Dual CPu with Dual Core and two SLI vidcards 16X ? much of..

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

"The Other Guy." <2221@1.com> wrote in message
news:ad18s0pqibecsuv6a2ug1af9cdsm98d4vu@4ax.com...
>
> Iam assuming the OS and the software must support it  
>
> Not that it exists now but just like to know our thoughts, and and
> when it happens.
>
> Thanks.
>


Only in your dreams!



Chris
Technical director CKCCOMPUSCRIPT
Apple Computers, Intel, Roland audio, ATI, Microsoft, Sun Solaris, Cisco and
Silicone Graphics.
Wholesale distributor and specialist audio visual computers and servers
FREE SUPPORT @,
http://www.ckccomp.plus.com/site/page.HTM
ckccomp25@hotmail.com

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

The Other Guy. wrote:

>
> Iam assuming the OS and the software must support it  
>
> Not that it exists now but just like to know our thoughts, and and
> when it happens.

Dual core: great, but most apps will never use it and there will be a
penalty for those apps that won't because of unnecessary overhead.

Dual CPU: see above. Unless you're using Photoshop, Litewave, or something
similar that can take advantage of it, it's useless.

SLI: So far, I've been unimpressed. Sure, an SLI setup with (2) $200 6600GT
cards out perform a single $400 6800 Ultra in some tests and not as well in
others, but it takes twice the power, eats up space on your motherboard,
adds heat to your case, and blocks the movement of air traveling feely
around the case. Same goes for (2) 6800 Ultra cards, except now you're
breaking the bank for only slightly better performance than a single card.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Ruel Smith wrote:

> The Other Guy. wrote:
>
> >
> > Iam assuming the OS and the software must support it  
> >
> > Not that it exists now but just like to know our thoughts, and and
> > when it happens.
>
> Dual core: great, but most apps will never use it and there will be a
> penalty for those apps that won't because of unnecessary overhead.
>
> Dual CPU: see above. Unless you're using Photoshop, Litewave, or something
> similar that can take advantage of it, it's useless.

Wrong.

Bryan

>
>
> SLI: So far, I've been unimpressed. Sure, an SLI setup with (2) $200 6600GT
> cards out perform a single $400 6800 Ultra in some tests and not as well in
> others, but it takes twice the power, eats up space on your motherboard,
> adds heat to your case, and blocks the movement of air traveling feely
> around the case. Same goes for (2) 6800 Ultra cards, except now you're
> breaking the bank for only slightly better performance than a single card.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Bryan Hoover wrote:

> Wrong.
>
> Bryan

WOW! That was insightful...

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

OH thats not a nice thing to say  


On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 12:53:57 -0000, "Chris" <chris@ckccomp.plus.com>
wrote:

>
>"The Other Guy." <2221@1.com> wrote in message
>news:ad18s0pqibecsuv6a2ug1af9cdsm98d4vu@4ax.com...
>>
>> Iam assuming the OS and the software must support it  
>>
>> Not that it exists now but just like to know our thoughts, and and
>> when it happens.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>
>
>Only in your dreams!
>
>
>
>Chris
>Technical director CKCCOMPUSCRIPT
>Apple Computers, Intel, Roland audio, ATI, Microsoft, Sun Solaris, Cisco and
>Silicone Graphics.
>Wholesale distributor and specialist audio visual computers and servers
>FREE SUPPORT @,
>http://www.ckccomp.plus.com/site/page.HTM
>ckccomp25@hotmail.com
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Ruel Smith wrote:

> Bryan Hoover wrote:
>
> > Wrong.
> >
> > Bryan
>
> WOW! That was insightful...

No charge.

Seriously though, you seemed so sure of yourself, I didn't feel like
arguing  .

To say that multiple processors are "useless", even in the present
context, is a bit overstated I'd say.

Running 2 AMD MP's with Windows 2000 Professional, I've yet to see an
unbalanced load in Task Manager's Perforamance tab.

Multi-threading aside, in any event, multitasking loads are distributed,
and if you want, you can go so far as to set processor affinity.

Useless does not apply.

And did I mention, with those two cpu's, each sitting beneath a huge
heat sink, and fan, the board looks like it's getting ready for take
off.

Bryan

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Ruel Smith wrote:

> The Other Guy. wrote:
>
>
>>Iam assuming the OS and the software must support it  
>>
>>Not that it exists now but just like to know our thoughts, and and
>>when it happens.
>
>
> Dual core: great, but most apps will never use it and there will be a
> penalty for those apps that won't because of unnecessary overhead.
>
> Dual CPU: see above. Unless you're using Photoshop, Litewave, or something
> similar that can take advantage of it, it's useless.

