The_Bad_Penguin wrote:

P.S. Anyone know which AM2 mobo's are good for overclocking?!

Good question! I am particularly intersted in high speed Athlon X2, and microATX if possible. BTW, how does a dual-core opteron compare to athlon x2? Are there any mobos out there for dual dual-core opterons that support overclocking?

TIA!

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

I don't know anything about overclocking, but the dual core Opterons should perform near identical to the same speed Athlon64 X2 (same speed -> Athlon64 5000+ is equivalent to Opteron 2218 for example). The only difference is that the Opteron version will allow you to have two processors connected together [in the 2218 version that is, the 1218 doesn't, and the 8218 will allow up to 8 processors connected together].

--
Mats

---

A dual-socketed AM2 mobo which is overclocking friendly?! Now THATS what I'm talking 'bout! It's nice to dream.....

The_Bad_Penguin wrote:

P.S. Anyone know which AM2 mobo's are good for overclocking?!

Good question! I am particularly intersted in high speed Athlon X2, and microATX if possible. BTW, how does a dual-core opteron compare to athlon x2? Are there any mobos out there for dual dual-core opterons that support overclocking?

TIA!

There should be no AM2 dual socket boards, as the AM2 socket is designed for only one Hypertransport channel, which has to go to the chipset(s) that are needed to run the rest of the machine.

To use a dual processor, you need at least two hypertransport links on one of the processors, and thus you need Socket F and Opteron processors. That's going to put the price up a bit... An Opteron 2218 I think is around $1000 in 1000 qty orders.

--
Mats

---

Matts,

Please see:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2638

and

http://forums.amd.com/index.php?s=8f22eb937f6aa825bac0f3409ff20929&showtopic=76509&st=0&p=1363955079&#entry1363955079

There should be no AM2 dual socket boards, as the AM2 socket is designed for only one Hypertransport channel, which has to go to the chipset(s) that are needed to run the rest of the machine.

To use a dual processor, you need at least two hypertransport links on one of the processors, and thus you need Socket F and Opteron processors. That's going to put the price up a bit... An Opteron 2218 I think is around $1000 in 1000 qty orders.

--
Mats

Hi,

I found a nice and cheap microATX Board for AM2-CPUs: ASRock ALiveNF4G-DVI

Here is a review, which concludes that overclocking is quite good:

http://www.ocworkbench.com/2006/asrock/ALiveNF4G-DVI/b8.htm

The problem is only that it seems not to be in many stores in the USA.

And here is a standard-ATX one which seems to be even better, but it is for Socket939:

ASRrock 939Dual-VSTA

http://www.ocworkbench.com/2006/asrock/939dual-vsta/b8.htm

Note: Both are budget boards and not high-end boards.

Gigabyte mobo`s allow a good deal for OC`ing.....in the BIOS and via software "Easytune".

An instance from Tigerdirect

You`ll note also this board has 4 memory slots and two IDE whereas a lot only have 2 and 1 respectively!

The Asrock mobo`s mentioned below are a rebrand of Asus so pretty good. I`ve used many in my time !

---

Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

Ok, I;ve looked at some of the Gigabytes for AMD Socket AM2.

As far as BOINC, Rosetta, and crunching, at what point is there "enough" RAM?

I see that some of these new mobo's allow for up to 16gb ram!

At what point, if any, for crunching is ram being "wasted"?

1gb per core? 2gb per core? 4gb per core? 8gb per core?

My intention is for this to be a crunching box with a Linux-based OS. Will they handle 16gb? Will Windows Vista?

Gigabyte mobo`s allow a good deal for OC`ing.....in the BIOS and via software "Easytune".

An instance from Tigerdirect

You`ll note also this board has 4 memory slots and two IDE whereas a lot only have 2 and 1 respectively!

The Asrock mobo`s mentioned below are a rebrand of Asus so pretty good. I`ve used many in my time !

