mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Hardware

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2007-08-02, 15:11   #56
rx7350
 
rx7350's Avatar
 
Feb 2006
AR, US

24·32 Posts
Default Nehalem and Westmere cpus remove memory bottleneck

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...610234912.html


Sounds like this architecture change plus DDR3 1600Mhz memory would go a long way toward eliminating the memory bottleneck that PRIME95 experiences on current Intel hardware.
rx7350 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-08-02, 17:18   #57
db597
 
db597's Avatar
 
Jan 2003

3138 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rx7350 View Post
Sounds like this architecture change plus DDR3 1600Mhz memory would go a long way toward eliminating the memory bottleneck that PRIME95 experiences on current Intel hardware.
Thanks for the info rx7350. I suspect that the DDR3 1600 itself would go far towards solving the problem. More wondering if "native" quad core would have any impact if the memory speed stayed the same.

With "native" quad, the cores can talk to each other without having to go through the FSB. But in this case, there's little or no talking to each other going on in the first place.
db597 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-08-21, 06:05   #58
Timmy
 
Jul 2007

316 Posts
Default TILE64

i dont know if anyone has seen this new processor yet which is a MIT startup company. http://www.tilera.com/products/processors.php
Timmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-08-21, 16:50   #59
dsouza123
 
dsouza123's Avatar
 
Sep 2002

2·331 Posts
Default

A quad core notebook is now available.

http://www.xtremenotebooks.com/index...&model_id=1266

Xtreme 917V ACCELERATOR

17" WSXGA+ (1680 x 1050) Super Wide Angle Glass View LCD
NEW! Intel® Q6600 (2.40 GHz x 4) QUAD Core™ CPU - 8MB L2 Cache 1066MHz FSB (Q6700 available)
512MB DDR2 667MHz Micron RAM 1 DIMM (up to 4 GIG)
60GB SATA 150 HDD 5400 RPM (160GB 7200 RPM available)
8X DVD±R/RW Burner with 4X Dual Layer Write Speed Multi Drive - Included

Price: $3,359.00

Also available with the Q6700 (2.66 Ghz x 4)
dsouza123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-08-29, 11:31   #60
sonjohan
 
sonjohan's Avatar
 
May 2003
Belgium

1000101102 Posts
Default

Ok, I've just ordered myself a Quad Q6600 with
2 Gb RAM, 800MHz.
I'll follow your guidelines for configuring the definitive Prime95 threads.

If I want to Torture Test the darn thing, should I torture-test it with 4 different instances, or just 1? And what configuration for the torturetest?

Quote:
Originally Posted by S485122 View Post
Based on my experience with two quadcores, you should go for the fastest memory you can afford. Prime95 speed seems to be proportionnal with memory speed (tested with 675 MHz 5400, 800 MHz 6400 and 1066 MHz 8500 memory.) I think that Cruelty and I have posted enough benchmarks about this in this thread and others... Memory above 8500 must be usable (sufficient voltage amongst other factors) and is very expensive, I am not shure if even good motherboards can use it at their advertised speed for our kind of work. At the moment this would mean that the expensive but good choice is 1066 MHz (8500) memory.

The combination of core 0 LL, core 1 TF, core 2 LL and core 3 TF gives very good results : you can allocate most of the 4MB of shared second level cache per core to LL since TF runs mostly in L1 cache.
sonjohan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-08-29, 16:08   #61
rx7350
 
rx7350's Avatar
 
Feb 2006
AR, US

24·32 Posts
Default

If you don't mind, post your detailed parts list. After you get the thing built and start testing exponents on it, I would be very interested in knowing what the iteration times are, especially if you LL test four exponents.

I'm wanting to build a quad-core system, but am concerned about the memory bottleneck when LL testing four exponents.

Whenever I've tested a new build using PRIME95, it seems that the most thorough test is to test exponents in all cores. It seems to flush out errors better than a torture test, plus it will put the maximum thermal load on the system to test your cooling solution.

Last fiddled with by rx7350 on 2007-08-29 at 16:13 Reason: incomplete
rx7350 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-08-29, 22:43   #62
jasong
 
jasong's Avatar
 
"Jason Goatcher"
Mar 2005

DB316 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sonjohan View Post
Ok, I've just ordered myself a Quad Q6600 with
2 Gb RAM, 800MHz.
I'll follow your guidelines for configuring the definitive Prime95 threads.

If I want to Torture Test the darn thing, should I torture-test it with 4 different instances, or just 1? And what configuration for the torturetest?
I'm pretty sure I have your same processor. There are only two quad-cores being sold by Intel, and Q6600 is non-'Extreme', correct?

