[Computer-go] OT: prices for fast computer-go hardware

Petr Baudis pasky at ucw.cz
Sun Nov 7 17:37:03 PST 2010


  Hi!

On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 07:37:33AM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
> I think you get the most bang for the buck with the i7-980x,  which is not
> really the same chip as the other Intel chips,  and I think they are coming
> out with improved versions of that if they have not already.    This has 6
> real cores (and 6 additional pseudo cores.

  Yes, I was looking at i7-970, which is quite similar. (I don't aim at
overclocking too much, I don't think I can fit a lot of cooling into a
2U rack server.)

  However, now I'm seriously torn between taking one i7-970 or two 6134
(which should be the same as 6174 just with 8 cores inst. of 12):

  http://iltsarnews.blogspot.com/2010/03/amds-opteron-6174-12-cores-magny-cours.html

It seems to bode extremely well in the benchmarks. Two 6134 are just
a bit more expensive than an i7-970, and if I extrapolate the scores
(which is a rther lame, but what can I do?):

	2x6174 -> 2x6134: 49372*8/12 = 32915
	2xX5670 -> 1xi7-970: 35868/2 = 17934 (i7-970 has faster clock,
					but slower QPI and memory)

  This seems rather clear, even considering the gross inaccuracies this
kind of transformation introduces. So it seems that this boils down to
how bogus the benchmarks above are. ;-)

  Per core / per thread performance is of course a different matter,
but given how very fuzzy and workload-specific this can get and how well
MCTS parallelizes (with shared memory), I think it's more useful to
discuss the total performance.

  Does anyone have datapoints on how good the latest Opterons (i.e. the
6100 line) really are? (Compared to i7-970 (or similar Xeon) or at least
i7-950.)

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
The true meaning of life is to plant a tree under whose shade
you will never sit.



More information about the Computer-go mailing list