Came across this (Dual socket = 8 cores in 2007! Dosen't mention Socket type, though, assuming AM2):

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Weblets/0,,7832_8366_7595~109409,00.html

New Enthusiast Platform

Building on AMD’s already recognized leadership among PC enthusiasts, AMD also announced plans for a new enthusiast platform codenamed “4x4” that will extend AMD’s long-standing commitment to those consumers who demand the highest-performing PCs. The 4x4 platform features a four-core, multi-socket processor configuration uniquely possible via AMD’s Direct Connect Architecture. The 4X4 platform will be designed to be upgraded to eight total processor cores when AMD launches quad-core processors in 2007. Project 4x4 represents system-level enthusiast enhancements and is designed for ultimate multi-tasking performance across gaming, digital video, processor-intensive and heavily-threaded applications.

EDIT --> added from: http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=31&threadid=1870425

I know what they're claiming but I doubt you have to buy $1000 processors on this thing. I'm sure that it will fit any AM2 dual core processor in there. Obviously they're hyping it with FX chips for now but unless they lock it out specifically in the BIOS to only accept FX chips there's not reason it can't work with any AM2 CPU. If you do that not many are going to be able to afford these things and you can watch it die a quick death.

There should be no AM2 dual socket boards, as the AM2 socket is designed for only one Hypertransport channel, which has to go to the chipset(s) that are needed to run the rest of the machine.

To use a dual processor, you need at least two hypertransport links on one of the processors, and thus you need Socket F and Opteron processors. That's going to put the price up a bit... An Opteron 2218 I think is around $1000 in 1000 qty orders.

--
Mats

Ok, I;ve looked at some of the Gigabytes for AMD Socket AM2.

As far as BOINC, Rosetta, and crunching, at what point is there "enough" RAM?

I see that some of these new mobo's allow for up to 16gb ram!

At what point, if any, for crunching is ram being "wasted"?

1gb per core? 2gb per core? 4gb per core? 8gb per core?
...

512MB per core would be overkill with the current targets, of course the OS has to run and so does BOINC.
BOINC is negligable amounts, Vista will be large (recommended is about 1GB, but we'll see with the Vista RC1 that's just been released)
Linux can be slimline so not to much is used, say (since if it's for Rosetta@Home it doesn't need to do much :-)).

Though Rosetta@Home looked at 1GB crunching, you may find 1GB per core is a good base amount if they start to run some larger targets.

Mind if you ever go 64bit (which rosetta isn't) that more often than not uses more memory...

Why not look at the Intel Core2Duo platforms as well ? There probably at a better price/performance at the moment (for the complete setup)

---

Team mauisun.org

Why not look at the Intel Core2Duo platforms as well ? There probably at a better price/performance at the moment (for the complete setup)

Most certainly not. Mainboards für Core2Duo are more expensive than those for AM2. There are a few cheap Core2Duo-Boards but non seems to offer satisfying overclocking possibilities. The Core2duo E6300 may give about 35% more performance than an Athlon X2 3800+ but is at the moment around 45% more expensive.

I'm going to buy the ASRock ALiveNF4G-DVI microATX together with a AM2 Athlon X2 3800+ and 2GB of MDT PC2-4200U CL4 (DDR2-533) RAM. We'll see how well it does on Rosy.

For rosetta, you get exactly the same performance (or maybe a tad better) if you run on a single socket machine as on a multi-socket machine.

For rosetta, you don't need fancy graphics, so a cheapo motherboard should be fine. As much as I would like everyone to pay for my salary by buying AMD processors, if the goal is to produce more rosetta results only, rather than boost your ego by having the "fastest possible machine available", I would say that going for a single-socket AM2 motherboard with built-in graphics would save you quite a bit of money over the dual-socket option, and it would give you (for the same model processor) the same results in the rosetta ranking [except if you're looking for the highest ranking machine of course - but you probably need something beefier than 8 cores to get anywhere close to the top on that one].

--
Mats

---

Just waking up (no coffee yet!), and I'm certain that I'm not understanding this properly.

One dual core cpu gets the same amount of Rosetta results as two dual core cpu's?

For rosetta, you get exactly the same performance (or maybe a tad better) if you run on a single socket machine as on a multi-socket machine.

Just waking up (no coffee yet!), and I'm certain that I'm not understanding this properly.

One dual core cpu gets the same amount of Rosetta results as two dual core cpu's?

