The lowdown on multiprocessor PCs?

Hi
I would like to build a multi-processor PC, but have never done anything
more fancy than installing a new DVD drive on my 3 yr old PC or replacing
its monitor.

Does anyone know where I can get info on building one or on comparing
performance with single processor units?

Is a simple network of old single processor PCs the equivalent of a new
multi-processor PC?

Rubix

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 06:00:45 -0000, "Rubix" wrote:

Hi
I would like to build a multi-processor PC, but have never done anything
more fancy than installing a new DVD drive on my 3 yr old PC or replacing
its monitor.

Does anyone know where I can get info on building one or on comparing
performance with single processor units?

There's some assembly guides here http://www.esc-ca.com/ and several docs
at www.amd.com on building Athlon systems which are generally applicable.
My advice is get a really good case with good venting and power supply - I
like Antec http://www.antec-inc.com/us/ but I haven't built a dualie yet.

Is a simple network of old single processor PCs the equivalent of a new
multi-processor PC?

Not really though there are a few "solutions" which work quite well on
networked clusters. Obviously with two CPUs on the same mbrd they are much
more intimately connected and can share memory and other components
directly.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 06:00:45 -0000, "Rubix"
wrote:
Hi
I would like to build a multi-processor PC, but have never done anything
more fancy than installing a new DVD drive on my 3 yr old PC or replacing
its monitor.

Does anyone know where I can get info on building one or on comparing
performance with single processor units?

Well, you could check out www.2cpu.com, they have a number of articles
up about dual-processor systems. A few basics to start off with:

You currently have the choice of three processors (as far as x86 goes
at least):

Intel Xeon (DP)
AMD AthlonMP
AMD Opteron

The Xeon is probably the most common, but fairly pricey at the
high-end. It's available at roughly 2.4GHz up to 3.2GHz. Cost about
$225 up to about $900 per processor, while motherboards costing about
$250 - $300 for most current workstation style boards.

The AthlonMP is a slightly outdated design, but it's definitely the
cheapest solution. They are available at model 2400+ up to 2800+,
costing about $125 - $200 per processor and motherboards being about
$200-$250.

The Opteron is the highest performance solution of the three for most
applications (though the Xeon will be faster in some), but they're
also kind of pricey. The chips will run you about $200 to $700 with
motherboards costing you $300 - $500 for a decent workstation board.


To go along with those dual processors you will also need a
dual-processor capable operating system. Win9x is, not surprisingly,
just not going to cut it. WinXP Home Edition also won't work. WinNT
4.0, Win2K, WinXP Pro or Win2003 Server are your only options in
Microsoft land. Outside of Microsoft world almost everything works.
Most distributions of Linux will work with multiple processor support
almost out of the box, and all can be made to work. Same goes for the
*BSDs any commercial Unix systems.

Is a simple network of old single processor PCs the equivalent of a new
multi-processor PC?

Definitely not, at least not for the vast majority of tasks.
Applications need to be specially designed to be split among multiple
systems across a network to see any benefit at all here. A VERY small
percentage of applications have been designed like that, but they are
most definitely the exception rather than the rule. Even for
multi-processor PCs you often need the application to be specially
designed to really see a large benefit, but a lot of applications are
setup like this.

Of course, the real benefit to using a multi-processor workstation is
that you have a second free processor to use while one chip is doing
it's thing. This tends to make the system much more responsive and
snappier. Where a single-processor might finish a single task just as
quickly as a dual-processor system, the computer could easily be very
sluggish while it's doing that task. With a dual-processor system,
even if a single task isn't any faster (some will be, some won't), the
computer is still very usable.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca

Thanks guys,
I've got lots of info from you. Now to go a-spending.
Rubix

"Tony Hill" wrote in message
.com...
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 06:00:45 -0000, "Rubix"
wrote:
Hi
I would like to build a multi-processor PC, but have never done anything
more fancy than installing a new DVD drive on my 3 yr old PC or replacing
its monitor.

Does anyone know where I can get info on building one or on comparing
performance with single processor units?

Well, you could check out www.2cpu.com, they have a number of articles
up about dual-processor systems. A few basics to start off with:

You currently have the choice of three processors (as far as x86 goes
at least):

Intel Xeon (DP)
AMD AthlonMP
AMD Opteron

The Xeon is probably the most common, but fairly pricey at the
high-end. It's available at roughly 2.4GHz up to 3.2GHz. Cost about
$225 up to about $900 per processor, while motherboards costing about
$250 - $300 for most current workstation style boards.

The AthlonMP is a slightly outdated design, but it's definitely the
cheapest solution. They are available at model 2400+ up to 2800+,
costing about $125 - $200 per processor and motherboards being about
$200-$250.

The Opteron is the highest performance solution of the three for most
applications (though the Xeon will be faster in some), but they're
also kind of pricey. The chips will run you about $200 to $700 with
motherboards costing you $300 - $500 for a decent workstation board.


To go along with those dual processors you will also need a
dual-processor capable operating system. Win9x is, not surprisingly,
just not going to cut it. WinXP Home Edition also won't work. WinNT
4.0, Win2K, WinXP Pro or Win2003 Server are your only options in
Microsoft land. Outside of Microsoft world almost everything works.
Most distributions of Linux will work with multiple processor support
almost out of the box, and all can be made to work. Same goes for the
*BSDs any commercial Unix systems.

