P4 3.06 for Folding?

A forum just for SPCR's folding team... by request.

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

Copper
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 587
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 8:43 am

P4 3.06 for Folding?

Post by Copper » Sat May 22, 2004 10:20 am

Does anyone here fold with a P4 3.06Ghz 533Mhz 512K HT? If so, approximately how many PPW does it produce crunching Gromacs?

Just wondering if it is at or near the 1000 PPW that my 3.0C is producing. If so I may replace the one I sold.

mas92264
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 659
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 5:26 pm
Location: Palm Springs, CA, USA

Post by mas92264 » Sat May 22, 2004 10:44 am

Don't see why it would be any different from a 3.0/800. The slower fsb should make either an insignificant or zip difference.

Don't have one tho, just 3 2.8C's running ht/2 at a time. :twisted: Oh, and a few other AMD and Intel folders too. :)

M

Copper
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 587
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 8:43 am

Post by Copper » Sat May 22, 2004 11:05 am

mas92264 wrote:Oh, and a few other AMD and Intel folders too. :)
"PPW: 13740"

I guess so! :shock:

Copper
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 587
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 8:43 am

Post by Copper » Sat May 22, 2004 12:05 pm

Come to think of it, HT requires Windows XP. I'll be damned before I'll buy another copy. So much for the 3.06.

mas92264
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 659
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 5:26 pm
Location: Palm Springs, CA, USA

Post by mas92264 » Sat May 22, 2004 4:36 pm

Copper wrote:Come to think of it, HT requires Windows XP. I'll be damned before I'll buy another copy. So much for the 3.06.
Hmm. Checked at MS and there's some mention of HT apparently working on 2000 Server, but no direct mention of HT working on 2000 Pro.

Intel says, "The following desktop operating systems are not recommended for use with Hyper-Threading Technology: 2000 Pro, blah, blah." Good to go on XP Pro or Home.

Get this, though. On my ASUS P4P800-VM mobo with P4 2.8C, with HT enabled in the bios, running 2000 Pro with SP4, I'm getting frame times of:

Code: Select all

       Running        Running 2
       Single         Instances

p910    5:09             6:39

p924    7:55             9:53
Running these 2 wu's at the same time is currently making 1,020 ppw. Looks like HT is working as it should, to me. :) I'm guessing that the reason that HT is "not recommended" by Intel, is because of no license fee being paid.

M

dasman
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 485
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:59 am
Location: Erie, PA USA

Post by dasman » Sat May 22, 2004 4:56 pm

I've got a 3.06 -- it gets around 1000ppw on gros and if I get a Dgro, about 1500. IIRC, 2 dgros was around 2200ppw (only happened once).

Running on XPhome


Dave

Copper
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 587
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 8:43 am

Post by Copper » Sat May 22, 2004 5:54 pm

If only I had 2000. :(

I'll stick with the 2.4B for a while, see how it goes. I need to experiment with my Reserator, sitting here waiting to be installed. If I don't lose my disappointment with the 2.4B I'll go with an OCed Barton mobile before I buy another OS. I'll just need to be sure to get a motherboard that has an on-board video that is compatible with Windows ME. I have ME laying around doing nothing. I assume, anyway, that Barton isn't particular about its OS.

Hell, it probably wouldn't be difficult to match or even beat the price of an OS with a Barton and board combined! ($150?)

dasman
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 485
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:59 am
Location: Erie, PA USA

Post by dasman » Sat May 22, 2004 6:19 pm

Copper wrote: Hell, it probably wouldn't be difficult to match or even beat the price of an OS with a Barton and board combined! ($150?)
XP Home OEM -- $91 w/ free shipping

Copper
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 587
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 8:43 am

Post by Copper » Sat May 22, 2004 6:25 pm

I don't know whether to be happy or pissed off!! :D

I'm pretty sure I paid $150 for my XP in the not too distant past.

Copper
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 587
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 8:43 am

Post by Copper » Sat May 22, 2004 6:58 pm

Anyone want to buy a 2.4B, $91. I take paypal. :D

peteamer
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 1740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 11:24 am
Location: 'Sunny' Cornwall U.K.

