1090T or 950 for Scientific Computing

[setter]

Bit off topic, and apologies to the op. bifday, how stressfull is F@H on a system? Its something ive considered trying, as its a beneficial use of an overclocked rig, aside from gaming/encoding etc. I know very little about it but i do find it interesting. Apologies for maybe hijacking the thread, but hopefully my enquiry will have a bit of relevance.

 

[klein_orz]

Hi folks, just let u know, I am still watching the development of thread (in the mean time waiting for some special offer from OC, ;P).

 

[bifday2k]

I'll apologise also for answering here. Even though it is scientific computing, it dos'nt 100% relate to OP's question as such.

F@H is very stressfull, it will utilize 100% of your cpu, unless u tell it not to, won't go into that here. I even use it as a stress test, as iv had clocks prime stable for days, but will crash once folding.

Its stressful as you are doing mathematical calculations folding proteins, now in all honesty that goes way over my head, all i know is i run the client, it does its thing, gets sent back to Stanford, then i get more work.

So the true ins and outs of what it actually does i wouldn't be able to say, as its way above my knowledge base, the OP would probably be able to explain it better then me, by that i mean the process's of it and the coding involved.

 

[Big.Wayne]

bifday2k,

no problem at all . . . we all have no clue what klein_orz is doing but it seems a habit that we all jump in and make "assumptions" which it seems is exactly what you did with the following statement

No argument really, for scientific type stuff, Intel is way ahead of amd atm

I think we all sometimes have a "communication" problem on this forum which is something "everyone" could work on a bit and in doing so will help cut to the chase with minimal confusion and minimal arguing . . . it's always pleasing to see clear concise statements and always annoying to see something that is clearly false stated as the truth!

re: the Hyper-Threading thing, as far as I know the O/S cannot tell the difference between a RealCore and a HyperThreaded Core . . . i.e a OctCore processor and a Quad+HT look exactly the same! . . . so any program or software that is MultiThreaded will look and see 8-cores on either . . . of course a Physical-Core is gonna perform a lot better than a Hyper-Thread (virtual) core . . .

Having read the thread back it seems all it takes is someone to make a simple mistake and everything gets chucked into a cocked hat! . . . I suggest everyone slows down and read all the posts carefully and if you see an error it's probably best to point it out politely without making the person feel stupid!

If your software will not make full use of the 6 cores than you will probable be better off with the i7 950 at it has better single threader performance than the 6 AMD phenom processors due to [better architecture]

You make no sense.

An i7 950 would be superior in both instances. [?]

Hyperthreading is: 1core/2threads

So a 950 is 4core/8threads

And a AMD X6 is 6core/6 threads

 

[bifday2k]

Totally agree with you wayne, that statement i said was aimed at what i knew from F@H, and in all honesty holds true, unless you use a custom made client, which in all honesty i had no clue even existed, so iv learnt something from what arknor said.

So i can only go by what i personally know, and im more then happy to be proven wrong, and was proven wrong by arknor, when it comes to client stuff about F@H.

So i think we all agree, as long as the software the OP is either making or using, still not sure if he is making himself or not, kinda seems like it, but not sure.

Then the best bet would be the X6 for his needs, as they don't cost a fortune.

 

[klein_orz]

Hey CAT-THE-FIFTH

Do you understand what it is that klein_orz is doing? . . . it's too complicated for me!

Sorry mate, I was replying to clv101, who seems to know MCMC...

 

[Fras]

i7 for the hyperthreading.