PC Setup March 2011

[PeterSt]

This is just a crazy idea, though well thought over. Whether it will really work as intended ... that's the question for now.

It should provide the most processing power available today, while actually it is not about processing power at all.
What it is about though, is "multi core processing", something 0.9z-5 will anticipate upon in some first steps;

Never mind why exactly for now, but what I did was spending some real time on sorting out the very best means against the lowest price, and in normal ATX format. This is how this "calculates" :

Currently I am using a 2.8GHz i7/870. Here, each of the 4 cores run on 2.8GHz.
It can be run in Hyperthreading Mode, meaning each core is virtually split in half, and therewith now runs on 1.4GHz. So, 8 cores of 1.4GHz each.

Notice that when we'd normally need something like increasing the digital volume, this depends on the speed of one core (because that runs in one thread, and the processing capacity needed can not be devided over other cores). Thus, running such a processor in Hyperthreading Mode will make it two times slower for such a process.
This has all been tested with my current i7/870 using 8 cores, and this is totally unnoticeable. This is because even when the cpu is needed for a full 100% (like increasing the volume does that), still many more things happen in the overhead realm. So, not all the clock cycles will be dedicated to your "100% cpu process" anyway. This is also related to the relation between clock cycles, FSB and memory speed (settings !). The number of memory datalines weigh in too. The main thing is : when properly setup (balanced out), it won't make much of a difference, BUT splitting the physical core into two hyperthreaded cores, now give twice the capacity for, say, total processing needs. This doesn't go all by itself, and the "processes" we are using must exploit this explicitly in order to make it useful. Useful for sheer speed when needed, and useful for sound quality where possible.

So, what am I heading for ?

24 cores

The processor runs on 2.4GHz (not overclockable);
The processor has 6 physical cores. Each core runs on 2.4GHz.

This 6 physical core processor we're talking about now, can run in Hyperthreading Mode too. This means 12 cores of 1.2GHz. This is only a little slower than what I'm used to now, and notice that an SFS of 240 changes the volume within one second (at 1.4GHz). Really good enough.

And we use two processors of these ...
How ?

$260 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131378) <- WATCH OUT, less SATA ports !

or

$280 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131389&cm_re=Z8NA-D6-_-13-131-389-_-Product)

or (available at this time of writing, and for the first one to grab it)

Open Box ($158) : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131378R&cm_re=Z8NA-D6-_-13-131-378R-_-Product <- <- WATCH OUT, less SATA ports !

or for those with more money, and for someone who can tell where the PCI slots are : (e600) http://www.evga.com/articles/00537/
Edit -> This doesn't seem to be an ATX board afterall.

plus

XEON E5645 2.4GHz Hexa $600 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117256)


plus two coolers ?? (not sorted out, and mind the possible space they will take !)


Out of all the many XEON processors available/obtainable, this really is the best value for money. Also, this can't be achieved with any i7 processor, and while they may run at a higher (and overclockable) clock speed, they will *never* get as far as two of these XEONs because they are not "multi processor".
And before the question is asked : the XEON goes into a 1366 socket, which some i7's can too. But, you can't stuff in two in a dual socket mobo, and while one may run, it will use half of the memory lines and more things which only degrade then.

0.9z-5 officially supports 24 cores, meaning that a whole album of some 20 tracks will convert from FLAC in less than half of a second ...
But this is just the start.

Peter

[PeterSt]

Be careful. At this moment I don't even know whether something which looks like a PCIe x1 slot is really that.

Someone pointed this out (offline).

Getting two coolers in there also seems to be problematic ...

[xp9433]

Peter

I haven't got my head around why you would want/need 24 cores. Can you explain again why 24 cores would be better than 8 or 12?

By the way some of the other Xeon processors have ECC Memory Support (three channels of ECC DDR3 memory, resulting in up to 25.6 GB/sec memory bandwidth). Is this a useful feature?

Thanks
Frank

[goon-heaven]

Peter,

Very interesting proposal.

How many cores would you need for 44.1 wav -> 384 into NOS1?

As well as schemes, do you intend to enable us be able to individually assign tasks to cores?

Steve

[PeterSt]

Steve,

I don't think it is a matter of "needing cores" or "needing cores for an NOS1" ... two will work also (actually one will, but more difficultly).
But it depends on what I will be able to "organize". It is (seriously) hard to explain, but before I always said that I could exploit 2 cores explicitly, and 4 already not (except for track loading of course). But today this is different and now counts : the more the better (but this part will not be in 0.9z-5 yet).

At this moment I can't think of anything you could yourself assign to specific cores. But think about the possibilities, just because there are so many ... and this is why you put the question of course. It seems to (be able to) be a kind of user feature. But internally ? think about the XOvers ... (haha)


Btw, I am not sure at this moment whether my proposed mobo is going to work. As an alternative there's the i7/970. Price is about the same as the XEON I menetioned, technology is rather the same (like 3 memory lanes), 6 cores in there, but, it's for a 1366 socket while everybody will have 1156. May need an even larger cooler (80W vs. 130W). 3.2GHz and normally overclockable etc.
This would be a more normal solution, lots of mobos to choose from (normally priced), can run 12 cores at 1.6GHz per core.

But here again, think about the idea. Or about : what just works and what not;
My current 8 core almost never shoots in an album at once. Why ? because an album has often 9 or 10 tracks. Could be 12. So, with a 12 core this will work for most normal albums. But think about the real consequence : it is just 2 times as fast, just because all runs in parallel while otherwise this stupid 9th track has to be dealth with for the same time again, right after the frst 8 were dealth with in that same amount of time.