For rosetta, you get exactly the same performance (or maybe a tad better) if you run on a single socket machine as on a multi-socket machine.

same performance per core ;)

---

No, I mean that two dual cores in separate motherboards will do exactly the same amount of work as two dueal cores in one motherboard, and you need to spend EXTRA money to get two sockets in one motherboards compared to a single socket motherboard.

The other components will most likely cost a fair amount less than the extra cost of the motherboard.

But more importantly: You don't need to buy it all at once!

--
Mats

---

Hi Mats,

I think you created a little confusion. Let me clarify for Rosetta:

You get the best bang/buck with a cheap AM2 or 939-Mobo and the Athlon 64 X2 3800+. The mobo is around 50 € and the proc about 120 €.

If you buy single core you can get a CPU for 50 € but you need two of them and two mobos, cases, etc. to get the same performance as one Cual-Core X2, which in the end will cost you more.

Core2Duo-CPUs are also Dual-Core but the cheapest one E6300 is about 40% more expensive but not 40% faster. For USA the difference is only about 25% and in fact the E6300 might be 25% faster than an X2 3800+ but I doubt it. Furthermore for Athlon X2 AM2 there are cheap but overclockable mobos (especially the ASROCK ones) whereas for Core2Duo the overclockable Mobos are more expensive.

Two-Socket solutions require either a XEON or an Opteron-Processor and since those are much more expensive (if you factor all components in) they are more expansive than two one-socket-dual-core machines.

Anyone who disagrees?

I agree with Tralala. Didn't mean to confuse anyone, but there were a few posts on the subject of "dual socket motherboards" below, and that's definitely not good bang for the buck on Rosetta, as each work-unit runs as one single thread with no interaction[1] with any of the other threads. So the most bang for the buck is "as many cores you can get cheaply" in a low-cost motherboard.

[1] For those who are pedantic, including me, there is some un-intended interaction in the form of memory accesses and OS-interaction caused by running multiple threads on a single system, but these are side-effects of multiprocessing systems and has nothing to do with the design of Rosetta - and if nothing is WRONG in the system should also be below the noise-level -> not noticable. If this part of the post seems confusing - just ignore the whole statement [you'r obviously not pedantic enough! ;-)].

A note on Intel CPU's (which I must confess I don't know MUCH about), I have read other threads indicating that the performance per clock-cycle is about the same in the new Core2 CPU's. So a Core2Duo at (say) 2.4GHz would be equivalent to a Ahtlon64 X2 at 2.4GHz. Older Pentium 4 processors will need MORE GHz to do the same amount of work....

--
Mats

---

Not gonna disagree, but lets add a little twist...

It is not know with certainty, but it expected that AMD's 4x4 for Socket AM2 "might" also allow for X2's in addition to the announced support of FX's.

Given a cruncher who wants a total of two AMD cpu's/four cores (hopefully upgradable to two cpu's/eight cores!): Are they financially better off building two separate, one cpu dual core boxes? Or building one single, two socketed dual core box?

I assume memory can be "split" (4GB for two-socketed mobo, 2GB each for the single-socketed mobos).

But it seems that a dual socket mobo would be cheaper (is a dual socket mobo less than the price of 2 single-socketed mobo? And which set up would use the least energy?).

Hi Mats,

I think you created a little confusion. Let me clarify for Rosetta:

You get the best bang/buck with a cheap AM2 or 939-Mobo and the Athlon 64 X2 3800+. The mobo is around 50 € and the proc about 120 €.

If you buy single core you can get a CPU for 50 € but you need two of them and two mobos, cases, etc. to get the same performance as one Cual-Core X2, which in the end will cost you more.

Core2Duo-CPUs are also Dual-Core but the cheapest one E6300 is about 40% more expensive but not 40% faster. For USA the difference is only about 25% and in fact the E6300 might be 25% faster than an X2 3800+ but I doubt it. Furthermore for Athlon X2 AM2 there are cheap but overclockable mobos (especially the ASROCK ones) whereas for Core2Duo the overclockable Mobos are more expensive.

Two-Socket solutions require either a XEON or an Opteron-Processor and since those are much more expensive (if you factor all components in) they are more expansive than two one-socket-dual-core machines.

Anyone who disagrees?

Not gonna disagree, but lets add a little twist...

It is not know with certainty, but it expected that AMD's 4x4 for Socket AM2 "might" also allow for X2's in addition to the announced support of FX's.