Post by peteamer » Sun May 23, 2004 9:51 am

Windows ME !!! :shock: :shock:


WOW !! Your brave :shock:

ColdFlame
Posts: 451
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 9:39 pm
Location: Somewhere in Time

Post by ColdFlame » Thu May 27, 2004 12:18 pm

The reason why Win2000 is not recommended is because it does not know that one of the CPUs is "virtual". Only WinXP and above knows that if you have a HT-enabled CPU then there is 1 "real" CPU and 1 "virtual" CPU and it schedules accordingly. Win2000 thinks there are 2 "real" CPUs and so scheduling might get screwy. I'm not sure what the real life consequences would be of that, particularly for folding. However, people that don't choose WinXP over any predecessor MS-OS need to have their gray cells checked. WinXP is absolutely the best desktop OS on the market if you compare it to anything MS has produced.

mas92264
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 659
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 5:26 pm
Location: Palm Springs, CA, USA

Post by mas92264 » Thu May 27, 2004 1:56 pm

Re: Don't use W2K and HT.

Ok, I'll agree that there's no reason to buy w2k instead of xp. Since I already have w2k, ht seems to work satisfactorily on it and folding is the only thing that the box does, I can't get excited at all about buying another copy of xp.

W2k has, umm, other advantages, also.

M

SpyderCat
Posts: 208
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2003 12:22 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post by SpyderCat » Thu May 27, 2004 2:06 pm

mas92264 wrote: W2k has, umm, other advantages, also.

M
But so does WinXP Pro Enterprise Edition :lol: :lol: :?

euclid13
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 7:33 pm

Post by euclid13 » Thu May 27, 2004 5:54 pm

HT works fine on a Xeon 2.4G running Windows 2003 server. :wink:

But I think that is based on XP.

Copper
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 587
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 8:43 am

Post by Copper » Thu Jun 03, 2004 5:57 pm

I got the 3.06 running and it is getting the same ~1000 points as the 3.0C, but boy is it pulling some watts.... 156 total watts as compared to 90 watts from the undervolted 3.0C system. I'm on the hunt for a cheap but undervoltable P4 board.

haysdb
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 2425
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:09 pm
Location: Earth

Post by haysdb » Thu Jun 03, 2004 6:12 pm

This is why the Prescott is the end of the line for the Pentium 4. The future belongs to Pentium M, which of course is going to be a HUGE headache for Intel's marketing department, and why they are switching to "model numbers" instead of GHz ratings.

David

mas92264
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 659
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 5:26 pm
Location: Palm Springs, CA, USA

Post by mas92264 » Thu Jun 03, 2004 6:12 pm

Copper wrote:I got the 3.06 running and it is getting the same ~1000 points as the 3.0C, but boy is it pulling some watts.... 156 total watts as compared to 90 watts from the undervolted 3.0C system. I'm on the hunt for a cheap but undervoltable P4 board.
What mobo and psu are you using?

M

Copper
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 587
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 8:43 am

Post by Copper » Thu Jun 03, 2004 6:23 pm

Motherboard is an Intel D845GVSR micro atx. Power Supply is a Coolmax FL-350ATX(CF-350). The Collmax is one of the new fanless models.

Another small contributer over the 3.0C system is the hard drive. At least I think it is? The 3.0C uses a notebook drive and the 3.06 is using a 7200.7. If I remember correctly it pulls over 10 watts, 12 or 14 maybe. I have another notebook drive ready to go into the system but I'm still waiting for the 44 pin to 40 pin adaptor.

mas92264
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 659
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 5:26 pm
Location: Palm Springs, CA, USA

Post by mas92264 » Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:27 am

I'm curious as I'm thinking about getting 1 or 2 "more efficient" psu's. Rite now I'm looking at the Zalman 300a or b.

I've got 3 7200.7 pata drives and I'm going to try and see what the current draw is whilst running - on one anyway. It would seem that a running drive, with no activity, would draw little current. Just using common sense, here, I've got no evidence to back this up. Yet.

M

dasman
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 485
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:59 am
Location: Erie, PA USA

Post by dasman » Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:51 am

I'm really happy with my Seasonic -- I got it from Mike C (he had some pre fan rev versions). If the new A3 is as good, that might be the way to go.

Compared to my Antec, draw at the plug went down about 30-40w (IIRC from around 220 to 180) measured with a WattsUp? (think killawatt).

Dave

mas92264
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 659
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 5:26 pm
Location: Palm Springs, CA, USA

Post by mas92264 » Fri Jun 04, 2004 9:51 am

dasman wrote:I'm really happy with my Seasonic -- I got it from Mike C (he had some pre fan rev versions). If the new A3 is as good, that might be the way to go.

Compared to my Antec, draw at the plug went down about 30-40w (IIRC from around 220 to 180) measured with a WattsUp? (think killawatt).

Dave
Yeah, I was just looking at the SS-300FB. Problem is, they don't seem to be widely distributed as I only found them at a few places, like Silicon Acoustics and Essential in NY.

I'm gonna contact Mike and see what the scoop is - thanks for the reminder.