It won't be fully utilized but it's not useless even with no SMP aware apps
because the O.S. is SMP aware and there's always more than one thing
running: disk I/O, display, background tasks, etc.

>
> SLI: So far, I've been unimpressed. Sure, an SLI setup with (2) $200 6600GT
> cards out perform a single $400 6800 Ultra in some tests and not as well in
> others, but it takes twice the power, eats up space on your motherboard,
> adds heat to your case, and blocks the movement of air traveling feely
> around the case. Same goes for (2) 6800 Ultra cards, except now you're
> breaking the bank for only slightly better performance than a single card.
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 23:59:54 -0500, Ruel Smith
<NoWay@NoWhere.com> wrote:

>Bryan Hoover wrote:
>
>> Wrong.
>>
>> Bryan
>
>WOW! That was insightful...


Well there is a potential for benefit in multitasking
operating systems, though not all people really need
maintained performance from the out-of-focus, background
applications. You're right that a single, single-threaded
applicaiton will run faster from a (typically optimized)
single-CPU system.

What it shouldn't do is make the system seem "snappier",
"more responsive" at the application currently in focus,
being used. When a user reports the in-focus tasks to be
sluggish it's generally a sign that the other apps aren't
being properly prioritized, so in such cases a 2nd/3rd/etc
CPU would be of benefit in offsetting software bugs, which
can be a side benefit but better to get properly running
software also.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Bryan Hoover wrote:

> Ruel Smith wrote:
>
>> Bryan Hoover wrote:
>>
>> > Wrong.
>> >
>> > Bryan
>>
>> WOW! That was insightful...
>
> No charge.
>
> Seriously though, you seemed so sure of yourself, I didn't feel like
> arguing  .
>
> To say that multiple processors are "useless", even in the present
> context, is a bit overstated I'd say.
>
> Running 2 AMD MP's with Windows 2000 Professional, I've yet to see an
> unbalanced load in Task Manager's Perforamance tab.
>
> Multi-threading aside, in any event, multitasking loads are distributed,
> and if you want, you can go so far as to set processor affinity.
>
> Useless does not apply.
>
> And did I mention, with those two cpu's, each sitting beneath a huge
> heat sink, and fan, the board looks like it's getting ready for take
> off.

My point was simply the cost vs. benefit. Sure, there are apps out there
that can take advantage, and Windows XP is SMP capable, but for everyday
use there is an overhead penalty for anything that doesn't use it. Then,
when you consider the added cost of the more expensive motherboard, extra
HSF, CPU, and more powerful PSU, it simply is not worth the money unless
you're using applications on a regular basis that can take advantage of it.

Let's face it, if money were no object, we'd all be running Cray's, but it
is an object and every component that goes in gets analysed for it's cost
vs. benefit.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Ruel Smith wrote:

> Bryan Hoover wrote:
>
> > Ruel Smith wrote:
> >
> >> Bryan Hoover wrote:
> >>
> >> > Wrong.
> >> >
> >> > Bryan
> >>
> >> WOW! That was insightful...
> >
> > No charge.
> >
> > Seriously though, you seemed so sure of yourself, I didn't feel like
> > arguing  .
> >
> > To say that multiple processors are "useless", even in the present
> > context, is a bit overstated I'd say.
> >
> > Running 2 AMD MP's with Windows 2000 Professional, I've yet to see an
> > unbalanced load in Task Manager's Perforamance tab.
> >
> > Multi-threading aside, in any event, multitasking loads are distributed,
> > and if you want, you can go so far as to set processor affinity.
> >
> > Useless does not apply.
> >
> > And did I mention, with those two cpu's, each sitting beneath a huge
> > heat sink, and fan, the board looks like it's getting ready for take
> > off.
>
> My point was simply the cost vs. benefit. Sure, there are apps out there
> that can take advantage, and Windows XP is SMP capable, but for everyday
> use there is an overhead penalty for anything that doesn't use it. Then,
> when you consider the added cost of the more expensive motherboard, extra
> HSF, CPU, and more powerful PSU, it simply is not worth the money unless

True, there is a little overhead, but if you're frugal, not that much more.
Dual boards can be had for not that much more than a single today. Same goes
for extra power PSU (680W, 29.00 NewEgg), and HSF's (13.00 each, NewEgg). A
quick google for dual boards turns up in the first hit:
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.cfm?articleid=81... Plus the
additional cpu of course -- that's where most of the extra money would go, but
hey, it is a two cpu computer we're talking about here. The boards in the link
appear to be Intel cpu boards. AMD compatible boards could save significantly
on cpu's.

