PDA

View Full Version : Welcome Helheim



bullet2urbrain
09-18-2006, 06:07 PM
Hey Helheim Welcome to SoB.

Thanks for joining us :woot:

[XC] riptide
09-18-2006, 06:27 PM
Hey Helheim Welcome to SoB.

Thanks for joining us :woot:
Yep. Had noticed him having a look around these parts. Hope the stickies were easy enough to understand. :toast:

KaptainBlaZzed
09-18-2006, 08:16 PM
Welcome:toast:

[XC]thewildblue
09-18-2006, 11:57 PM
Welcome !!

Helheim
09-19-2006, 06:36 AM
Yeap the stickies were great. When you have it set to not interact with the desktop there is no way to see what the clients are doing right? Are there any settings that should be changed from the default?

Thanks.


Yep. Had noticed him having a look around these parts. Hope the stickies were easy enough to understand. :toast:

bullet2urbrain
09-19-2006, 07:09 AM
okay well nevermind, your not welcome here anymore.

after you are storming past me and my lonely CPU.

I revoke your welcoming thread ;)

Enjoy Helheim and thanks for the Powah.

Helheim
09-19-2006, 07:26 AM
I still have a long ways to go to catch up. :D

bullet2urbrain
09-19-2006, 07:37 AM
my mistake Helheim,

Sorry I am the lone user of CollegiateMafia , who is directly ahead of you... for now, the 19T in my sig is from what I crunched for XSTM

[XC] riptide
09-19-2006, 08:12 AM
Yeap the stickies were great. When you have it set to not interact with the desktop there is no way to see what the clients are doing right? Are there any settings that should be changed from the default?

Thanks.
Settings -

You could up the priority to Normal in the client. (Or higher through Taskmanager if you wated to eek out extra few points, depending of course what you have it one and what else you wish to do with said rig.)
There are not a lot of settings really, however i do find that turning off 'transmit intermediate blocks' gives me a few extra points. Also if you choose not to use SBQueue and are connecting with the main servers with your blocks put in the IP address instead of spb.pns.net (or whatever it is :rolleyes: ) (saves looking up the DNS ie time). That'll eek out a few more points for us. I have the IP somewhere.. alternatively just do a dns lookup to get it yourself :)

What rigs you got going on this?

Interact with desktop -

Yep. Make sure to finalise you settings first on a visible client then restart the service if thats the way you will run this. At the end of the day, there isn't a lot to see with the client.
I do however make a ritual of restarting my clients eveyday anyway at least once. I had noticed (and posted somwhere too) that I had found my DX on a go slow. Still at 100% but obviously the OC must have fouled something up. Anyways a restart sorted it out.

PS: Second DX coming on line this evening. Can't wait to get home.

Helheim
09-19-2006, 11:48 AM
What rigs you got going on this?

Right now 4 instances on one DX rig and 3 instances on 2 others.

Paladin
09-19-2006, 03:54 PM
I tested the "intermediate blocks" setting a bit (24 hour test each). Doesn't make much difference on a rig that has multiple instances running since the the other 3 threads (DX rig) take up the slack when one is transmitting.

Helheim
09-19-2006, 05:34 PM
Does HT make a difference?

[XC] riptide
09-20-2006, 01:16 AM
I tested the "intermediate blocks" setting a bit (24 hour test each). Doesn't make much difference on a rig that has multiple instances running since the the other 3 threads (DX rig) take up the slack when one is transmitting.
Thats on multiple instances yes. try on one instance. ;)

Also when taking up the 'slack' you automatically fall into 2 clients per DX mode for that split second. Not ideal as 3 clients on all the time. Anyways thats my opinion.


Helheim-
Yes HT can make a difference. I need you to be more specific on the DX's. have they got 512/1/2 MB Cache?

This client need 512KB onboard cache (per client). You'll get away with 3 instances across 2 Xeons with 512KB cache each.

If you have 4 instances on 2 x Xeons w/512 cache you may be dipping into main memory... not ideal. I suggested before using 3 instead of 4 on KaptainBlazzeds DX. he came back and reported an overall 5% increase with 3 clients. (not 4)

In terms of HT, it is said that pinning 2 clients to one real Processor and letting the 3rd 'float' over the 2 logicals is ideal and the most aggressive usage.

Helheim
09-20-2006, 08:27 AM
Ya they only have 512 cache. So would a Gallatin with 1 Mb L3 cache work better?

[XC] riptide
09-20-2006, 08:37 AM
Ya they only have 512 cache. So would a Gallatin with 1 Mb L3 cache work better?
Tricky... cos its L3. It would be reaonable to suggest that if you HAD to run more than 3 instances, the 1 Mb L3 cache would probably be better. What L2 is in the Gallatin?

Helheim
09-20-2006, 11:53 AM
512 ... Ok so what are the most economical cpus/systems to use for SOB then?

bullet2urbrain
09-20-2006, 01:28 PM
Xeons and P4's / Core

[XC] riptide
09-20-2006, 06:03 PM
AMD 64s do roughly equivalent in clockspeed to P4's. A 3800 X2 would be no slouch either!

[XC] DragonOrta
09-20-2006, 07:19 PM
The most economical? C2D!

[XC] riptide
09-21-2006, 01:51 AM
The most economical? C2D!
Kentsfield?

Helheim
09-21-2006, 10:46 AM
So which would be better:

Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4GHz OR 2 Xeon 3.0 GHZ Irwindale 2M Cache

Do the E6600s have HT? Thanks.

bullet2urbrain
09-21-2006, 10:48 AM
6600 is all the output CollegiateMafia has right now.

thats an e6600 @ 3.4 Tight RAM 1:1

i believe the Xeon would be better.

I dont believe the Core 2's have HT.. if they do its not called HT

KaptainBlaZzed
09-21-2006, 11:46 AM
So which would be better:

Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4GHz OR 2 Xeon 3.0 GHZ Irwindale 2M Cache

Do the E6600s have HT? Thanks.


E6600 FTW.

a DX 3.0 will but out about 8 mill cem's/sec and a conroe @ 3.1 will put out about 12mill cem's/sec.

get the Conroe.

Helheim
09-21-2006, 03:04 PM
So Dempsey has HT but Woodcrest does not right but Woodcrest is higher FSB? I wonder how two Dempsey cpus would do?

[XC] riptide
09-21-2006, 04:58 PM
E6600 FTW.

a DX 3.0 will but out about 8 mill cem's/sec and a conroe @ 3.1 will put out about 12mill cem's/sec.

get the Conroe.
What he said!

Helheim
10-04-2006, 07:44 AM
get the Conroe.

Ok got that now I can't decide what motherboard to get. It looks like the P5B can reach higher FSB but the P5W DH runs tighter and actually performs better? Any recommendations on a motherboard? Thanks.

bullet2urbrain
10-04-2006, 07:47 AM
for crunching, i would say the P5b, i own the P5W and its really nice but kind of overkill for a cruncher.

[XC] riptide
10-04-2006, 04:09 PM
What about the Gigabyte S3 / DS3. See them reaching very high and also cheap!