Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

CPU maxing RAM

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 3, 2013 8:40:33 PM

Hello,
I was about to set up a new rig, and wanted to get 64GB RAM on it, however I was reading on Intel that their Sandy Bridge/Ivy are maxed at 32GB - any extra RAM gets queued.

The applications I would run are RAM-intensive but don't take advantage of multi-threading.

I wanted to ask the community for advice / opinions on:

a) sticking with a LG 2011 chip such as i7-3820 and max at 64GB RAM
vs
b) going for a i7-2700k and keep it at 32GB -- perhaps just OC?

Alternatively, should I wait until Intel chips can handle more RAM?




More about : cpu maxing ram

a c 863 à CPUs
a c 142 å Intel
January 3, 2013 8:47:11 PM

Well the problem is slots really since 8GB are the biggest sticks and only 4 available slots on anything but LGA1366 or LGA2011. Between a and b is basically budget issue but really if it needs more than 32GB then server build comes to my mind.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2013 8:50:26 PM

Buddy, there's no way you're gonna use applications that'll use up 16GB of RAM, let alone 32GB. What the heck do you work with? I honestly would just get a 2600K with 8-16GB and overclock.
m
0
l
Related resources
January 3, 2013 8:51:16 PM

so instead of an i7 chip, go for a Xeon or such?

The x79 boards ( 2011) have 8 slots, and these were the ones I had in mind, as a server MoBo /cpu combo is more expensive.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2013 8:52:30 PM

WHICH applications ??
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2013 8:53:25 PM

Yeah, see, your post has got us so confused that Brett didn't introduce himself & put his sig! What are you possibly running?
m
0
l
January 3, 2013 8:54:49 PM

These are applications for genetic analyses (e.g., Structure) - usually handle files each 1GB or larger, and require several iterations within a run. That is why they are RAM intensive, usually taking 2-4 days per run.
m
0
l
January 3, 2013 8:56:06 PM

sorry for that. Basically, I don't want to build a cluster (which would be the next step). However, would try and get a good machine that can reduce he workload.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2013 8:56:29 PM

If they handle 1GB files, that's not really gonna affect your RAM as much as your storage. They're more so CPU intensive by the sound of it. If that's the case I would run a bunch of hard drives in RAID with a 2600K.
m
0
l
a c 863 à CPUs
a c 142 å Intel
January 3, 2013 8:56:45 PM

Server with number crunching power.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2013 9:00:29 PM

rolli59 said:
Server with number crunching power.



Hi :) 

Precisely what the man said ^^^^^^ :) 

All the best Brett :) 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2013 9:02:16 PM

payturr said:
Yeah, see, your post has got us so confused that Brett didn't introduce himself & put his sig! What are you possibly running?


:lol: 

That tickled me.


Realistically you should know better than we will where the restriction will fall. If indeed you do need all that Ram then the option that you should go with kind of picks itself dosent it ?

Mactronix :) 
m
0
l
January 3, 2013 9:02:36 PM

I see, thanks!
so options are (a) server with dual CPU (more expensive) or (b) single CPU OC-ed (cheaper)?

the HDs were going to be in RAID 10.

m
0
l
January 3, 2013 9:05:09 PM

Thanks for all the input!

I was also thinking of a third alternative, which would be to have an SSD as a babysitting storage center -- migrate the file that will be analyzed to the SSD and have applications run it through the SSD, once done, return file to an HD for storage and safe keeping.

Would this be useful (e.g., save time?).

Thanks again for the input and I apologize for the confusion!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2013 9:05:13 PM

Well if you're gonna go with a server and it takes days, you're probably gonna wanna do dual CPU since you said it takes days - the more threads the better, in this case. As for the SSD, that'll be an ehhh decision namely because I'm assuming you'll be switching the files a lot, so that maybe frustrating for you.
m
0
l
January 3, 2013 9:09:03 PM

Yeah, moving a file every 2-3 days is not that bothersome :) 
But yes, I guess I should look into a server CPU / MoBo instead.

Are Xeons still the way to go, or has AMD taken over in that realm?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2013 9:17:49 PM

Xeon man, Xeon! Nothing can top the 8 core beast.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 3, 2013 9:40:16 PM

payturr said:
Yeah, see, your post has got us so confused that Brett didn't introduce himself & put his sig! What are you possibly running?


:lol: 
m
0
l
January 3, 2013 10:24:07 PM

Hrm,

A dual CPU server system would be more expensive than I can afford. (budget is at $1700 for a whole machine).

Therefore,
I think a 2700k CPU with 32GB RAM might be better than the 3820 / 64GB RAM.

m
0
l
January 3, 2013 10:37:11 PM


+1
selas said:
so instead of an i7 chip, go for a Xeon or such?

The x79 boards ( 2011) have 8 slots, and these were the ones I had in mind, as a server MoBo /cpu combo is more expensive.

m
0
l
January 3, 2013 10:46:15 PM

Here is what you should do, get a Xeon processor (for the best performance) or a i7 3930k for similar performance. Have a x79 motherboard for the ultimate RAM solution with 8 slots and +64GB RAM. If you want to take a step further, get a motherboard that supports 2 CPUs. This rig should do the job.
m
0
l
!