Bryan

> you're using applications on a regular basis that can take advantage of it.
>
> Let's face it, if money were no object, we'd all be running Cray's, but it
> is an object and every component that goes in gets analysed for it's cost
> vs. benefit.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 14:26:02 -0500, Bryan Hoover
<bhoover@wecs.com> wrote:


>> My point was simply the cost vs. benefit. Sure, there are apps out there
>> that can take advantage, and Windows XP is SMP capable, but for everyday
>> use there is an overhead penalty for anything that doesn't use it. Then,
>> when you consider the added cost of the more expensive motherboard, extra
>> HSF, CPU, and more powerful PSU, it simply is not worth the money unless
>
>True, there is a little overhead, but if you're frugal, not that much more.
>Dual boards can be had for not that much more than a single today. Same goes
>for extra power PSU (680W, 29.00 NewEgg), and HSF's (13.00 each, NewEgg). A
>quick google for dual boards turns up in the first hit:
>http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.cfm?articleid=81... Plus the
>additional cpu of course -- that's where most of the extra money would go, but
>hey, it is a two cpu computer we're talking about here. The boards in the link
>appear to be Intel cpu boards. AMD compatible boards could save significantly
>on cpu's.
>


So you suggest building a junk system just to argue it only
costs a little more?

Compare apples to apples, if one suggests a budgetized
dually, compare it to a budgetized single CPU system. The
cost difference may easily be hundreds of dollars. It's not
an argument against dual CPU system when one is called for,
but that penny-pinching to budget for a 2nd CPU isn't
generally a good idea at all.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 01:11:29 -0500, Bryan Hoover
<bhoover@wecs.com> wrote:


>
>I'm just not convinced it's neccessarily all that much more expensive. I wouldn't go
>Intel if trying to save money though. CPU is where most of the extra money will go.
>Not sure about the memory, but everything else is fairly low cost.


Motherboard is typically $100 more expensive, if not even
higher.

2nd CPU, $200, if not a lot more

More memory, another $150 (with more tasks comes higher
memory load), else paging to HDD. Even so I'll show a total
with and without the added memory.

Larger case $30 more (you "could" use same case as for a
single-CPU system, BUT you can use a smaller case with
single CPU system due to possibility of smaller motherboard,
lower cooling requirement so less area needed for air intake
& exhaust. That $30 also accounts for 1 - 2 more fans.

Larger PSU, usually about $30 more, almost double the cost
because the highest volume parts (300-400W) during an era
have the best pricing and go up disproportionately from
there. For example, a name-brand 300W PSU can be had for
$25, but a name-brand 600W can't be had for $50... even
though elimination of redundant parts should result in it
costing closer to $40.

So adding up only the aforementioned parts, $510 more. Even
discounting the memory, still $360 more.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

kony wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 01:11:29 -0500, Bryan Hoover
> <bhoover@wecs.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >I'm just not convinced it's neccessarily all that much more expensive. I wouldn't go
> >Intel if trying to save money though. CPU is where most of the extra money will go.
> >Not sure about the memory, but everything else is fairly low cost.
>
> Motherboard is typically $100 more expensive, if not even
> higher.
>
> 2nd CPU, $200, if not a lot more
>
> More memory, another $150 (with more tasks comes higher
> memory load), else paging to HDD. Even so I'll show a total
> with and without the added memory.
>
> Larger case $30 more (you "could" use same case as for a
> single-CPU system, BUT you can use a smaller case with
> single CPU system due to possibility of smaller motherboard,
> lower cooling requirement so less area needed for air intake
> & exhaust. That $30 also accounts for 1 - 2 more fans.
>
> Larger PSU, usually about $30 more, almost double the cost
> because the highest volume parts (300-400W) during an era
> have the best pricing and go up disproportionately from
> there. For example, a name-brand 300W PSU can be had for
> $25, but a name-brand 600W can't be had for $50... even
> though elimination of redundant parts should result in it
> costing closer to $40.
>
> So adding up only the aforementioned parts, $510 more. Even
> discounting the memory, still $360 more.

On a mission ay? My only criteria is that the dual system perform better at multitasking,
and multithreading. Have I said otherwise? Anything else -- for instance, equal or
better single threaded, single application -- is just icing.

I think your total number is too high -- and don't need twice the memory either. 512MB
should be enough.

