havli wrote:

Something bigger this time. Not really retro, well - unless you take single thread performance into account. :lol: […]
Show full quote

Something bigger this time. Not really retro, well - unless you take single thread performance into account. 🤣

Asus KGPE-D16 - dual socket G34

2x Opteron 6272 - Interlagos, 16 cores @ 2,1 GHz per CPU

Testing on benchtable

32 cores in total.
http://abload.de/img/g34_68rsva.png

Wow....

I remember reading about these some years ago, never even seen a motherboard of these, only a few pics of it's CPUs.
How much will this rig set back your electricity bill? 😁

Not much, it is just another PC that will wait in storage until I have time to benchmark it as a part of big CPU test.
I bought it for very good price (less than $200), great deal. Doesn't matter I have almost no use for it. 😁

I could find a use for it 😀 Of course, a guy would have to fully populate it with ECC.

it would be interesting to see how that thing stacks up against modern consumer CPUs

It depends on what is considered modern consumer CPU.

Here is quick comparison to 6-core Sandy Bridge Xeon I'm using as my main PC.

In short - very few applications can fully utilize such multicore monster. And even if it can (like Cinebench), it is not much faster than single Intel 6-core of similar age. Sad for AMD.

A board like that is intended to push bits on dozens of virtual machines. Most consumer benchmarks would be irrelevant for this type of massively parallel hardware.

Exactly. I remember a friend in the 1990s who had a dual Pentium III with a very expensive Tyan and loads of RAM. No game utilized this so it was completely pointless.

gdjacobs wrote:

A board like that is intended to push bits on dozens of virtual machines. Most consumer benchmarks would be irrelevant for this type of massively parallel hardware.

+1
Load 10-20 VMs on it. Run the benchmarks in all the VMs.
Do the same on the Sandy Bridge.
Then compare the benchmarks.
.

I don't see a problem here. 32-core Opterons are ~20% faster than OC SB-E when all cores are utilized. SB-E should be able to run 20 VMs almost just as fast (- some context switching) as Opteron if rest of the system is same.

i was thinking of benching it against a consumer grade i5 or i7 - something current like a hanswell - in games. Modern games can make full use of multi-core CPUs.

The purpose of this is simple - I was thinking of buying a refurbished HP Z800 LGA1366 workstation. That baby comes with two fast hexa core xeons, but it's not cheap - for the same amount of money I can get a really sweet lga2011-3 single cpu board, 16gb of ddr4 (don't need more) + a core i7 5830 cpu

This Opteron system really is not meant for games. Hence I didn't even bother to benchmark them.

Modern games almost never utilizes more than 8 cores (only exception I can think of is Crysis3 grass physics which can use 12 cores IIRC - only some maps though). Only few can benefit from > 6 cores. So for hiend gaming i7 5820k is the best choice of all mentioned systems.

havli wrote:

32-core Opterons are ~20% faster than OC SB-E when all cores are utilized.

No enterprise IT provider would ever overclock their hardware.

kanecvr wrote:

i was thinking of benching it against a consumer grade i5 or i7 - something current like a hanswell - in games. Modern games can make full use of multi-core CPUs.

The purpose of this is simple - I was thinking of buying a refurbished HP Z800 LGA1366 workstation. That baby comes with two fast hexa core xeons, but it's not cheap - for the same amount of money I can get a really sweet lga2011-3 single cpu board, 16gb of ddr4 (don't need more) + a core i7 5830 cpu

Single task applications like games are subject to Amdahl's law. In layman's terms, any application will have a fraction of it's total operation which cannot operate in parallel. Instead of the application running twice as fast with double the processors, it may only run 1.8 times as fast. As scaling in processors continues, the effect on application speed becomes less and less. With a theoretical infinite number of processors, the application will be limited in speed by it's serial fraction. It should be quite apparent, therefore, that games benefit most substantially from the addition a few higher clocked cores rather than many lower clocked cores.

Enterprise and scientific workloads generally scale in size with increased capability, therefore they're more often subject to Gustafson's law.

...Which is something people just won't listen to when I explain to them why I chose a Xeon over an i7.

Their logic; But more cores must be better because there are more, that number is higher!

By my understanding, 4 high clocked cores is about ideal for a single user system, perhaps 6 if you multitask a lot. More cores (generally at a lower clock) would only be useful in scenarios such as running a bunch of virtual servers or similar - and, of course, Supercomputing, where the applications are generally optimized for that specific machine anyway because by then, cost really isn't an objective.

I use last generation servers as my gaming rig. Right now my dual quads beat the fastest i7 in practically every metric save for single core speed. 4.6 > 3.6 I could have gotten the hex core chips but their top speed is 3.5. I play turn based strategy games mostly and they love all the cup power I throw at them.

Second hand servers present a market opportunity as they're essentially disposable for the former users and can be acquired quite cheaply. As you say, the key is selecting a platform which is workable for single user computing or gaming. This dual G34 board is a beast of a different color.

gdjacobs wrote:

No enterprise IT provider would ever overclock their hardware.

I agree
The Opteron system for my testing was overclocked also - forced to 2.4GHz and undervolted by Turion Power Control... default turbo is very problematic at best. This makes it slightly more apples to apples comparison.

Been keeping an eye on CM-series Roland MIDI synthesizers on eBay for quite a while. They're disappointingly rare and expensive these days; I kind of wish I'd picked one up 5-10 years ago.

I'm mostly covered by my MT-32 and SC-88, but there are a few games that use CM-32 sound effects that the MT-32 doesn't have. Munt is pretty good at emulating CM-32 these days, though, and my SC-88 can emulate the default instrument set of the CM-64.

gdjacobs wrote:

Second hand servers present a market opportunity as they're essentially disposable for the former users and can be acquired quite cheaply. As you say, the key is selecting a platform which is workable for single user computing or gaming. This dual G34 board is a beast of a different color.

Yes.
I've been using Xeon since socket 604.
Not so much for CPU matters (not that different from P4) but because I liked PCI-X slots for hardware RAID and lots of RAM.
Finding a good board for a single user situation was a little difficult but not impossible.
There were several models with ATX footprints that could be messaged into an ATX case even with the odd CPU placement.
Same with socket 771 and some of those came with mixed PCI-X and PCI-E.

I don't game much but I multi-task like crazy.
Even back in the 486 era I would be using 3 or more computers on different networks at the same time (for my job).
.

Pentium II 350 mhz. Nearly mint condition (noisy fan, but everything else is free of scratches or dust). Original Intel's blister. Bought it yesterday for one dollar.

Perfect match for my Soyo 6BA+ III + Voodoo 3 3000 agp 😎
The only problem is that the motherboard doesn't came with the mounting system. I don't know what to do.

Nice find for a dollar!

I've bought an old Acer TravelMate 313T laptop on eBay. It has a destroyed hinge, but otherwise is fairly complete. Does anyone know of what other models formed part of the 310 series (or may have used the same chassis)? I would really like to find a replacement hinge for it, which doesn't look easy to do.