# AMD 6 Core WCG production discussion



## PaulieG (Apr 27, 2010)

So, with the release of the new AMD chips with 6 physical cores, there could be some serious potential for AMD crunching. This is the place to discuss your thoughts on expected production from these chips and results you've achieved with them.


----------



## [Ion] (Apr 27, 2010)

I'd figure it would be almost exactly 50% better clock-for-clock than the Phenom II X4s.  I disabled 2 of the cores on my X4 955 about a month ago to see how WCG would do with half as many cores (and therefore twice as much L3/core), and the results?  Each RICE WU that takes exactly 7 hours (+/- a minute or two) was worth approximately 2% more points. So I'm not sure how it is for the rest of the projects, but if all of the other projects are like RICE, I'd expect a ~48% increase in PPD.


----------



## ERazer (Apr 27, 2010)

[Ion] said:


> I'd figure it would be almost exactly 50% better clock-for-clock than the Phenom II X4s.  I disabled 2 of the cores on my X4 955 about a month ago to see how WCG would do with half as many cores (and therefore twice as much L3/core), and the results?  Each RICE WU that takes exactly 7 hours (+/- a minute or two) was worth approximately 2% more points. So I'm not sure how it is for the rest of the projects, but if all of the other projects are like RICE, I'd expect a ~48% increase in PPD.



what u think around 4-5k ppd? im shooting in the dark hre


----------



## AlienIsGOD (Apr 27, 2010)

W/E the number it will be a HUGE improvement over my X2 240.  I cant wait till I can afford one of these puppies..


----------



## [Ion] (Apr 27, 2010)

ERazer said:


> what u think around 4-5k ppd? im shooting in the dark hre



Well, my estimator, which I've found to be pretty much spot-on in the past for my X4 955 estimates ~2100PPD from my X4 955 @ 3.4ghz...so we'd be looking at around 3k PPD from an X6 1090T @ stock, or around 3800PPD @ 4ghz. Unfortunately not enough to even come close to dethroning an i7


----------



## GREASEMONKEY (Apr 28, 2010)

I'll be adding one to my "JUNKYARD" this friday to get crunching at 100% on all 6.I'm hoping for 3,600 per day.


----------



## [Ion] (Apr 28, 2010)

GREASEMONKEY said:


> I'll be adding one to my "JUNKYARD" this friday to get crunching at 100% on all 6.I'm hoping for 3,600 per day.



Awesome! 
If you can get me some PPD info, I'll see about adding it to the estimator!


----------



## blkhogan (Apr 28, 2010)

Cant wait to see the numbers from you guys. It will be this fall before I will be able to start adding them to my arsenal, money is tight for now.


----------



## theonedub (Apr 28, 2010)

I would love to see 4k production at a modest OC (under 4ghz possible?). If that is possible I might replace my i7. Keep us updated


----------



## trt740 (Apr 28, 2010)

theonedub said:


> I would love to see 4k production at a modest OC (under 4ghz possible?). If that is possible I might replace my i7. Keep us updated



I think a I7 will still out crunch it but I bet it is close.


----------



## theonedub (Apr 28, 2010)

I think you are right. Shouldn't be too long before the numbers present themselves and we know for sure. 

One thing is for sure- I would pocket a good amount of money switching to an AMD setup


----------



## blkhogan (Apr 28, 2010)

If I could get an AMD rig to do around 4k Id be in heaven.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Apr 28, 2010)

I'd say these x4's would do about 3.8-4k a day going a bit on the low side.  Although it doesn't run 8 projects like the i7 it does have six REAL cores who will process more work than the four real cores of a i7 with 2 virtual cores from the HTT.  So I don't know, def. a run at the i7 clock for clock in crunching.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Apr 28, 2010)

i dont know cp it seems in alot of things the virtual cores almost scale as well as real cores it would be close but i7 is still going to have the edge from what ive seen a 3.4ghz x4 compares to a 2.6 i7 roughly untill lots of multi threading takes place id say 3.2ghz the 1090T stock should be about 5-7% slower then the i7 920 at stock


----------



## Chicken Patty (Apr 28, 2010)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> i dont know cp it seems in alot of things the virtual cores almost scale as well as real cores it would be close but i7 is still going to have the edge from what ive seen a 3.4ghz x4 compares to a 2.6 i7 roughly untill lots of multi threading takes place id say 3.2ghz the 1090T stock should be about 5-7% slower then the i7 920 at stock



I don't think it'll match it, but it'll def. be a run IMO.  Of course I am just throwing numbers together without much though here


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Apr 28, 2010)

well think of it this way compare an i7 to a Phenom II with HT off find out where the clock speeds match up then add 50%  not perfect but by that method and other benches... you should be able to get within a few hundred points


----------



## Chicken Patty (Apr 28, 2010)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> well think of it this way compare an i7 to a Phenom II with HT off find out where the clock speeds match up then add 50%  not perfect but by that method and other benches... you should be able to get within a few hundred points