Bryan

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 05:12:52 -0500, Bryan Hoover
<bhoover@wecs.com> wrote:


>> So adding up only the aforementioned parts, $510 more. Even
>> discounting the memory, still $360 more.
>
>On a mission ay?

Just crunching numbers, when it comes down to it all
customers have a budget, want the most system possible
within that budget.



>My only criteria is that the dual system perform better at multitasking,
>and multithreading. Have I said otherwise? Anything else -- for instance, equal or
>better single threaded, single application -- is just icing.

Yes, I agree that it "can be better for multitasking". Note
that my comments were about cost.

As for the "for instance", there is no question at all that
a dual CPU system (apples to apples, modern optimized
alternatives for both) is slower at single threaded, single
application.


>
>I think your total number is too high -- and don't need twice the memory either. 512MB
>should be enough.

If you want to build junk, but the numbers aren't off much,
may even be conservative. 512MB memory is so little that
one would often be better off buying more memory than dual
CPU funcionality even if the app WERE multithreaded or heavy
multitasking.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

kony wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 05:12:52 -0500, Bryan Hoover
> <bhoover@wecs.com> wrote:
>
> >> So adding up only the aforementioned parts, $510 more. Even
> >> discounting the memory, still $360 more.
> >
> >On a mission ay?
>
> Just crunching numbers, when it comes down to it all
> customers have a budget, want the most system possible
> within that budget.
>
> >My only criteria is that the dual system perform better at multitasking,
> >and multithreading. Have I said otherwise? Anything else -- for instance, equal or
> >better single threaded, single application -- is just icing.
>
> Yes, I agree that it "can be better for multitasking". Note
> that my comments were about cost.
>
> As for the "for instance", there is no question at all that
> a dual CPU system (apples to apples, modern optimized
> alternatives for both) is slower at single threaded, single
> application.

I assume you're talking overhead here. Still hard to believe because the dual system kernal
could at least take advantage of dual cpu's.

> >
> >I think your total number is too high -- and don't need twice the memory either. 512MB
> >should be enough.
>
> If you want to build junk, but the numbers aren't off much,
> may even be conservative. 512MB memory is so little that
> one would often be better off buying more memory than dual
> CPU funcionality even if the app WERE multithreaded or heavy
> multitasking.

In the present conext at least, there would be no need for the dual system to have more
memory than the single.

As far as junk, performance would be the final criteria by which to judge that.

Bryan

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 22:57:26 -0500, Bryan Hoover
<bhoover@wecs.com> wrote:


>> As for the "for instance", there is no question at all that
>> a dual CPU system (apples to apples, modern optimized
>> alternatives for both) is slower at single threaded, single
>> application.
>
>I assume you're talking overhead here. Still hard to believe because the dual system kernal
>could at least take advantage of dual cpu's.

It's not hard at all to believe. Applications are
prioritized, and necessary background services typically
account for only a percent or two, if that.

>
>> >
>> >I think your total number is too high -- and don't need twice the memory either. 512MB
>> >should be enough.
>>
>> If you want to build junk, but the numbers aren't off much,
>> may even be conservative. 512MB memory is so little that
>> one would often be better off buying more memory than dual
>> CPU funcionality even if the app WERE multithreaded or heavy
>> multitasking.
>
>In the present conext at least, there would be no need for the dual system to have more
>memory than the single.

Buy what you like, but generally the same user than might
benefit from a 2nd CPU would benefit more from adding memory
> 512MB, first.

>
>As far as junk, performance would be the final criteria by which to judge that.
>
>Bryan

Actually, no.
It is one aspect among many. System should be reliable, not
only logically but physically. It should not be abandoned
or replaced due to breaking eventually but rather due to
being technologically eclipsed. It should be tolerable to
use, not loud and not so large one has to rearrange
furniture to accomodate it. It should accomodate future
upgrades and have manufacturer support.

There are many additional factors for a good system beyond
simply the performance of it. If all we're arguing is
performance, then forget about dual CPU systems except for
multi-threaded apps and just use 2 systems instead for the
rest of the workload.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

