• 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 processors on windows 7?

J

jnick

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 25, 2004
Messages
2,888
In building a machine for a friend and he has a piece if software that recommends dual processors. I've never worked with dual processors in a system before. Are their any snags in installing them on a Win 7 64-bit machine? Is there anything that deviates the build from a traditional build?

Thanks!
 
what piece of software, if you don't mind me asking?

dual processors will either cost a lot, or are older gen (and users are usually better off going with a higher IPC/more cores current-gen processor)
 
use win7 ultimate, it'll support 2P systems. I had 2 SR2's and both of them ran 7ult. It'll install just like anything else. Dual hex xeon's, for 24 thread, can't beat it

And if you do it right you can have a system like that for around 1200. I just sold mine for 1100 so they are out there. But I wouldnt get anything other than an SR2 right now.
 
It's a high-end business program. I don't recall the name of it, however the system specs sent to me recommended dual quad-core processors, with the minimum of one quad-core. I already tried recommending something such a the 2600K, however he has a direct line with s guy from the software company and their techs stated dual processors would be much better for it's utilization. I had the same reaction when I first heard it too!

Thanks for the Win 7 Ultimate suggestion! When you say SR2, are you referring to the eVGA motherboard?
 
Sounds like the other guy has no idea what he is talking about. A core is a core.
 
Starter, Home Basic, and Home Premium only support single-socket systems, and Professional, Enterprise, and Ultimate support two sockets. For more than that, you need to move up to Windows Server.
 
jnick said:
It's a high-end business program. I don't recall the name of it, however the system specs sent to me recommended dual quad-core processors, with the minimum of one quad-core. I already tried recommending something such a the 2600K, however he has a direct line with s guy from the software company and their techs stated dual processors would be much better for it's utilization. I had the same reaction when I first heard it too!

Thanks for the Win 7 Ultimate suggestion! When you say SR2, are you referring to the eVGA motherboard?
Click to expand...

Or he could get an 8-core BD system for cheap.
Seriously, what is the name of the software, this sounds like bullshit/rougeware to me.
 
If the software company were selling the hardware I'd be suspect as well.

It could just be a poorly written piece of shit :p
 
Seeing the software and what it's for, I'd just do what they suggest. It may end up being overkill, but there will be a lot of money riding on the operation of the system, and there should be plenty in the budget to build it.

It also looks like something he might want a few monitors for.
 
asyork said:
Seeing the software and what it's for, I'd just do what they suggest. It may end up being overkill, but there will be a lot of money riding on the operation of the system, and there should be plenty in the budget to build it.

It also looks like something he might want a few monitors for.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with you.

The software, at least on the server end, requires/recommends two 1TB PCI-E enterprise-grade SSDs for the intense I/O functionality of the software clients.

@OP, you should probably get two quad-core Xeons for something like this, I don't think Opterons will be good enough in this case.
You need high-performance cores.
 
danswartz said:
Sounds like the other guy has no idea what he is talking about. A core is a core.
Click to expand...

Some of what I call "ridiclious-end" (niche, in other words) business workstation applications actually do have such high requirements (CAD/CAE is most common in this category - however, it's not unique). While their "recommended" floor is a Core 2 Quad (Kentsfield, Lynnfield, or Core-i5 or taller), they are *workstation* applications meant more for XEON/dual-XEON workstation motherboards. However, even those can still run Windows 7 (preferably Ultimate; however, Professional, Business, or even Home Premium - all in x64 - will do). For example, look at the minimum/recommended system requirements for the full-tilt versions of either SolidWorks, alias/Wavefront, or even AutoCAD - all recommend, at minimum, a Core 2 Quad.
 
dual quads will kick the shit out of a 2600k any day for multi threaded apps that can use the extra threads. you get 4 real cores 4 threads on a 2600k, and no real plan for upgrades. Or you can get 2 5530-50's and get 8 real cores 8 threads (16 "core"). If you wanna upgrade from there, on the same board get dual hex's for 12 real cores 12 threads (24 "cores")

Trust us folding folks, weve been doing this for a while. Many of us have gone from an i7 based platform to dual xeon's to OC'd dual hex xeon's to quad socket 12/16 core filled boards. More REAL cores are better. Hell, even dual quads w/o HT compared to an i7 at the same speeds would win out, threads can't match a real core, weve tested this theory up one hill and down the next.

Now where the real question comes in is core count more important based on the app or is core speed more important? If Speed, then go intel, they'll beat up AMD clock for clock. If pure core count is all that matters, you may have more cores/$$ with an AMD build. All depends. Seems like folks here think speed is your target tho so I'd go Intel.

Since he's using this as a real server I'd shy away from the SR2 if I were you, it's designed to be OC'd and carries a high price tag. A real server wouldn't be OC'd, at least none of mine, and you can get a real server board much cheaper than a new SR2.