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Apr 28, 2010)

alright take a Phenom II 965 compare it to an i7 with HT OFF 4 cores vs 4 cores then compare to with HT on... then by finding out what the 4 extra threads add look at the phenom II and add half its current PPD to the total and you should have a rough estimate of where each stands


example i7 at 4 thread - 2000 pts with 8 threads its 4000

phenom II 4 threads is 1700 pts but with 6 threads is 2550 or something like that

not exact but you can see where im going you have i7s and a phenom quad  crunch some numbers and there ya go


----------



## Chicken Patty (Apr 29, 2010)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> alright take a Phenom II 965 compare it to an i7 with HT OFF 4 cores vs 4 cores then compare to with HT on... then by finding out what the 4 extra threads add look at the phenom II and add half its current PPD to the total and you should have a rough estimate of where each stands
> 
> 
> example i7 at 4 thread - 2000 pts with 8 threads its 4000
> ...



I get what you mean now, so my estimations are somewhat reasonable. Right?


----------



## blkhogan (Apr 29, 2010)

Ok. Ive been reading into this i7 stuff. I dont get the extra 4 threads, can some one tell me how it works in short? Im as dumb as a box of rocks when it comes to Intel. :shadedshu


----------



## ERazer (Apr 29, 2010)

blkhogan said:


> Ok. Ive been reading into this i7 stuff. I dont get the extra 4 threads, can some one tell me how it works in short? Im as dumb as a box of rocks when it comes to Intel. :shadedshu



here u go

http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-hyper-threading-technology-your-questions-answered/

basically i7 got 4 real core and 4 additional virtual core b/c of HT

really wish amd got HT tech, sooo be awsome


----------



## blkhogan (Apr 29, 2010)

So, there are 4 physical cores, but each core can read 2 different threads of information at a time? Ahhh... now i see.


----------



## [Ion] (Apr 29, 2010)

blkhogan said:


> So, there are 4 physical cores, but each core can read 2 different threads of information at a time? Ahhh... now i see.



Yep.  From what I've seen, i7s tend to do ~35% better for WCG with HT enabled vs disabled, but this is really the upper limit of the performance boost from HT. (it does 2x as many WUs at once, but each one takes longer)


----------



## blkhogan (Apr 29, 2010)

[Ion] said:


> Yep.  From what I've seen, i7s tend to do ~35% better for WCG with HT enabled vs disabled, but this is really the upper limit of the performance boost from HT. (it does 2x as many WUs at once, but each one takes longer)


So Intel's hyper-threading is different than AMD HT-Link? Thats what was confusing me, its a 4 core but can do 8 threads of info.


----------



## theonedub (Apr 29, 2010)

QPI is the Intel version of HyperTransport

The thing with i7s (from my exp) is that it gets more WUs done, but they all under report, so you get less points per WU. The sheer number of WUs done however still increases your PPD by that 35% or so.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Apr 29, 2010)

id say there reasonable CP but only time will tell


----------



## blkhogan (Apr 29, 2010)

So, an i7 compared to a 965 clock for clock is about 35% higher return correct? So 2 965's can still put out better numbers? Thats some cool tech Intel has. So with the new Thuban's, how do they compare up against the i7? Or do we even know yet?


----------



## theonedub (Apr 29, 2010)

The WCG site is updating but if I am free later I will see if I can pull up my numbers from when I had the 965 @ 3.6 and compare it to my i7 @ 3.51 and see what % the i7 has over the Phenom. 

Once more WCG members get the X6 we will know for sure about performance, but from the looks of it the i7 still comes out on top.


----------



## PaulieG (Apr 29, 2010)

blkhogan said:


> So, an i7 compared to a 965 clock for clock is about 35% higher return correct? So 2 965's can still put out better numbers? Thats some cool tech Intel has. So with the new Thuban's, how do they compare up against the i7? Or do we even know yet?



This is my original question.


----------



## [Ion] (Apr 29, 2010)

Paulieg said:


> This is my original question.



As I figured in my first post on the last page, I think the i7 will still be faster, since most 4ghz i7s tend to pull close to 4500PPD, and I estimated ~3800 for an X6 @ the same speeds


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Apr 29, 2010)

well take a 955s WCG ppd and add half of its total to it again say its 2000 add 1000 to it there ya go 2 cores if its at 100% usage it should scale pretty closely


----------



## blkhogan (Apr 29, 2010)

theonedub said:


> The WCG site is updating but if I am free later I will see if I can pull up my numbers from when I had the 965 @ 3.6 and compare it to my i7 @ 3.51 and see what % the i7 has over the Phenom.
> 
> Once more WCG members get the X6 we will know for sure about performance, but from the looks of it the i7 still comes out on top.


That would be interesting to see if you can. 



