real-world" test which seems to be the [H]ardOCP theme lately.

edit: That's why I proposed it as a contest not a bench-mark in the original post BTW.
 
Looking at things from that standpoint, I can respect your idea. And I know I am looking at it too microscopically, but I just think there would be too many additional variables inside the real world to truly get some idea. Although I can see the value of it with just a runoff to see which, at least in a real world respect, is king of the hill.

 
It would be nice if Stanford would come up with a benchmark. It is possible to make one, but then you would have to monkey with Time Clocks (unless it was a Timeless unit) and it would be a mess. You would need a bunch of different WUs to make it fair, etc.

I think real-world is probably the only realistic way to compare systems on a "macroscopic" level.

I do understand your point p[H]ant0m and I even agree. I'm a bit cranky still this morning.
 
Are the dual cores really going to have HT? Would you really need it? Isn't that just overkill?

Me wants :p!!@!!#!!!

 
um, as I recall, we are not concidered a for of tax break. I doubt that Intel would be willing to allow the engineering samples out to the [H]orde. If your willing to try though, you should go through their PR page. They can answer all the questions you will ask. ;)

 
Ibanez3434 said:
Are the dual cores really going to have HT? Would you really need it? Isn't that just overkill?

Me wants :p!!@!!#!!!

Click to expand...

They have HT.
 
Now I thought that only the Extreme Editions were going to have the HT enabled though. I thought due to Windows limitations, they were only going to allow regular dual cores to show each core as 1.

 
once they come out, someone will have to by a 8x cpu mb, and 8x dual core xeons w/ HT :eek:
 
But doesn't XP PRO only support 2? So we'd have to use like windows server 2003 untill longhorn comes out?

 
Thats what I was thinking when I mentioned the OS limitation. I thought M$ was going to allow the dual core provision, provided that HT wasn't enabled. Otherwise it would have required a move to XP Pro. Not sure where I saw that though... :confused:

 
I think because its only two real cores, please correct me if I am wrong, that its still usable with XP pro. The extra logical :confused: cores are still displayed and used though.
 
Linux -
Most major distro's support hyperthreading and should support multiple
processor.

Dual Core Duel
Just got the following bad news:
I'm SUPPOSED to be getting in a dual core DELL 380 (demo freebee) for 90 days to "burn in" :) :) next week.

Guess what it will be running :) :)

The bad part is it's a 90 day limit.
 
Hito Bahadur said:
Only the Extreme Edition will be Dual core and HT.

Qoute from anandtech:[/URL]
Click to expand...

Thanks Hito, I remembered I had seen that somewhere, but I couldn't remember.


 
KodiakStar said:
ooh ooh
let me guess


SETI?
Click to expand...
w00t, screw the cure, we need to find aliens!!!

Also I heard that Yeti@home is coming out next year, The search for the Yeti continues...

EDIT: Man I'm almost getting as bad as Kodiak...


 
I also remember that in almost all cases, Hyperthreading on the dual core P4s is about useless. It's either no better than the regular dual cores and in some cases actually performs worse. I don't know how folding would be affected, though.

 
ICE_9 said:
I think because its only two real cores, please correct me if I am wrong, that its still usable with XP pro. The extra logical :confused: cores are still displayed and used though.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that it wont display all 4 unless it actually supports 4 cpus. i recently set up a dual xeon system that had HT enabled (basicly the same thing as a dual core cpu w/ HT) and still only 2 cpus.

 
If all the CPU, real & virtual, are enabled then you should show four graphs for CPU usage.
Check the CPU display setting if less.

Luck....... :D
 
The Dual-Core EE that [H] had for review had HT enabled, and it did show 4 processors, 2 logical, 2 physical, although from what I've read XP Pro will be able to do this, and XP Home will not. But still, whoever reads [H]ardOCP shouldn't be using XP Home. It's not [H]ard enough. As for Linux, I'm pretty sure Slackware will run it just fine, as that's my *nix of choice, but I'm not sure about other distros. As for Intel actually donating procs, it's not the tax-break that's important, but the huge giant press-release they could send saying that they're sponsoring Stanford's cancer research. I'll get cranking on communicating with their PR department and such about it, considering that AFAIK all the Intel cores perform better on most units than the AMD cores do, and even if we do lose status with the AMD !!!!!!s, they're just that: !!!!!!s. If Intel can crunch for the cure faster, then it is Intel that shall get my money. If AMD does it better, then AMD shall get it. If some are better on both, then they shall get the money split between them.
 
Bodega said:
I'm pretty sure that it wont display all 4 unless it actually supports 4 cpus. i recently set up a dual xeon system that had HT enabled (basicly the same thing as a dual core cpu w/ HT) and still only 2 cpus.

Click to expand...

Bodega, I had this issue where Windows only displayed the two cpus in the graphs and thanks to some help from Mooseifert over on the 2cpu forums I got it all fixed. This is what he told me.

Moosifert said:
Hi MN Scout

the solution is quite simple:

When you install windows xp from CD, during the blue part it'll say:
"F6 - To install third-party SCSI and host controller drivers." You have to press F5 and it'll come up with a little menu where you can select the Windows kernel.

You have to select:

ACPI Multiprozessor Computer HAL (or similar)

If you can't see it in the menu use the up, down - cursor keys to scroll the list.

If you also want to install raid drivers press F5 and straight afterward F6.

for futher reference:http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...b;EN-US;q295116
Click to expand...
 
Ibanez3434 said:
Is there any Linux distro's that'll support 4+ procs?
Click to expand...
make xconfig said:
Maximum number of CPUs (2-255) (NR_CPUS)

This allows you to specify the maximum number of CPUs which this
kernel will support. The maximum supported value is 255 and the
minimum value which makes sense is 2.
Click to expand...
I think it's safe to say 4+ is no problem. :D
 
Doubtful Intel is going to give anything away, not to mention they support their own DC projects under their name.
 
It would be virtually impossible to get either AMD or Intel to donate CPUs for something like this. They would not want to be tied down to any one team and if they gave one team something they would have the rest bugging them about it also.

 
Yeah, but it's always worth a shot, and if they say no, they said no. If we don't ask, then we'll never know. I mean, at the best we get free chips, at the worst we get told to piss off. Maybe we'll hit the midline and be able to do a mass order of chips, or they'll toss us some overstocked Celeron's or something. Every little bit helps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top