Re: [H] Dual core or Quad core?
Only just recently have I gotten into virtualization and golly gee, I think it's swell! I rebuilt my personal computer as a low power / quiet system in a slim case. I don't do any gaming so I just needed something that could play high quality H.264 videos without a hitch. I also consolidated several systems into one quad core computer w/4gb of ram. I've got all sorts of VM's on it such as Win2003 Server, CentOS, Ubuntu, FreeBSD, Win2K Pro, etc. Primarily it acts as a file server with 2TB (5x500gb RAID 5) storage space. I have Asterisk running on the host OS so it can handle the telephony card that is installed and connected to my POTS lines. I utilize the different vm's for various tasks like testing apps and operating systems, ripping/encoding, file sharing, musicvideo streaming, network backups, etc. I can connect to the various VM's from my pc or laptop using Remote Desktop or VNC. Since it resides in my wiring closet on the opposite end of the house I don't hear the slightest sound of a hard drive clicking or a fan whirring :) -Tharin O. Brian Weeden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was actually thinking about the virtualization comment from Tharin. I use XP mainly because of gaming. I have Ubuntu on my laptop and much prefer it for your daily office/internet/stuff usage but of course gaming sucks. And I would really prefer to use OSX for my video work because the tools are just easier to use and interface better. Has anyone built a virtualization box? Meaning, it should be possible to have 3 OS images (XP, Linux, OSX) and just moving between the three as you see fit. Now that I could see needing a quadcore and about 4GB of RAM. Aside from I/O becoming your chokepoint, anything else I'm not thinking about that would prevent such a setup from running? -- Brian Weeden On 11/7/07, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: that looks like a fine board to me...core 2 quad is your ticket... we seem to have very similar needs in a PC. Brian Weeden wrote: Right now I'm playing Orange Box (friggin AWESOME), Bioshock (when it doesn't crash), Civ 4, and AOE 3. I'm mainly an RTS / strategy gamer but do grab the occasional FPS but only the ones with good first person as I don't get into the multiplayer shooters much. For mobo I was looking at the ASUS P5K-E/WIFI-AP http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E16813131196 Dual video cards is not something I plan on doing anytime soon but onboard USB, Fireware, LAN, and audio is.
Re: [H] Dual core or Quad core?
Tharin, I think you just upped the ante for all the computer geeks on this list. Awesome man. On Nov 9, 2007 6:09 PM, Tharin Olsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Only just recently have I gotten into virtualization and golly gee, I think it's swell! I rebuilt my personal computer as a low power / quiet system in a slim case. I don't do any gaming so I just needed something that could play high quality H.264 videos without a hitch. I also consolidated several systems into one quad core computer w/4gb of ram. I've got all sorts of VM's on it such as Win2003 Server, CentOS, Ubuntu, FreeBSD, Win2K Pro, etc. Primarily it acts as a file server with 2TB (5x500gb RAID 5) storage space. I have Asterisk running on the host OS so it can handle the telephony card that is installed and connected to my POTS lines. I utilize the different vm's for various tasks like testing apps and operating systems, ripping/encoding, file sharing, musicvideo streaming, network backups, etc. I can connect to the various VM's from my pc or laptop using Remote Desktop or VNC. Since it resides in my wiring closet on the opposite end of the house I don't hear the slightest sound of a hard drive clicking or a fan whirring :) -Tharin O. Brian Weeden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was actually thinking about the virtualization comment from Tharin. I use XP mainly because of gaming. I have Ubuntu on my laptop and much prefer it for your daily office/internet/stuff usage but of course gaming sucks. And I would really prefer to use OSX for my video work because the tools are just easier to use and interface better. Has anyone built a virtualization box? Meaning, it should be possible to have 3 OS images (XP, Linux, OSX) and just moving between the three as you see fit. Now that I could see needing a quadcore and about 4GB of RAM. Aside from I/O becoming your chokepoint, anything else I'm not thinking about that would prevent such a setup from running? -- Brian Weeden On 11/7/07, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: that looks like a fine board to me...core 2 quad is your ticket... we seem to have very similar needs in a PC. Brian Weeden wrote: Right now I'm playing Orange Box (friggin AWESOME), Bioshock (when it doesn't crash), Civ 4, and AOE 3. I'm mainly an RTS / strategy gamer but do grab the occasional FPS but only the ones with good first person as I don't get into the multiplayer shooters much. For mobo I was looking at the ASUS P5K-E/WIFI-AP http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E16813131196 Dual video cards is not something I plan on doing anytime soon but onboard USB, Fireware, LAN, and audio is. -- Brian Weeden
Re: [H] Dual core or Quad core?
