20160212, 22:36  #45 
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
5^{2}×17^{2} Posts 

20160213, 19:44  #46  
"Ron"
Jan 2016
Fitchburg, MA
97 Posts 
Quote:
Without nonZ OC enabled: Timings for 4096K FFT length (4 cpus, 1 worker): 6.37 ms. Throughput: 156.97 iter/sec. Timings for 4096K FFT length (4 cpus, 2 workers): 12.66, 13.04 ms. Throughput: 155.68 iter/sec. Timings for 4096K FFT length (4 cpus, 4 workers): 25.68, 25.71, 24.64, 24.65 ms. Throughput: 159.00 iter/sec. With nonZ OC enabled: Timings for 4096K FFT length (4 cpus, 1 worker): 6.13 ms. Throughput: 163.12 iter/sec. Timings for 4096K FFT length (4 cpus, 2 workers): 12.82, 12.08 ms. Throughput: 160.72 iter/sec. Timings for 4096K FFT length (4 cpus, 4 workers): 23.95, 23.97, 23.68, 23.99 ms. Throughput: 167.39 iter/sec. Power consumption increased by 4.2% (from 71w to 74w), but I'll take it for a 6.5% increase in performance, and no additional upfront costs! So, if I can get away with the intel stock cpu cooler on future builds, that would be $331.95 for a system that has has 4096K FFT throughput of 167.39 iter/sec, and uses 74W. Seems pretty good to me. Last fiddled with by Fred on 20160213 at 19:46 

20160214, 02:04  #47 
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
5^{2}·17^{2} Posts 
Thanks for the info. Indeed an impressive boost for little cost.
I do appreciate all you've done. I just bought three i56500s from newegg as they emailed a coupon code for $15 off expiring Feb 14. Your info will greatly influence my motherboard/memory choice. 
20160214, 03:15  #48 
Dec 2014
2^{2}×3^{2}×7 Posts 

20160214, 16:36  #49  
"Ron"
Jan 2016
Fitchburg, MA
97 Posts 
Quote:
Adds $10 to each build, but it's a simple solution that is working well for me. Last fiddled with by Fred on 20160214 at 16:40 