M

Copper
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 587
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 8:43 am

Post by Copper » Fri Jun 04, 2004 5:17 pm

It does appear I have a serious hardware problem, perhaps power supply. I put the 3.06 in the Zen and at default voltage its pulling 108 watts, just 18 more than the undervolted 3.0C.

I'm going to tinker with undervolting it to see if I can get it at the same level or lower than the 3.0C.

shathal
Posts: 1083
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 11:36 am
Location: Reading, UK

Post by shathal » Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:11 am

mas92264 wrote:
Copper wrote:Come to think of it, HT requires Windows XP. I'll be damned before I'll buy another copy. So much for the 3.06.
Hmm. Checked at MS and there's some mention of HT apparently working on 2000 Server, but no direct mention of HT working on 2000 Pro.

Intel says, "The following desktop operating systems are not recommended for use with Hyper-Threading Technology: 2000 Pro, blah, blah." Good to go on XP Pro or Home.

<snip>
M
A word of warning, HT on Windows XP is a blessing.

HT on a W2K system is a ... questionable affair. Windows 2000 doesn't know about HT - it interprets the 2nd (logical) CPU as a seperate CPU, therefor thinks you actually have a DP-system - which you do not.

Win2K is considerably less good for the benefits of HT. XP "always on", but in Windows 2000 ... try it out ... YMMV depending on the app.

Not folding related, but I happen to know a few things about HT - and Windows 2000 is a very iffy subject on the matter.

mas92264
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 659
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 5:26 pm
Location: Palm Springs, CA, USA

Post by mas92264 » Sat Jun 05, 2004 6:29 am

"Stupidity usually gets its way."

So far, this setup has produced 89 + 96 wus, machine id 1 and 2. I've used 3 different processors (2.4A, 2.8E and 2.8C) and 2 different motherboards (both #865 chipset) all running on the same hd, a Hitachi 160g sata. It has never aborted a wu.

I know it's not supposed to work right, but it does. :) Perhaps this application, along with the computer really doing nothing but folding (I have another box with a 2.8C and XP that is my main computer at home) just doesn't create any problems with HT.

M

trodas
Posts: 509
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 6:21 am
Location: Czech republic
Contact:

Post by trodas » Sun Jun 06, 2004 7:54 am

I prefer W2k too, because they are smaller, more effective, cleaner and so on... :wink: Also did not think too much that the user is stupid :lol: :?

There is only one good thing on the XP stuff - faster boot. But how many times per day you reboot? :wink:

Copper
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 587
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 8:43 am

Post by Copper » Sun Jun 06, 2004 8:28 am

The 3.06 undervolted Prime95 stable for 24 hours @ 1.35 Vcore in the Zen. Total watts, without monitor, folding the same work units as the 3.0C is 84, down 6 watts from the 3.0C and down 24 watts from the 3.06 at default Vcore. Moreover it's down a whopping 72 watts from the 3.06 in the other system. Same points, 72 watts less.

Seems my problem is a combination of not being able to undervolt the other board and either the power supply or motherboard, or both. I have a second power supply to try, but its a cheapy with a fan. I'll see how it does.

mas92264
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 659
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 5:26 pm
Location: Palm Springs, CA, USA

Post by mas92264 » Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:27 am

Dramatic power reduction! 8)

Seems that one of the biggest power hogs are the psu's. It's beginning to look like a few $ more spent on a high efficiency and/or active pfc psu would quickly pay for itself.

M

Copper
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 587
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 8:43 am

Post by Copper » Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:30 am

mas92264 wrote:I've used 3 different processors (2.4A, 2.8E and 2.8C)
Did you notice any difference in production between the 2.8C and the 2.8E? The Prescotts are supposed to have "Enhanced" Hyperthreading.

mas92264
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 659
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 5:26 pm
Location: Palm Springs, CA, USA

Post by mas92264 » Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:50 am

Actually, it's kind of a funny story. I bot the 2.8E "refurbished" from newegg for $155 with the Intel hsf. I was getting folding temps of about 65 to 70C and the folding performance was pretty much the same as my 2.8C which was running about 10 to 15C cooler. So, I found a 2.6C "refurbished" at newegg for $144, iirc, and I ordered it and returned the 2.8E.

What I got was a 2.8C in the retail plastic bilster pack, never opened, but no retail paper box. Weird. Anyway, I was tickled pink. :)

IMO, a 2.8E would be fine in an office setting or file/app server, but, it's just way too hot running for a home/trying to be quiet system. I still have the 2.4A, folding away, and will likely replace it soon.

M

Post Reply