Super Computers??? Vadim Computers...

E

elliottlock

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 30, 2004
Messages
120
Hi,

I found this awesome website Vadim Computers .

It has these amazingly powerful PC's on there for example 10.4GHz Xeon Processor with 32 GB RAM.

Has anyone ever bought something this powerful before and if so how much of a difference have you noticed?

Gaming aside I imagine you'll notice massive differences in Video Editing and Encoding, game editors and stuff like that.

Anyone got any insight in to PC's like these?
 
So where exactly are you getting the speculation of the 10.4ghz xeon?

Edit:
I see where you are confused, your looking at the quad socket Amd Motherboard, not a Intel motherboard. You seem to be looking at this one: Custom Nexus AMD-Q1207W-SLI
 
Yeah sorry i was looking at them to LOL.

6GHz Xeon Processor it is...

Anyways with either one are they worth buying for home use?

I say home but i mean use use it home i don't mean for just Word or Excel lol I do mean Video Editing and Gaming and Level Editing and etc etc
 
6GHz Xeon's don't exist. The speed of cores/CPU's don't add up to one big number. The same process isn't being managed simuanteously by every core at once.
 
not exactly, although when you add 3 and 3 you do get 6, but work it out this way.

my 4800 x2 has 2 x 2400mhz cores, add them together and you get 4800mhz ( what the cpu is rated as), but the cores themselves are rated as being the equivelant of 2 intel 4000mhz cores.

but, I cannot add up 4000 + 4000 and get 8 gig, I wish I could, but it just doesnt work like that, they work it out as this, 4000+4000 = 4800. so there is a dramatic drop.

you see, its a retarded way of doing things, but just because you have 2x 3 gig cores, doesnt mean to say that the entire cpu is rated as 6 gig.

Although I am going by the amd way of things, intel is similar. I would say that the 2x3gig cores that you mention would only be about 4 gig total, maybe a little touch higher, i dunno without looking at the website you link to.

Bandwidth and bottlenecks play into this big time, thats why there is so much of a drop when there is 2 cpu's/cores.
 
Yeah I understand bottlenecks and stuff it's a pain trying to make sure everything is good enough so you never get a bottleneck so I understand it.

But if you where to take a processor (highest one out) can you make a system so there is no bottleneck in any section of your system?

I was just looking at the Corsair 2GB DDR2 XMS2 Dominator PC2-8888C4 TwinX which outputs at 1111MHz is there a motherbored that can keep up with this for example?
 
EVIL-SCOTSMAN said:
Although I am going by the amd way of things, intel is similar. I would say that the 2x3gig cores that you mention would only be about 4 gig total, maybe a little touch higher, i dunno without looking at the website you link to.
Click to expand...

This isn't really accurate either. You need to change the way you think when thinking about the speed of multi-core/cpu systems.

3ghz + 3ghz = two 3ghz's, not 6ghz nor 4ghz.

You don't combine two cores/cpus to get the clock speed. Having multiple cores/cpu's means the system can run multiple threads simultaneously. So two cpu's @ 3ghz means you can do two separate things at 3ghz each, not one thing at 6ghz.

AMD's numbering system (ie "X2 4800") is just marketing, it does not mean that the chip as a whole is rated at 4.8ghz.
 
So why can't you do things at 6GHz?

I mean the powers there i don't understand why you wouldn't be able to use it?
 
Slartibartfast said:
AMD's numbering system (ie "X2 4800") is just marketing, it does not mean that the chip as a whole is rated at 4.8ghz.
Click to expand...
And umm who said it was ?

I said, 2400mhz and 2400mhz = 4800mhz, which amd have rated there cpu at, i.e it is rated as the equiv as an 4800mhz intel cpu, not that the cpu actually runs at 4800mhz as it doesnt, 2400 is highest it will ever run at unless you overclock.

I know exactly what the cpu's are rated at and what they actually consist of, i was merely telling the dude that 3+3 = doesnt mean that it works out as a 6gig cpu, combined they probably do work out to be about 4gig, or the equiv of 1 4 gig cpu.

just like my 4800 has 2x2400mhz cores, each core is the equivelant of 1 intel 4000mhz cpu, before core 2 duo came out that is, thus basically there is 2 cores that if they were to be seperated would produce 2 cpu's that would be equivelant to 4gig cpus, but since they are not seperated and running as one core only, they only work out to be a fraction of the potential 8 gig that is locked within those cores, thus the potential 8 gig is whittled down to 4.8 due to a variety of factors...

thus it is pretty dam close to what I was saying.

amd 4800 is rated as the equivelant of a 4.8 gig intel cpu before core 2 duo came out, i really cannot seem to understand why you say its only for marketing purposes ? since it is infact rated as 4.8gig or the equivelant to.
 