You can have dual quads for pretty cheap these days (a steal if you don't mind buying used lol....maybe some vaulter around here even has a pair of dual quads on hand....) and hex's are coming down in price all the time. You may want to ask the eng'ys if the price diff for hex vs quad is worth it, they would know best.

Hope that helps! (PS, if you need more examples of performance base on multi-socket systems, swing by the DC sub forum and browse the articles there) While it is a forum for DC related chat, you should get a pretty good picture of what I'm saying core vs thread wise from there. Or Just ask, many, including myself, have built many multi-socket systems. Hell, I remember my first multi socket build, and 8-socket quad core AMD system (8chipsx4cores=first viable 32 core rig lol). Albeit that was a money pit and never worked right lol. Pic made front page tho a few years ago lol
 
Met-AL said:
Probably needs high performing cores....
Click to expand...

batman.JPG


I just looked up a few benchmarks and even in heavily threaded applications the 8 core 2600k beats the Bullsnoozer most times.
 
bigdogchris said:
batman.JPG


I just looked up a few benchmarks and even in heavily threaded applications the 8 core 2600k beats the Bullsnoozer most times.
Click to expand...

lol, thank you for that, there are only twenty other threads on that at the moment. :rolleyes:
 
Red Falcon said:
lol, thank you for that, there are only twenty other threads on that at the moment. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I am moving this thread along and do not care about any other threads. This thread made the suggestion to buy a Bulldozer for his system. Someone commented on the power of the Bulldozer so I wanted to confirm what he said. He was correct that the cores are not as powerful.
 
That's because bulldozer was designed to work better on diff things than intel was, no need to go anymore on that subject. Diff products for diff needs.

But since your pretty sure higher clock speed is the goal, intel is your buddy
 
bigdogchris said:
I am moving this thread along and do not care about any other threads. This thread made the suggestion to buy a Bulldozer for his system. Someone commented on the power of the Bulldozer so I wanted to confirm what he said. He was correct that the cores are not as powerful.
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean my comments on both, on how I first recommended BD, then after finding out what the software was, recommending Xeons.
HINT: Read the thread before making nonsense comments like this. :rolleyes:

Also, I'm glad you don't care about any other threads, considering this is the first time you have posted anything in this one, lulz.


bigdogchris said:
I just looked up a few benchmarks and even in heavily threaded applications the 8 core 2600k beats the Bullsnoozer most times.
Click to expand...
Another thing, there is no such thing as an 8-core 2600k.
Get your facts straight before making bullshit statements like this.
 
Last edited:
Red Falcon said:
Another thing, there is no such thing as an 8-core 2600k.
Get your facts straight before making bullshit statements like this.
Click to expand...
2600k with HT equals 8 logical cores, sorry. It's still faster though.

I'm going to end our conversation right now because it's obvious you are a AMD fan and are sensitive, I do not want you to think I am trying to insult you. AMD makes great processors for their target audience, but all of the 'Bulldoze over Intel" stuff got pretty irritating the past several months, so it's fun to poke back.
 
bigdogchris said:
2600k with HT equals 8 logical cores, sorry. It's still faster though.

I'm going to end our conversation right now because it's obvious you are a AMD fan and are sensitive, I do not want you to think I am trying to insult you. AMD makes great processors for their target audience, but all of the 'Bulldoze over Intel" stuff got pretty irritating the past several months, so it's fun to poke back.
Click to expand...

Nice way to label another person, considering your label is based on absolutely nothing.
Not sure what I said to label myself as an "AMD fanboy", considering that I already recommended Xeons to the OP and was correcting you on your incorrect information on Intel processors.

Not once in this thread did I ever say AMD would be a better choice.
I did say BD would be cheaper, not better, nor did I say it would perform better.

Get over yourself "bigdog" and get your facts straight before making shit up from thin air. :rolleyes:
As far as I can tell, it's obvious you are acting like a troll, making statements based on nothing, and then labeling another person in the thread, who actually was helping the OP.
 
Get a Dell Precision or HP Z series workstation. The piece of software you mentioned is basically a glorified calculator that crucnches numbers, statistics, etc in real time. This will need a lot of processing power.
 
It's not like dell or HP have some special sauce, they are selling the same xeons you can put in your own rig. If their prices are good then go ahead but if not don't be afraid to build your own round a nice supermicro board.
 
plugwash said:
It's not like dell or HP have some special sauce, they are selling the same xeons you can put in your own rig. If their prices are good then go ahead but if not don't be afraid to build your own round a nice supermicro board.
Click to expand...

Let's see there are millions of dollars spent in R&D so it is less likely to breakdown. They also can offer next day (even same day in some circumstances) part replacements. Can a a diy system builder guarantee that?
 
