Are the p1499_tet_1499's as good as they seem to be?

2»

Comments

  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska Icrontian
    edited January 2007
    Not I. I'd love to upgrade these machines, but that would mean new CPUs and motherboards. I got all these D930s and the 915 for very little and already had the motherboards and DRAM. I've got my daughter's wedding to pay for this year in May so no major upgrades for a while. I may just skip Core Duo and dive right into quad core, depending on how long it takes before their prices become reasonable. I guess that will all depend on how much pressure AMD puts on Intel. AMD is the only reason Core Duo is affordable now.
  • csimoncsimon Acadiana Icrontian
    edited January 2007
    Leonardo wrote:
    Not I. I'd love to upgrade these machines, but that would mean new CPUs and motherboards. I got all these D930s and the 915 for very little and already had the motherboards and DRAM. I've got my daughter's wedding to pay for this year in May so no major upgrades for a while. I may just skip Core Duo and dive right into quad core, depending on how long it takes before their prices become reasonable. I guess that will all depend on how much pressure AMD puts on Intel. AMD is the only reason Core Duo is affordable now.
    Don't remember who else it was then. You're doing well with what you have though I must say. Priorities!:thumbsup:
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska Icrontian
    edited January 2007
    The D9 series was Intel's second generation dual core CPUs. They are 65nm and comparatively cool, that is, if you compared with the D8XX series (Smithfield) - which are essentially dual Prescott. The D9XX series are Presler. Clock for clock though, the Conroe (Intel 3rd generation dual core) will outpace the D9s by 30% or perhaps even more. Two things the Preslers and Conroes have in common -- 65nm construction and great overclocking.

    EDITED: goofed up core code names - fixed now
  • OrianeOriane Turn around.
    edited January 2007
    muddocktor wrote:
    ... These wu's love a big L2 cache....

    That's what I think -

    Toledo core @ 2.5GHz
    ...
    [13:09:28] Project: 1499 (Run 154, Clone 3, Gen 14)
    [13:09:28]
    [13:09:28] Assembly optimizations on if available.
    [13:09:28] Entering M.D.
    [13:09:35] Protein: p1499_tet_1499
    [13:09:35]
    [13:09:35] Writing local files
    [13:09:42] Extra SSE boost OK.
    [13:09:43] Writing local files
    [13:09:43] Completed 0 out of 125000 steps (0)
    [13:24:35] Writing local files
    [13:24:36] Completed 1250 out of 125000 steps (1)
    [13:39:28] Writing local files
    [13:39:28] Completed 2500 out of 125000 steps (2)
    [13:54:21] Writing local files
    [13:54:21] Completed 3750 out of 125000 steps (3)
    [14:09:14] Writing local files
    [14:09:14] Completed 5000 out of 125000 steps (4)
    [14:24:06] Writing local files
    [14:24:07] Completed 6250 out of 125000 steps (5)
    [14:38:59] Writing local files
    [14:38:59] Completed 7500 out of 125000 steps (6)
    [14:53:51] Writing local files
    [14:53:52] Completed 8750 out of 125000 steps (7)
    [15:08:44] Writing local files
    [15:08:44] Completed 10000 out of 125000 steps (8)
    [15:23:36] Writing local files
    [15:23:36] Completed 11250 out of 125000 steps (9)
    [15:38:29] Writing local files
    [15:38:29] Completed 12500 out of 125000 steps (10)
    [15:53:21] Writing local files
    [15:53:21] Completed 13750 out of 125000 steps (11)
    [16:08:13] Writing local files
    [16:08:13] Completed 15000 out of 125000 steps (12)
    ...

    The Toledo has 1MB/core compared to Conroe's 2MB/core- this, I think, speaks for itself.
  • OrianeOriane Turn around.
    edited January 2007
    Oriane wrote:
    … compared to Conroe's 2MB/core- ...

    Sorry- this is not correct- I’m thinking sooo AMD/Pentium D. The Conroe (the E6600 that DanG uses) has 4MB of shared cache- a feature that could be as significant as being twice the size of my Toledo’s total core-split cache.

    I don’t know much about cache operation, but I have to appreciate that his Conroe outperforms my system on this WU by 340%- and this looks to me like the most significant reason why.
  • ThermalfishThermalfish Melbourne, Australia
    edited January 2007
    Still havent had any of these.

    Firing up a dual Xeon 2.8 with 2 Gigs RAM today. See what happens.

    (Sorry Mirage)

    Nup: just set it up and what do I get? A pair of 2125 melts. :hiding:
  • SPIKE09SPIKE09 Scatland
    edited January 2007
    I think the 2nd level cache is the big thing here too as the e6400 only has 2Mb not the 4Mb of it's big brothers.
  • miragemirage
    edited January 2007
    Thermalfish wrote:
    Still havent had any of these.

    Firing up a dual Xeon 2.8 with 2 Gigs RAM today. See what happens.

    (Sorry Mirage)

    Nup: just set it up and what do I get? A pair of 2125 melts. :hiding:

    A dual-core Opteron is waiting here to start folding. If I can bring it online, you might not catch me so soon. How about eating the dust a little longer :rarr:
  • ThermalfishThermalfish Melbourne, Australia
    edited January 2007
    Hehe ok! Ive just gotten back from a multi-day festival. I ate several kilos of dust already!

    I am only 10 days behind you. Better get a move on!!
  • miragemirage
    edited January 2007
    Every move has the right moment as Confucius (probably) said wisely :D
  • DonutDonut Maine New
    edited January 2007
    Don't tell anybody, I got one!

    EM3 says 54min/frame on a PD805.:bigggrin:
Sign In or Register to comment.