K so you've both lost me now lol

But to go back to my previous question why can't you use the 6GHz as a whole?
 
elliottlock said:
So why can't you do things at 6GHz?

I mean the powers there i don't understand why you wouldn't be able to use it?
Click to expand...

Because only one CPU is operating on a given instruction.

Think of it this way:

Having two cpus at 3ghz is like having a divided two lane highway. On that highway, you can have cars moving through each lane at 60mph, but you can't have one car using both lanes and traveling 120mph.

If you look at that highway, you don't add the speed limit of each lane to find the total speed limit, right? No matter how many lanes there are, the speed limit stays the same.

The cars are like instructions moving through the cpu. They can't just decide to use two lanes and go 120mph, or three and go 180mph. Two cpu's do not split the work of performing an operation/instruction.
 
EVIL-SCOTSMAN said:
And umm who said it was ?

I said, 2400mhz and 2400mhz = 4800mhz, which amd have rated there cpu at, i.e it is rated as the equiv as an 4800mhz intel cpu, not that the cpu actually runs at 4800mhz as it doesnt, 2400 is highest it will ever run at unless you overclock.

...

amd 4800 is rated as the equivelant of a 4.8 gig intel cpu before core 2 duo came out, i really cannot seem to understand why you say its only for marketing purposes ? since it is infact rated as 4.8gig or the equivelant to.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that you're adding the clockspeed of two cores and saying it's the equivalent of a single core intel cpu. That's not how it works. See my other post.

It's marketing because AMD wants you to say "ooh 4800, that's like 4.8ghz it's really fast" when that's not entirely accurate. You could say the system has 4.8ghz of processing power, but it's not going to do any one thing at 4.8ghz, but it can do two things at 2.4ghz each.
 
no, i am not adding the clock speeds


I am saying that a 2400mhz amd 939 cpu = equivelant to a intel 4000mhz cpu, before core 2 duo

so with 2 of those 2400mhz cores, you dont add 2400mhz and get 4800mhz..

It all boils down to a variety of factors, but ading the 2 cores clock speeds together to get 4800mhz isnt the way I am doing it.

fx53 = equiv to intel 4 gig cpu, there is 2 fx53's in the x2 4800, but you will never get more than 1 fx53 for game playing out of the 4800 unless the game is multithreaded, thats why with the addition of the second core, it the cpu rating only goes up by another 800mhz or the equivelant to 800mhz.

but one thing I am not doing is adding up the 2 core clock speeds to get 2400mhz, as that is not the way it works as you are saying.

bottlenecks and smp and some other factors guarantee that 2 cores of 2400mhz/4gig will never ever work out to be 8 gig or even close to it at this moment in time..

The most you will get out of a 4800 without multithreading being enabled in a program is roughly 4gig intel equivelant.
 
Ok, I think I was misunderstanding because of the comparison/equivalent to Intel stuff, which I really don't think in terms of. Sorry about that :)
 
Its cool dude, we all have our own way of thinking things out, nothing wrong with that, but we are both saying rouhgly the same thing but maybe mines is just harder to understand :) never was the greatest at getting my point across :)

articulation was never my strong point....
 
elliottlock said:
But if you where to take a processor (highest one out) can you make a system so there is no bottleneck in any section of your system?
Click to expand...
That makes no sense. That would only be possible if every component was infinitely fast and there were no latencies. As long as components have an upper speed limit, there will always be a bottleneck somewhere. It is also nearly impossible to make everything exactly even in a general purpose computer. As a very basic example, consider IO-bound tasks versus processor-bound tasks.

To understand why the speed of a multiprocessor setup is not the sum speed of the processors, you must first understand the concept of threads and how they execute. A thread can only execute on a single processor(or core). As such, that thread is only executing at the speed of that single processor(2.4GHz, for example), not the speed of the sum of the processors(4.8GHz, continuing the example). In a multiprocessor setup, multiple threads can be executing concurrently, but each of those threads is executing at the speed of the processor(2.4GHz). There is no summing of the speeds.

I like the speed limit example. That seems to sum it up pretty nicely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top