My recommendation is to run two instances of Mersenne number testing, one instance on core 0 or 1 and the second instance on core 2 or 3. On the cores you have left, run anything you want, as long as it doesn't require a lot of bandwidth. And when I say a lot, I mean A LOT. Most of the other prime projects, if run alongside the two instances of Prime95, won't slow it down by a significant amount. The only project I can think of that could possibly be a problem, and this is a SWAG based on what I've read online, would be NFSNet. I don't have any experience there, though, except for reading the forum.
jasong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-09-03, 20:31   #63
patrik
 
patrik's Avatar
 
"Patrik Johansson"
Aug 2002
Uppsala, Sweden

52·17 Posts
Default Benchmarks of Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz

I have just upgraded one of my computers with a Core 2 Quad processor. Unfortunately the fast memory I ordered didn't arrive yet, but I've moved two DIMM's of slower memory from another computer and have run some benchmarks.

Timings are for running four, three, two (in two ways) and one instance of Prime95 (well, mprime actually) simultaneously, with affinity set to the respective core. At each benchmark all instances are running exponents with the same FFT size, but I did this for both 1024K and 2048K FFT's. Also, nothing is overclocked.

2 x 512 MB 667 MHz DDR2 memory (Kingston KVR667D2N5/512 at default speed)

Current double-check (1024 kB FFT)
Code:
(milliseconds/iteration)
Core 0 Core 1 Core 2 Core 3
 40.9   40.9   40.7   40.8
 37.5   37.5   34.9    -
 35.5   35.4    -      -
 34.0    -     34.0    -
 33.5    -      -      -
Current first-time test (2048 kB FFT)
Code:
(milliseconds/iteration)
Core 0 Core 1 Core 2 Core 3
 83.5   83.1   83.2   83.4
 77.1   77.0   71.9    -
 72.3   72.2    -      -
 70.1    -     69.9    -
 68.7    -      -      -
And one DIMM (single-channel memory), if anyone is interested:
1 x 512 MB 667 MHz DDR2 memory (Kingston KVR667D2N5/512 at default speed)

Current double-check (1024 kB FFT), single channel memory
Code:
(milliseconds/iteration)
Core 0 Core 1 Core 2 Core 3
 57.1   57.0   56.9   56.8
 46.9   46.8   39.3    -
 39.3   39.2    -      -
 36.4    -     36.4    -
 34.2    -      -      -
Current first-time test (2048 kB FFT), single channel memory
Code:
(milliseconds/iteration)
Core 0 Core 1 Core 2 Core 3
117.2  116.4  116.0  116.0
 98.6   98.0   83.1    -
 80.6   80.5    -      -
 75.9    -     75.8    -
 70.8    -      -      -
Note that is is faster to run two exponents on cores 0 and 2 than on 0 and 1.
patrik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-09-04, 12:48   #64
rx7350
 
rx7350's Avatar
 
Feb 2006
AR, US

24×32 Posts
Default

Thanks for the benchmarks PATRIK. Obviuously, running four LL tests shows just how severe the memory bottleneck is. For comparison, an Intel dual-core at 2.4Ghz testing two 2048K FFT exponents has iteration times of about 47 milliseconds.

If you get a chance, post some additional benckmarks when you get your 'fast' memory.
rx7350 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-09-07, 09:36   #65
Dresdenboy
 
Dresdenboy's Avatar
 
Apr 2003
Berlin, Germany

192 Posts
Default

Well done, patrik!

Quote:
Originally Posted by patrik View Post
Note that is is faster to run two exponents on cores 0 and 2 than on 0 and 1.
This is because the core pairs 0/1 and 2/3 share one L2 each.
Dresdenboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-09-14, 02:59   #66
Kevin
 
Kevin's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Ann Arbor, MI

433 Posts
Default

Doing a little bit of experimenting right now. I have a Quad Core Q6600 running on stock settings, and (2x1GB) PC8500 Corsair XMS memory@1066mhz. I started off running 40M first time tests on cores 0 and 2, and then did factoring on cores 1 and 3. My timings for the 40M tests were about .001 seconds below what's listed on the benchmark page (it maxes out at 64 ms per iteration). I decided to see what the hit was if I switched the two factoring tests to double-checks. The iteration time for the 40M exponents has only dropped to 72 ms per iteration when I'm doing nothing else (double-checks are still on self-test, so I don't know what the timing hit is for them yet).

Does anybody know what the difference is in credit for the same amount of CPU time spent on LL testing as opposed to factoring? It'd be nice to know what kind of hit it would take to make running factoring on the second core more advantageous than two LL tests with the memory hit included.
Kevin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dual Core to Quad Core Upgrade Rodrigo Hardware 6 2010-11-29 18:48
exclude single core from quad core cpu for gimps jippie Information & Answers 7 2009-12-14 22:04
Quad Core Questions... TomYosho Information & Answers 2 2009-09-14 13:01
Quad Core and P95 sgrupp Hardware 54 2008-01-25 22:01
Optimising work for Intel Core 2 Duo or Quad Core S485122 Software 0 2007-05-13 09:15

All times are UTC. The time now is 09:13.


Fri Oct 22 09:13:28 UTC 2021 up 91 days, 3:42, 1 user, load averages: 1.62, 1.49, 1.43

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.