20160214, 17:10  #50 
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
5^{2}·17^{2} Posts 
No decision yet. I was going to use a cheap 128GB SSD on one motherboard and have the others network boot off that machine. Your solution may well be superior in cost, space and simplicity.
I have both a spare disk drive and USB stick, so I'll experiment. Last fiddled with by Prime95 on 20160214 at 17:12 
20160222, 02:38  #51 
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
5^{2}·17^{2} Posts 
I have two boards in, an H110 and a Z170. My benchmark data matches Fred's:
H110 board, I56500, DDR42133, mechanical disk drive, PSU 82% efficient. Killawatt reads 85.2. Code:
Timings for 4096K FFT length (4 cpus, 1 worker): 6.31 ms. Throughput: 158.50 iter/sec. Timings for 4096K FFT length (4 cpus, 2 workers): 12.37, 12.37 ms. Throughput: 161.64 iter/sec. Timings for 4096K FFT length (4 cpus, 4 workers): 24.65, 24.65, 24.66, 24.68 ms. Throughput: 162.21 iter/sec. Code:
Timings for 4096K FFT length (4 cpus, 1 worker): 6.26 ms. Throughput: 159.69 iter/sec. Timings for 4096K FFT length (4 cpus, 2 workers): 12.31, 12.31 ms. Throughput: 162.43 iter/sec. Timings for 4096K FFT length (4 cpus, 4 workers): 24.35, 24.36, 24.35, 24.36 ms. Throughput: 164.22 iter/sec. Code:
Timings for 4096K FFT length (4 cpus, 1 worker): 6.08 ms. Throughput: 164.49 iter/sec. Timings for 4096K FFT length (4 cpus, 2 workers): 12.03, 12.07 ms. Throughput: 165.98 iter/sec. Timings for 4096K FFT length (4 cpus, 4 workers): 23.73, 23.74, 23.73, 23.79 ms. Throughput: 168.44 iter/sec. Code:
Timings for 4096K FFT length (4 cpus, 1 worker): 6.43 ms. Throughput: 155.47 iter/sec. Timings for 4096K FFT length (4 cpus, 2 workers): 12.60, 12.59 ms. Throughput: 158.79 iter/sec. Timings for 4096K FFT length (4 cpus, 4 workers): 25.18, 25.15, 25.15, 25.16 ms. Throughput: 159.00 iter/sec. Code:
Timings for 4096K FFT length (4 cpus, 1 worker): 5.53 ms. Throughput: 180.81 iter/sec. Timings for 4096K FFT length (4 cpus, 2 workers): 10.90, 10.90 ms. Throughput: 183.50 iter/sec. Timings for 4096K FFT length (4 cpus, 4 workers): 21.45, 21.45, 21.44, 21.32 ms. Throughput: 186.76 iter/sec. 
20160222, 02:48  #52 
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
7225_{10} Posts 
And finally my bestbangforthebuck analysis using the data above. Assuming electricity costs are $1/watt/year.
5 ASRock Z170MITX/ac motherboards @130 = 650 5 2x4GB DDR43200 @60= 300 5 I56500 CPUs (3.2GHz, 65W) @200 = 1000 1 32GB USB stick = 10 4 PicoPSU picoPSU90 @40 = 160 1 Case, power supply, network switch  approximate value $100 Each of the 5 units consumes 81W or about 405W total. Total cost of 3 year ownership = 2120 parts + 3 * 405 = 3335 Total cost of 4 year ownership = 2120 parts + 4 * 405 = 3740 Now lets define a metric to optimize  throughput per dollar (TPD). 3 year TPD = 5 CPUs * 186.8 * 3 years / 3335 = 0.8402 4 year TPD = 5 CPUs * 186.8 * 4 years / 3740 = 0.9989 Let's compare that to a second system built with cheaper H110 motherboards that do not allow overclocking. We will save $60 for each motherboard and $20 for each RAM pair, for a total of $400. Watts is reduced by 11 per CPU. Throughput for each CPU is 162.2. Now let's look at our TPD metric: Total cost of 3 year ownership = 1720 parts + 3 * (5*70) = 2770 Total cost of 4 year ownership = 1720 parts + 4 * (5*70) = 3120 3 year TPD = 5 CPUs * 162.2 * 3 years / 2770 = 0.8773 4 year TPD = 5 CPUs * 162.2 * 4 years / 3120 = 1.0397 Now we turn on ASRock's nonZ OC for memory. Watts increase by 2 per CPU. Throughput increases to 168.4. 3 year TPD = 5 CPUs * 168.4 * 3 years / 2800 = 0.9021 4 year TPD = 5 CPUs * 168.4 * 4 years / 3160 = 1.0658 I've just bought a platinum PSU to increase PSU efficiency to 92%. This will change the calculations above slightly, but not the conclusion of using ASRock H110 mobos. 
20160222, 09:20  #53 
Sep 2006
Brussels, Belgium
3^{2}·181 Posts 
In view of the electricity costs, it would be interesting to look at the "T" variant of the processors their TDP is as low as 35 W compared to 65 W for the regular processors. Another way to achieve that would be to underclock the regular processors. It should be interesting to measure the power usage of both variants.
Based on the prices of the CPU's in Belgium and the declared TDP the "T" would achieve much better throughput par Watt figures. you might even envisage the I56600T. Another advantage of underclocking is that the memory bottleneck is less acute. It is a bit unusual in the Prime95 world to envisage underclocking but it is a logical consequence of the goal you choose (i.e. maximising throughput par Watt.) Jacob Last fiddled with by S485122 on 20160222 at 09:46 Reason: added consideration of T600 and memory bottleneck considerations. 
20160222, 16:08  #54  
"/X\(‘‘)/X\"
Jan 2013
2,917 Posts 
Quote:
All that would be needed for a throughputperwatt comparison is a benchmark of a 6500 or 6600 underclocked to 3.1 GHz. 

20160223, 15:29  #55 
"Ron"
Jan 2016
Fitchburg, MA
97 Posts 
George, I'm curious what your plans or thoughts are for housing the mobos. Currently I'm just going vertical on my desk with brass standoffs (about to add my third board, photo attached). I was thinking about getting it 4 or 5 boards high, then building (as simple as possible) 3 sided acrylic case of some sort, just so no one mistakenly zaps a board with static electricity or whatever. Do you plan any case?
Last fiddled with by Fred on 20160223 at 15:31 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
A dream, will stay a dream ( new Nvidia Quadro)  firejuggler  GPU Computing  0  20180328 16:02 
@ George  Gordon  GMPECM  2  20170904 04:05 
Dream Build  cappy95833  Hardware  10  20140329 15:02 
Dream PC  plandon  Hardware  39  20090830 09:36 
He had a dream  fetofs  Puzzles  8  20060709 09:33 