|
|
 Up |
|
  |
Author: wizzywizwizzywiz Date: Sep 30, 2006 20:08
Hi General, I've been reading your posts on different groups about the
performance of current CPU chips, and you seem to be pretty
knowledgeable.
My current dilemma is shoud I buy now or wait? Currrently a Conroe is
probably the best bet (which your posts have helped convince me of),
even though I have large RAM requirements. I need fast handling of
single-threaded custom number crunching programs, with multi-gigabyte
datasets. Multiple CPUs aren't my solution since the amount or RAM
needed to make it possible to run multiple instances of our cruncher is
prohibitive.
I can hold off on buying as late as next May. What do you see coming
down the pike by then that may offer better performance in my
application?
Thanks...
|
| |
|
| | 15 Comments |
|
|
Author: rohit.nadigrohit.nadig Date: Sep 30, 2006 21:11
I would hold off until May.
Intel's latest P6 architecture based chips are much faster than their
P4 architectures.
Conroe is going to be follwed by Penryn.
|
| Show full article (0.94Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: David KanterDavid Kanter Date: Sep 30, 2006 22:01
wizzywiz wrote:
> Hi General, I've been reading your posts on different groups about the
> performance of current CPU chips, and you seem to be pretty
> knowledgeable.
>
> My current dilemma is shoud I buy now or wait? Currrently a Conroe is
> probably the best bet (which your posts have helped convince me of),
> even though I have large RAM requirements. I need fast handling of
> single-threaded custom number crunching programs, with multi-gigabyte
> datasets. Multiple CPUs aren't my solution since the amount or RAM
> needed to make it possible to run multiple instances of our cruncher is
> prohibitive.
>
> I can hold off on buying as late as next May. What do you see coming
> down the pike by then that may offer better performance in my
> application?
How many GB of memory do you need?
DK
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: General SchvantzkophGeneral Schvantzkoph Date: Oct 1, 2006 06:20
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:08:20 -0700, wizzywiz wrote:
> Hi General, I've been reading your posts on different groups about the
> performance of current CPU chips, and you seem to be pretty
> knowledgeable.
>
> My current dilemma is shoud I buy now or wait? Currrently a Conroe is
> probably the best bet (which your posts have helped convince me of),
> even though I have large RAM requirements. I need fast handling of
> single-threaded custom number crunching programs, with multi-gigabyte
> datasets. Multiple CPUs aren't my solution since the amount or RAM
> needed to make it possible to run multiple instances of our cruncher is
> prohibitive.
>
> I can hold off on buying as late as next May. What do you see coming
> down the pike by then that may offer better performance in my
> application?
>
> Thanks...
The Conroe core is going to be the heart of Intel's CPUs for the next
couple of years, there will be tweaks and clock speed improvements in that
time but nothing that will make a big difference to single...
|
| Show full article (2.92Kb) |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
Author: wizzywizwizzywiz Date: Oct 1, 2006 08:31
General Schvantzkoph wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:08:20 -0700, wizzywiz wrote:
>
>> Hi General, I've been reading your posts on different groups about the
>> performance of current CPU chips, and you seem to be pretty
>> knowledgeable.
>>
>> My current dilemma is shoud I buy now or wait? Currrently a Conroe is
>> probably the best bet (which your posts have helped convince me of),
>> even though I have large RAM requirements. I need fast handling of
>> single-threaded custom number crunching programs, with multi-gigabyte
>> datasets. Multiple CPUs aren't my solution since the amount or RAM
>> needed to make it possible to run multiple instances of our cruncher is
>> prohibitive.
>>
>> I can hold off on buying as late as next May. What do you see coming
>> down the pike by then that may offer better performance in my
>> application?
>>
>> Thanks... ...
|
| Show full article (3.87Kb) |
| 3 Comments |
|
|
Author: General SchvantzkophGeneral Schvantzkoph Date: Oct 1, 2006 16:36
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:31:57 -0700, wizzywiz wrote:
>
> General Schvantzkoph wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:08:20 -0700, wizzywiz wrote:
>>
>>> Hi General, I've been reading your posts on different groups about the
>>> performance of current CPU chips...
|
| Show full article (4.61Kb) |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
Author: Benjamin GawertBenjamin Gawert Date: Oct 1, 2006 22:02
* General Schvantzkoph:
> In terms of memory sizes, it's a good bet that 8G systems will become
> affordable in the next 12 months.
Depends on what you mean with "affordable". It's extremely likely that
8GB won't be standard in two years, forget about 12 month. Besides that,
8GB requires an 64bit OS (if you don't want to use the crippled and slow
PAE of Windows Server or 32bit Linux), and with no sign of coming masses
of new 64bit applications this simply is useless, especially since 32bit
Windows programs are still limited to 2GB...
Benjamin
|
| |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Benjamin GawertBenjamin Gawert Date: Oct 1, 2006 22:05
* General Schvantzkoph:
> The one thing wrong with that system is the power supply, I'd want at
> least a 500W supply. 500W will give you room to add more drives in the
> future. Power supplies should be overkilled
Only if energy is free for you. Partially loaded standard PSUs usually
are _very_ ineffective...
Benjamin
|
| |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Wes NewellWes Newell Date: Oct 1, 2006 22:52
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 22:05:28 +0200, Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> * General Schvantzkoph:
>
>> The one thing wrong with that system is the power supply, I'd want at
>> least a 500W supply. 500W will give you room to add more drives in the
>> future. Power supplies should be overkilled
>
> Only if energy is free for you. Partially loaded standard PSUs usually
> are _very_ ineffective...
>
Well, it would sure be more effective than a PSU that wouldn't even boot
the system.:-)
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: already5chosenalready5chosen Date: Oct 3, 2006 02:26
wizzywiz wrote:
> General Schvantzkoph wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:08:20 -0700, wizzywiz wrote:
>>
>>> Hi General, I've been reading your posts on different groups about the
>>> performance of current CPU chips, and you seem to be pretty
>>> knowledgeable.
>>>
>>> My current dilemma is shoud I buy now or wait? Currrently a Conroe is
>>> probably the best bet (which your posts have helped convince me of),
>>> even though I have large RAM requirements. I need fast handling of
>>> single-threaded custom number crunching programs, with multi-gigabyte
>>> datasets. Multiple CPUs aren't my solution since the amount or RAM
>>> needed to make it possible to run multiple instances of our cruncher is
>>> prohibitive.
>>>
>>> I can hold off on buying as late as next May. What do you see coming
>>> down the pike by then that may offer better performance in my
>>> application?
>>> ...
|
| Show full article (4.90Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