kony wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 22:57:26 -0500, Bryan Hoover
> <bhoover@wecs.com> wrote:
>
> >> As for the "for instance", there is no question at all that
> >> a dual CPU system (apples to apples, modern optimized
> >> alternatives for both) is slower at single threaded, single
> >> application.
> >
> >I assume you're talking overhead here. Still hard to believe because the dual system kernal
> >could at least take advantage of dual cpu's.
>
> It's not hard at all to believe. Applications are
> prioritized, and necessary background services typically
> account for only a percent or two, if that.
>
> >
> >> >
> >> >I think your total number is too high -- and don't need twice the memory either. 512MB
> >> >should be enough.
> >>
> >> If you want to build junk, but the numbers aren't off much,
> >> may even be conservative. 512MB memory is so little that
> >> one would often be better off buying more memory than dual
> >> CPU funcionality even if the app WERE multithreaded or heavy
> >> multitasking.
> >
> >In the present conext at least, there would be no need for the dual system to have more
> >memory than the single.
>
> Buy what you like, but generally the same user than might
> benefit from a 2nd CPU would benefit more from adding memory
> > 512MB, first.
>
> >
> >As far as junk, performance would be the final criteria by which to judge that.
> >
> >Bryan
>
> Actually, no.
> It is one aspect among many. System should be reliable, not
> only logically but physically. It should not be abandoned
> or replaced due to breaking eventually but rather due to
> being technologically eclipsed. It should be tolerable to
> use, not loud and not so large one has to rearrange
> furniture to accomodate it. It should accomodate future
> upgrades and have manufacturer support.
>
> There are many additional factors for a good system beyond
> simply the performance of it. If all we're arguing is
> performance, then forget about dual CPU systems except for
> multi-threaded apps and just use 2 systems instead for the
> rest of the workload.

Yes professor, many factors  .

LOL, I can identify with the noise factor. I've a 9 drive SCSI array that can run me 'round the
bin. That high pitched whining really gets on my nerves. Think I'm gonna set it up so the array
is further away from me, or behind something.

Barring such as that though, can probably do okay on the noise of a 2 cpu system without too much
effort.

There's no reason a 2 cpu system can't be very stable and long lasting. There are a lot of
overclockers in the AMD crowd though. I imagine this is where you'd get big breakage numbers,
but for that sort of things, it's part of the fun I guess.

Me, I'm a sentimental fellow. I expect my computer to be around a long, long time.

Bryan

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 01:21:48 -0500, Bryan Hoover
<bhoover@wecs.com> wrote:


>> It is one aspect among many. System should be reliable, not
>> only logically but physically. It should not be abandoned
>> or replaced due to breaking eventually but rather due to
>> being technologically eclipsed. It should be tolerable to
>> use, not loud and not so large one has to rearrange
>> furniture to accomodate it. It should accomodate future
>> upgrades and have manufacturer support.
>>
>> There are many additional factors for a good system beyond
>> simply the performance of it. If all we're arguing is
>> performance, then forget about dual CPU systems except for
>> multi-threaded apps and just use 2 systems instead for the
>> rest of the workload.
>
>Yes professor, many factors  .
>
>LOL, I can identify with the noise factor. I've a 9 drive SCSI array that can run me 'round the
>bin. That high pitched whining really gets on my nerves. Think I'm gonna set it up so the array
>is further away from me, or behind something.

I suppose it depends on the use, but I find I'm quite happy
with having the bulk of my storage across GbE.


>Barring such as that though, can probably do okay on the noise of a 2 cpu system without too much
>effort.

True, it's not hard, but a little more work and/or expense,
and of course it's relative what one considers "noisey".

>
>There's no reason a 2 cpu system can't be very stable and long lasting. There are a lot of
>overclockers in the AMD crowd though. I imagine this is where you'd get big breakage numbers,
>but for that sort of things, it's part of the fun I guess.

Overclocking might cause problems but not inherantly, I've
several o'c systems that are quite happy, though one must
watch out for spot-temps in areas like capacitors and make
sure to use ample power supply... as always, but too few
beginning overclockers will just start raising the voltages
and FSB without considering that they then need ~ 35% more
power.

>
>Me, I'm a sentimental fellow. I expect my computer to be around a long, long time.

That can be good and can be bad. It's bad when a tower and
you start wondering if you can stack two cases on top or
need another shelving unit.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

"The Other Guy." wrote:

> Iam assuming the OS and the software must support it  
>
> Not that it exists now but just like to know our thoughts, and and
> when it happens.

Might not be too far off:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=738&e=...

Bryan

>
>
> Thanks.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 20:06:35 -0500, Bryan Hoover <bhoover@wecs.com>
wrote:

>"The Other Guy." wrote:
>
>> Iam assuming the OS and the software must support it  
>>
>> Not that it exists now but just like to know our thoughts, and and
>> when it happens.
>
>Might not be too far off:
>
>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=738&e=...
>
>Bryan
>
>>
>>
>> Thanks.

the two sli cards split the 16x (two 8x pipes)...I think.

jslade