Vaulter98c said:
dual quads will kick the shit out of a 2600k any day for multi threaded apps that can use the extra threads. you get 4 real cores 4 threads on a 2600k, and no real plan for upgrades. Or you can get 2 5530-50's and get 8 real cores 8 threads (16 "core"). If you wanna upgrade from there, on the same board get dual hex's for 12 real cores 12 threads (24 "cores")

Trust us folding folks, weve been doing this for a while. Many of us have gone from an i7 based platform to dual xeon's to OC'd dual hex xeon's to quad socket 12/16 core filled boards. More REAL cores are better. Hell, even dual quads w/o HT compared to an i7 at the same speeds would win out, threads can't match a real core, weve tested this theory up one hill and down the next.

Now where the real question comes in is core count more important based on the app or is core speed more important? If Speed, then go intel, they'll beat up AMD clock for clock. If pure core count is all that matters, you may have more cores/$$ with an AMD build. All depends. Seems like folks here think speed is your target tho so I'd go Intel.

Since he's using this as a real server I'd shy away from the SR2 if I were you, it's designed to be OC'd and carries a high price tag. A real server wouldn't be OC'd, at least none of mine, and you can get a real server board much cheaper than a new SR2.

You can have dual quads for pretty cheap these days (a steal if you don't mind buying used lol....maybe some vaulter around here even has a pair of dual quads on hand....) and hex's are coming down in price all the time. You may want to ask the eng'ys if the price diff for hex vs quad is worth it, they would know best.

Hope that helps! (PS, if you need more examples of performance base on multi-socket systems, swing by the DC sub forum and browse the articles there) While it is a forum for DC related chat, you should get a pretty good picture of what I'm saying core vs thread wise from there. Or Just ask, many, including myself, have built many multi-socket systems. Hell, I remember my first multi socket build, and 8-socket quad core AMD system (8chipsx4cores=first viable 32 core rig lol). Albeit that was a money pit and never worked right lol. Pic made front page tho a few years ago lol
Click to expand...

I was thinking about, in particular, the XEON E3-1230 - the workstation/server equivalent of i7. (It's also based on the very same Sandy Bridge architecture.)

ASUS makes a surprisingly-INexpensive motherboard for it, based on the Intel C206 chipset - the ASUS P8B.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131725

No - the price isn't a misprint. Considering the feature list, it makes for a surprising alternative even for non-XEON Sandy Bridge CPUs, such as the aforementioned i7-K (which, due to the common socket, would indeed fit; also, the C206, like the non-WS Z68, does support on-CPU graphics, which some XEON CPUs do have).
 
Let's see there are millions of dollars spent in R&D so it is less likely to breakdown.
Click to expand...

The thing about that is they do a lot of that R&D so that they can optimize their cost so they can use the cheapest possible components that will still give them a low rate of returns during the default warranty period. I have seen lots of OEM systems at work and I expect this. I see i7 desktop machines with 230W power supplies, motherboards with only 3 SATA ports, or only 2 dimm sockets...
 
Thanks for all of the reassurances that dual Xenon's are the right route. Interestingly enough, when I suggested an SSD, the product team shot that down saying it would not be beneficial for this use.

To the comment on multiple monitors, at this point he's looking at 4!
 
^ I think the SSD would benefit more on the server-side, while the desktop does most of the actual number crunching, which would obviously benefit from the CPUs, not the HDD/SSD.
 
I don't often post in these sort of threads. I might not really under stand how the app works, but from what I have read here, this turning into what sounds like a high strung system, would this software benifit at all from tons of ram and or maybe a ram disk? Or am I mistaken in thinking that because it needs a lot of fast heavly threaded power, that it will also need a way to dump the data to media quickly as well?
 
We use Win7 Enterprise for our Dual Xeon 5690 systems. (3.46 Ghz/core, hex-core).
48GB Registered DDR3 per workstation.

Cost was about $9k each. We use them for deterministic and monte carlo transport analyses.
I asked them to skimp on the GPU, but ended up with Quadro FX2000 cards. I'm pissed about wasting that much money on overpriced cards, but our IS&T dept wouldn't allow a lesser card.
 
Thor said:
I don't often post in these sort of threads. I might not really under stand how the app works, but from what I have read here, this turning into what sounds like a high strung system, would this software benifit at all from tons of ram and or maybe a ram disk? Or am I mistaken in thinking that because it needs a lot of fast heavly threaded power, that it will also need a way to dump the data to media quickly as well?
Click to expand...

Tons of RAM, yes.
RAM drive, doesn't look like it or a SSD will make a real difference.


This program appears to have high CPU usage, low drive usage, similar to folding and bitcoin, only on a larger scale.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top