LHC@home

For my P4 3.2 Ghz with H-T dual core...

it only use my cpu0 for running LHC,
i want to use 100% cpu resources to do LHC,
how can i modify it to use 100% cpu resources to LHC?

thanks

---

For my P4 3.2 Ghz with H-T dual core...

it only use my cpu0 for running LHC,
i want to use 100% cpu resources to do LHC,
how can i modify it to use 100% cpu resources to LHC?

thanks

Is it a dual core without HT or a single core with HT?
Or is it really a dual core with HT?

Goto "your account" -> "edit general preferences" and set "On multiprocessors, use at most" to 2 or 4 respectively.

Michael

---

Team Linux Users Everywhere

It is using two, single core with HT.

You could upgrade to a Pentium D 3.2 Duel core with HT and run 4 at a time.

---

Pizza@Home - Rays Place - Rays place Forums

You could upgrade to a Pentium D 3.2 Duel core with HT and run 4 at a time.

Hey Ray,

I've got to say I had no clue they made such a chip; that's amazing!
(I guess that shows how out of touch I am with new computer parts.)

I took a look and the two I could find are the Intel Extreme Edition's 840 and 955, both socket LGA 755.

They are both just over 1000 USD's.

I can't imagine how fast a computer would be with a dual or quad socket LGA 755 motherboard; too bad they don't make them (that i know of).
*drool*

Now onto my point: :)

Does AMD make any similar chips that could crunch four at once? And if so, are they just as expensive? (I'm having a hard time discerning the difference between hyper-threading and hyper-transporting; and what AMD means by dual core with hyper-transporting.)

I do know you can get quad socket 939 motherboards for about a grand, so if the AMD chips are also 1k, you are looking at 5k for a machine to put all crunching machines to shame. (but if they are less expensive it seems like a better alternative.) :P

Anyhow, that was on my mind.

Thanks,
Mike

---

blog pictures

Does AMD make any similar chips that could crunch four at once? And if so, are they just as expensive? (I'm having a hard time discerning the difference between hyper-threading and hyper-transporting; and what AMD means by dual core with hyper-transporting.)

hyper-threading
hyper-transport

I do know you can get quad socket 939 motherboards for about a grand, so if the AMD chips are also 1k, you are looking at 5k for a machine to put all crunching machines to shame. (but if they are less expensive it seems like a better alternative.) :P

Actually it will be MUCH cheaper.

- dual socket 940 mainboard 249� (link)
- dual core socket 940 CPU 349� (link)

That makes 947� or 1140 US$ for mainboard and CPU. Adding RAM and the other stuff you could build a 4 core machine at under 2K.

Michael

---

Team Linux Users Everywhere

A great piece of advice concerning Intel Dual Core CPUs:

Not a single Intel CPU presently directly connects two cores together

Intel Dualies talk from one core to the front side bus to the second core (and vice versa). So when you're running memory-intensive tasks -- especialy climateprediction.net -- the fsb gets especially clogged up with because it has to handle CPU, RAM, PCI, PCI-Ex/AGP, and South Bridge traffic.

AMD AthlonX2 chips do a much much more efficient job sharing memory since the memory controller is in the CPU itself and it doesn't a FSB to deal with in the way Intel dualies do.

For example. The Intel 955 chipset has a 8.5GB/sec interface to the CPU. That bandwidth gets eaten up immediately under even partial loads where both cores are accessing RAM as fast as it can get it. Even using DDR2-667 with 10.2GB/sec bandwith, you'll never see the true performance of the CPU or the RAM for that matter when under full demand. AMD's solution provides up to 14.4GB/sec to the system (8.0GB/sec HyperTransport + 6.4GB/sec RAM interface). Despite the memory interface is only 6.4GB/sec however both cores can address memory without having to communicate outside the CPU and clog the bandwidth to everything else. It's a much nicer and clean solution.

So I'd recommend an X2 cpu for you until Intel can come up with a better solution, like an integrated memory controller .. and they're still years off .. somewhere around 2007-2008 before they will have it in products. It's probably more information than you asked for but there is a good reason why AMD has the best dual platform especially for memory bandwidth hungry applications. Oh, and DDR2-667 has about the same real-world performance as DDR-400. DDR2 at that speed only has lower electrical consumption.

---

I second that :)

Besides above details, the AMD cores consume heaps less power and stay silent&cool while providing higher performance at a lower price.

Everybody looking at intel is basically waiting if they can get back into business with their upcoming Cores (finally changing course to high performance at low power dissipation)

I'm still amazed how extremely well even the 2x512k L2 Cache versions of the Athlon64 X2 are scaling, never expected that.

---

Scientific Network : 45000 MHz - 77824 MB - 1970 GB

Wow, I am surprised.

My questions the past couple days have garnered attention and great responses (like the post about future of LHC@Home).

I really appreciate everyone's insight into this.

I have always been a huge AMD fan, and i'm glad everyone else is concurring with their supremacy.

In response to Flacon,
I have wondered (as you seem to have wondered) when Intel would bring serious innovation like AMD has; but with their new partnership with Apple, i am assuming they are trying to expand their presence in the market and regain their supremacy.

Anyhow,
Thanks everyone!
-Mike
Post Script: I'd be hard pressed to truly stress how great, and helpful, this community is. :)

---

blog pictures

A great piece of advice concerning Intel Dual Core CPUs:

Not a single Intel CPU presently directly connects two cores together

<snip rest of explanation>
Ah, now that explains a lot. No wonder the only Intel dual-core I've allowed into the house suxx roxx through a pipette as far as WU round-robin is concerned.

I remain firm in my belief that if you must use x86, go for AMD.

---

sQuonk
Plague of Mice
Intel Core i3-9100 CPU@3.60 GHz, but it's doing its bit just the same.