Paulieg said:


> This is my original question.


Im trying to decide, do I upgrade to Thuban's or bite the bullet and do an i7? It will be much cheaper to do Thuban's, as most of my mobos already support them. Or, do I do a single i7 and sell two of my AMD's to fund it


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Apr 29, 2010)

just upgrade your amd rigs unless you like spending lots of cash.... XD if you go spending lots of cash send me one of them there am3 quads would ya


----------



## blkhogan (Apr 29, 2010)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> just upgrade your amd rigs unless you like spending lots of cash.... XD


Well, If I sell off my 805 and FX5000 rigs I should have enough to do a decent i7.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Apr 29, 2010)

or bios update and a bunch of thubans  come on blk stay with the darkside and go mass thuban  you know u want ot


----------



## blkhogan (Apr 29, 2010)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> or bios update and a bunch of thubans  come on blk stay with the darkside and go mass thuban  you know u want ot


Ive been AMD from the early 90's. Would be hard to leave them. But Im looking at what will put out the most, with the small amount of space I have right now. I will always be an AMD fanboi  My 2 965BE's arent going anywhere anytime soon. They are my work horses.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Apr 29, 2010)

well 600ppd but whats the easier cpu to overclock like mad? from reviews 4ghz is doable on a vendetta 2 cooler i want to see an i7 do that  eitherway i agree tho make the best of the space you got  i7 can definetly do more work but is it really worth a full swap out ? okay dumb question XP if i had the cash id do it so i dont even need to ask


----------



## ERazer (Apr 29, 2010)

heck few months ago i got x2 620, q6600, and q9550 then moved to two i7, saved me some electric bill and got better ppd output


----------



## blkhogan (Apr 29, 2010)

ERazer said:


> heck few months ago i got x2 620, q6600, and q9550 then moved to two i7, saved me some electric bill and got better ppd output


Thats the info Im looking for.  I think 2 965's and 1 i7 would be a pretty strong farm.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Apr 29, 2010)

not sure which review it was but thuban uses less power then i7 but it could vary depending on setup etc


----------



## Chicken Patty (Apr 29, 2010)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> id say there reasonable CP but only time will tell



Exactly.


----------



## GREASEMONKEY (Apr 30, 2010)

Showed up a day early .
I'll ramp it up some more this weekend.I just wanted to get it crunchin NOW!


----------



## hat (Apr 30, 2010)

I've heard it will still be a bit slower than the i7... if only it had HT, heh.


----------



## Melvis (Apr 30, 2010)

hat said:


> I've heard it will still be a bit slower than the i7... if only it had HT, heh.



http://www.guru3d.com/article/phenom-ii-x6-1055t-1090t-review/


----------



## Chicken Patty (Apr 30, 2010)

GREASEMONKEY said:


> Showed up a day early .
> I'll ramp it up some more this weekend.I just wanted to get it crunchin NOW!
> http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w265/Monkeyboy2U/THUBIN.png


----------



## PaulieG (Apr 30, 2010)

I've got my 1090T. Just waiting for my Crosshair IV to get here on Monday. I'll probably replace the 955 in the family rig with a 1055T also. This will complete a conversion to all AMD for awhile. Well, except for the Q6600 cruncher at my inlaws. Feels kinda strange...


----------



## [Ion] (Apr 30, 2010)

Awesome GREASEMONKEY, can you get me some numbers for that after it's up to steam?  Paulieg, could you do the same?  I'll see about adding Thuban support to the PPD estimator


----------



## Chicken Patty (Apr 30, 2010)

@Paul


----------



## PaulieG (Apr 30, 2010)

[Ion] said:


> Awesome GREASEMONKEY, can you get me some numbers for that after it's up to steam?  Paulieg, could you do the same?  I'll see about adding Thuban support to the PPD estimator



Will do, for sure.


----------



## Kantastic (May 1, 2010)




----------



## mstenholm (May 1, 2010)

From BONICstat
Rank                                                          #              Average credit per CPU second
32	 Intel(R) Core(tm) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz 	 58 	  	 0.006128 
33	 AMD Athlon(tm) X2 250 Processor 	          1 	  	 0.006118 
34	 AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1090T Processor 	 1 	 	 0.006096 

So it is as fast as the average TPU i920 per tread as guessed by several posters. We need a head to head at same clock speed. TPU does not OC their i920 as hard as other team. XtremeSystems does 0.006543 in an average. 

0.006096  => 3160 PPD.

http://boincstats.com/stats/host_cpu_stats.php?pr=wcg&teamid=8674


----------



## [Ion] (May 1, 2010)

Paulieg said:


> Will do, for sure.



Thanks!
If you could give me the numbers from the WCG site (including exact runtime, WUs turned in, exact WCG points) and the OC and OS (x86/x64) that'll make things a lot easier to include vs just a general estimate from BOINCStats/Free-DC


----------