We could also say (or like to think) that 24 is overdone. Why ?
- Because I can't think of 24 dedicated processes at this moment;
- Something like an i7/970 is as expensive but faster (3.2HGz vs 2.4GHz);
- A XEON can't be overclocked, or at least is not made for it;
- We'd be talking about two XEONs and already the coolers can't go anywhere (or remove your HDDs or something);
- No choice of ATX boards, *if* the one I proposed works at all (!);
- Board is 2-3-4 times more expensive;
- Two processors are twice as expensive (as are the coolers);
- I'm always overdoing things.

Also : Nobody is really used to use 8 cores at this moment (because we all shut off HT) -> Don't do it yet, because before 0.9z-5 versions contain bugs and it can't work properly !!). So 8 is already a big leap. I use it now and I love it.
12 ? better. I will love it more.

24 ? crazy. And too constraining on everything.

[PeterSt]

Peter
By the way some of the other Xeon processors have ECC Memory Support (three channels of ECC DDR3 memory, resulting in up to 25.6 GB/sec memory bandwidth). Is this a useful feature?

Hi Frank,

I don't know by heart which of the processors have 3 memory channels, but many have. All of the i7/900 series have (and none of the other i7 I guess).

I don't know all that much about it, but I guess this is your "opportunity" to not let loose the processor (e.g. half of) clock cycles because of too slow memory. Will be overclocking related as well.

Peter

[juanpmar]

Just to learn something while Peter find out how to get OUR best PC

My dream computer

http://hardwareforall.com/index.html

Only can be viewed correctly with Internet Explorer

[BrianG]

Perhaps a move to the "AMD side" would be worth a look:
 

AMD's 12-core "Magny-Cours" Opteron 6174
Opteron 6000-series have 12 physical cores. This means that a dual-processor system will have 24 physical cores not logical Hyper-Threaded cores. All Opteron 6000-series CPUs can work in dual and quad-socket motherboards.

[PeterSt]

Haha Brian, that is how I started out in the first place (exactly that text).

I must say though that at that stage (of reading) I started to look for Intels because they are inherently faster (net). I next combined it with hyperthreading (which AMDs can't do), and the remainder I forgot (could be about too many $$ needed -> I have collected a page full of processor options).

But by now ? it may be good to reconsider.


PS: At this moment I don't know (just didn't look again), but I guess for many the ATX size is important. I think I recall this just doesn't exist for AMD processors. Go to "server" boards and there's a whole other world (like indeed quad processor boards).

[PeterSt]

Just because I ran into this and for my own later reference.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/03/31/amd-opteron-6174-vs-intel-xeon-x5650-review/1

[eArch]

 

Btw, I am not sure at this moment whether my proposed mobo is going to work. As an alternative there's the i7/970. Price is about the same as the XEON I menetioned, technology is rather the same (like 3 memory lanes), 6 cores in there, but, it's for a 1366 socket while everybody will have 1156. May need an even larger cooler (80W vs. 130W). 3.2GHz and normally overclockable etc.
This would be a more normal solution, lots of mobos to choose from (normally priced), can run 12 cores at 1.6GHz per core.

Hi Peter,
I am probably the minority here who is running on 1366 socket mobo and I am OCing my i7-950 @4.2GHz on air.  I was targeting multi-tasking / multi-purpose workstation, instead of dedicated music server, when I decided on the components.

The processor runs on 2.4GHz (not overclockable);
The processor has 6 physical cores. Each core runs on 2.4GHz.

This 6 physical core processor we're talking about now, can run in Hyperthreading Mode too. This means 12 cores of 1.2GHz. This is only a little slower than what I'm used to now, and notice that an SFS of 240 changes the volume within one second (at 1.4GHz). Really good enough.

Use i7-980X (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115223) for example, it is $250 less than 2 E5645s and easily OCed to 4.2 GHz and beyond. While the higher CPU speed may not boost XXHE’s performance, it helps A LOT for running tasks like photoshop, video transcoding, WinRAR/file compression or even iTunes (for iPhone and iPad lovers). It sounds like XXHE can benefit “more” from increasing processer cores (and Hyperthreading) than increasing CPU speed.
Talking about overdoing things , I am wondering which CPU configuration is better for XXHE:
* dual Xeon @2.4GHz w/ Hyperthreading (which makes it 24 cores  @1.2GHz)
* or single i7-980X OC to 4.4GHz (on water cooling) w/ Hyperthreading (which makes it 12 cores @2.2 GHz  )?

Regards,

George

[juanpmar]

So 8 (cores) is already a big leap. I use it now and I love it.
12 ? better. I will love it more.

24 ? crazy. And too constraining on everything.

This is a good motherboard to fulfill the 12 cores needs. Yes, it´s LGA 1.366 but....it can deal with i7 or i7 Extreme and that means 4 or 6 cores. It has PCIe x1 that´s needed to connect the NOS1 (not all the top mb has it). Besides it manages very well the heat. ATX Form Factor.
Altghough not the fastest mb it´s fast enough and has exceptional stability, which is very important for overclocking, due to the high end transistors and capacitors.

SABERTOOTH X58
http://www.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=AM2RChl84MZrKh6J&templete=2

Another finding: THUNDERBOLT

We´ll use it some day to connect our PC to the NOS1?.

http://www.intel.com/technology/io/thunderbolt/index.htm

[Chriss]

Perhaps a move to the "AMD side" would be worth a look:
 

AMD's 12-core "Magny-Cours" Opteron 6174
Opteron 6000-series have 12 physical cores. This means that a dual-processor system will have 24 physical cores not logical Hyper-Threaded cores. All Opteron 6000-series CPUs can work in dual and quad-socket motherboards.

This June or July- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v07kzah91A   AMD Opteron "Interlagos" with up to 16!!! physical cores on dual or quad AM3+ mobos. Dunno for you guys but 32 physical cores sounds scary for me.
Criss.