Given a cruncher who wants a total of two AMD cpu's/four cores (hopefully upgradable to two cpu's/eight cores!): Are they financially better off building two separate, one cpu dual core boxes? Or building one single, two socketed dual core box?

I assume memory can be "split" (4GB for two-socketed mobo, 2GB each for the single-socketed mobos).

But it seems that a dual socket mobo would be cheaper (is a dual socket mobo less than the price of 2 single-socketed mobo? And which set up would use the least energy?).

The motherboard with 2 sockets will almost certainly cost quite a bit more than a low-cost motherboard, which was my original reason for posting on this subject.

Memory should be less expensive in less dense modules, 2 x 2GB is usually less than 1 x 4GB, for example. So the memory should be possible to split between systems (for good performance, you'd want a set of memory per processor anyways, so you still need the same number of memory sticks to make up the memory, really - assuming the motherboard manufacturer isn't cheating and only putting memory sockets for one processor, which leads to additional delays when reading memory from the second processor).

Power consumption should be very close for one or two machine with the same amount of memory and non-fancy graphics. The efficency of the power-supply should be roughly the same for two (good) small PSU's as one larger one. Cost may be a little bit higher for two small PSU's than one large, but not significantly more.

Cases can be had quite inexpensively if you're not after something that looks fancy.

If you want to go through the trouble, you could even set the second machine up to boot via network from the first machine, but otherwise you need a very small and simple hard-disk on the second machine. If you're ONLY using it for Rosetta, it doesn't need much storage, a 10GB disk is definitely sufficient to install the OS and keep some Rosetta files around.

If you don't want to install Windows on the second machine (license cost), then you can use Linux, which you can get for free from the net (takes a little while to download tho'). Now that there's no difference between credits, there's no reason your rosetta-farm can't run Linux.

Also, two machines means that you can keep running, should one fail!!!

And as I stated before, buying two separate machines can be done in two steps, so no need to do it all at once.

--
Mats

---

Ok. Forgive a silly question now. I've built before, but it was years ago.

Assuming I find a mobo I like, and I know its form factor.

Now I need to purchase a case, or possibly re-use a case I have on some old door-stops (i.e. pre-usb days).

Do all mobos of a similar form factor ALWAYS have the same rear panel ports?

i.e., if I purchase a ATX mobo, will EVERY case that accepts this be able to handle rear panel ports?

I haven't been able to determine if there are variations within a form factor such that extreme care must be used in selecting a case so that the rear panel ports will fit.

The "safe" way out (albeit at the cost of losing some/most of the ability to overclock) is to get a barebones, such as $150 gets me an Asus mobo, psu, and case pre-assembled (just add cpu, ram, hdd, dvd, o/s):

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16856110055

The motherboard with 2 sockets will almost certainly cost quite a bit more than a low-cost motherboard, which was my original reason for posting on this subject.

Memory should be less expensive in less dense modules, 2 x 2GB is usually less than 1 x 4GB, for example. So the memory should be possible to split between systems (for good performance, you'd want a set of memory per processor anyways, so you still need the same number of memory sticks to make up the memory, really - assuming the motherboard manufacturer isn't cheating and only putting memory sockets for one processor, which leads to additional delays when reading memory from the second processor).

Power consumption should be very close for one or two machine with the same amount of memory and non-fancy graphics. The efficency of the power-supply should be roughly the same for two (good) small PSU's as one larger one. Cost may be a little bit higher for two small PSU's than one large, but not significantly more.

Cases can be had quite inexpensively if you're not after something that looks fancy.

If you want to go through the trouble, you could even set the second machine up to boot via network from the first machine, but otherwise you need a very small and simple hard-disk on the second machine. If you're ONLY using it for Rosetta, it doesn't need much storage, a 10GB disk is definitely sufficient to install the OS and keep some Rosetta files around.

If you don't want to install Windows on the second machine (license cost), then you can use Linux, which you can get for free from the net (takes a little while to download tho'). Now that there's no difference between credits, there's no reason your rosetta-farm can't run Linux.

Also, two machines means that you can keep running, should one fail!!!

And as I stated before, buying two separate machines can be done in two steps, so no need to do it all at once.

--
Mats