Is a simple network of old single processor PCs the equivalent of a new
multi-processor PC?

Definitely not, at least not for the vast majority of tasks.
Applications need to be specially designed to be split among multiple
systems across a network to see any benefit at all here. A VERY small
percentage of applications have been designed like that, but they are
most definitely the exception rather than the rule. Even for
multi-processor PCs you often need the application to be specially
designed to really see a large benefit, but a lot of applications are
setup like this.

Of course, the real benefit to using a multi-processor workstation is
that you have a second free processor to use while one chip is doing
it's thing. This tends to make the system much more responsive and
snappier. Where a single-processor might finish a single task just as
quickly as a dual-processor system, the computer could easily be very
sluggish while it's doing that task. With a dual-processor system,
even if a single task isn't any faster (some will be, some won't), the
computer is still very usable.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca

"Rubix" wrote in message
...
Hi
I would like to build a multi-processor PC, but have never done anything
more fancy than installing a new DVD drive on my 3 yr old PC or replacing
its monitor.

Does anyone know where I can get info on building one or on comparing
performance with single processor units?

Is a simple network of old single processor PCs the equivalent of a new
multi-processor PC?

Rubix



I'd not bother again. I wanted raw CPU power for FPS games but there were
few that made proper use of two CPUs - Quake 3 being the one in mind. If
you want to play such games, IMHO, you'd be better off spending more money
on a single CPU / better video card.

Thanks Kev.

A point to be considered. I only want one for my chess programs and bcos I
like the idea of building my own from scratch. Perhaps its not worth it. I
need to think about that.
Rubix

"Kev" wrote in message
...

"Rubix" wrote in message
...
Hi
I would like to build a multi-processor PC, but have never done anything
more fancy than installing a new DVD drive on my 3 yr old PC or
replacing
its monitor.

Does anyone know where I can get info on building one or on comparing
performance with single processor units?

Is a simple network of old single processor PCs the equivalent of a new
multi-processor PC?

Rubix



I'd not bother again. I wanted raw CPU power for FPS games but there were
few that made proper use of two CPUs - Quake 3 being the one in mind. If
you want to play such games, IMHO, you'd be better off spending more money
on a single CPU / better video card.

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:00:54 -0000, "Rubix"
wrote:
A point to be considered. I only want one for my chess programs and bcos I
like the idea of building my own from scratch. Perhaps its not worth it. I
need to think about that.

If you're talking chess, you really ought to consider the Opteron
http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000285
--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 04:54:28 GMT,
(The little lost angel) wrote:

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:00:54 -0000, "Rubix"
wrote:
A point to be considered. I only want one for my chess programs and bcos I
like the idea of building my own from scratch. Perhaps its not worth it. I
need to think about that.

If you're talking chess, you really ought to consider the Opteron
http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000285

Surprised the P4/Xeon even hung in there. Branchy, pointer-chasing
integer code. Not NetBurst's long suit. Only gave hyperthreading one
shot at it, and it paid off (about 35%). More or less what Intel
hoped for: two threads that would stall alot leave lots of room for
each other.

The P4EE results were run with one or two threads? Single-threaded,
one suspects--probably correlated with the fact that the paid online
price search advertisement doesn't have P4EE as an option. Wouldn't
want people to go off looking for a processor that doesn't generate
points for Ace's, after all.

RM

My goodness Robert! You really know an awful lot of stuff. It'll take me a
couple of days to digest that

Rubix

"Robert Myers" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 04:54:28 GMT,
(The little lost angel) wrote:

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:00:54 -0000, "Rubix"
wrote:
A point to be considered. I only want one for my chess programs and bcos
I
like the idea of building my own from scratch. Perhaps its not worth it.
I
need to think about that.

If you're talking chess, you really ought to consider the Opteron
http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000285

Surprised the P4/Xeon even hung in there. Branchy, pointer-chasing
integer code. Not NetBurst's long suit. Only gave hyperthreading one
shot at it, and it paid off (about 35%). More or less what Intel
hoped for: two threads that would stall alot leave lots of room for
each other.

The P4EE results were run with one or two threads? Single-threaded,
one suspects--probably correlated with the fact that the paid online
price search advertisement doesn't have P4EE as an option. Wouldn't
want people to go off looking for a processor that doesn't generate
points for Ace's, after all.

RM

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 20:00:36 -0000, "Rubix"
wrote:

My goodness Robert! You really know an awful lot of stuff. It'll take me a
couple of days to digest that

I wasn't trying to be obscure, but I also didn't want to get into a
big argument. If the P4EE benchmark was run with a single thread, and
if you can extrapolate the 35% boost you get by going to
hyperthreading (2 to 4 threads) with a dual Xeon, then the single P4EE
might actually be the best deal relative to the other options shown.

The page offered no link to a P4EE price, so I speculated that Ace's
was being a little sneaky in not showing P4EE running hyperthreaded,
misleadingly implying that it was the underachiever of the lot.

That's alot of ifs, P4EE's are hard but not impossible to come by, and
I didn't want to get into pricing a P4EE system. If you want to
consider your options fully, though, you should probably include a
single P4EE in your lost of possibilities.

By rights, the P4 architecture shouldn't do well on something like a
chess-playing program--without hyperthreading--and it doesn't. If I'm
interpreting the results correctly, it's an example of hyperthreading
making up for a glaring weakness of the NetBurst architecture just the
way Intel intended it to.

RM