No! Stop... :( Tharin, do not go there..Do not give in to the 'dark force!' OMG! Seriously, Go for it pal! We all get to have fun. That is what this is suppose to be about... Well, what I thought. Congrats. Another tick on your peaked hat methinks. :) Best, Duncan At 15:09 11/09/2007 -0800, you wrote: Only just recently have I gotten into virtualization and golly gee, I think it's swell! I rebuilt my personal computer as a low power / quiet system in a slim case. I don't do any gaming so I just needed something that could play high quality H.264 videos without a hitch. I also consolidated several systems into one quad core computer w/4gb of ram. I've got all sorts of VM's on it such as Win2003 Server, CentOS, Ubuntu, FreeBSD, Win2K Pro, etc. Primarily it acts as a file server with 2TB (5x500gb RAID 5) storage space. I have Asterisk running on the host OS so it can handle the telephony card that is installed and connected to my POTS lines. I utilize the different vm's for various tasks like testing apps and operating systems, ripping/encoding, file sharing, musicvideo streaming, network backups, etc. I can connect to the various VM's from my pc or laptop using Remote Desktop or VNC. Since it resides in my wiring closet on the opposite end of the house I don't hear the slightest sound of a hard drive clicking or a fan whirring :) -Tharin O. Brian Weeden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was actually thinking about the virtualization comment from Tharin. I use XP mainly because of gaming. I have Ubuntu on my laptop and much prefer it for your daily office/internet/stuff usage but of course gaming sucks. And I would really prefer to use OSX for my video work because the tools are just easier to use and interface better. Has anyone built a virtualization box? Meaning, it should be possible to have 3 OS images (XP, Linux, OSX) and just moving between the three as you see fit. Now that I could see needing a quadcore and about 4GB of RAM. Aside from I/O becoming your chokepoint, anything else I'm not thinking about that would prevent such a setup from running? -- Brian Weeden On 11/7/07, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: that looks like a fine board to me...core 2 quad is your ticket... we seem to have very similar needs in a PC. Brian Weeden wrote: Right now I'm playing Orange Box (friggin AWESOME), Bioshock (when it doesn't crash), Civ 4, and AOE 3. I'm mainly an RTS / strategy gamer but do grab the occasional FPS but only the ones with good first person as I don't get into the multiplayer shooters much. For mobo I was looking at the ASUS P5K-E/WIFI-AP http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E16813131196 Dual video cards is not something I plan on doing anytime soon but onboard USB, Fireware, LAN, and audio is.
Re: [H] Dual core or Quad core?
I'm pleased to have gotten down to one laptop, two low power dual core workstations (150w according to my kill-a-watt), an htpc and the vm server. In total I think spent about $1400 building the server but it was totally worth it because of all the different roles it serves. I have also begun putting virtualization to use for a few clients of mine. One had a fifteen year old server that was running an accounting program on several dumb terminals, the type with the monochrome monitors with amber or green text. I was able to change it into a vm with access via ssh over their lan. A non-profit that I provide volunteer IT support for was able to run multiple vms on two good workstations that were donated, essentially behaving like a terminal server, in order to better utilize some of their older equipment that the rest of the staff have to use in their offices. Another business has a chain of dry cleaning stores that run DOS, lantastic 6, and a custom POS program on their computers. After setting up MS Virtual PC on the owner's computer with several DOS VMs, he can now emulate the same setup in his stores on one modern desktop in his office without even rebooting. I'm trying to improve on my skills to setup thin clients based on virtual machines instead of Terminal services. If an end user manages to crash their vm you just reboot it and none of the other machines are phased by it. -Tharin O. Brian Weeden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tharin, I think you just upped the ante for all the computer geeks on this list. Awesome man.
Re: [H] Dual core or Quad core?
Agree. Superb! What this Collective is all about. Best, Duncan At 22:20 11/09/2007 -0800, you wrote: I'm pleased to have gotten down to one laptop, two low power dual core workstations (150w according to my kill-a-watt), an htpc and the vm server. In total I think spent about $1400 building the server but it was totally worth it because of all the different roles it serves. I have also begun putting virtualization to use for a few clients of mine. One had a fifteen year old server that was running an accounting program on several dumb terminals, the type with the monochrome monitors with amber or green text. I was able to change it into a vm with access via ssh over their lan. A non-profit that I provide volunteer IT support for was able to run multiple vms on two good workstations that were donated, essentially behaving like a terminal server, in order to better utilize some of their older equipment that the rest of the staff have to use in their offices. Another business has a chain of dry cleaning stores that run DOS, lantastic 6, and a custom POS program on their computers. After setting up MS Virtual PC on the owner's computer with several DOS VMs, he can now emulate the same setup in his stores on one modern desktop in his office without even rebooting. I'm trying to improve on my skills to setup thin clients based on virtual machines instead of Terminal services. If an end user manages to crash their vm you just reboot it and none of the other machines are phased by it. -Tharin O. Brian Weeden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tharin, I think you just upped the ante for all the computer geeks on this list. Awesome man.
Re: [H] Dual core or Quad core?
I was under the impression that over-clocking erroded the electronics at a microscopic level... (A hidden cost so to speak...) Rick Glazier From: Winterlight I am surprised that anybody is still screwing around with overclocking considering the the price and power of modern processors.
RE: [H] Dual core or Quad core?
I am surprised that anybody is still screwing around with overclocking considering the the price and power of modern processors. I have enough trouble getting a perfect encoding without adding in the added risk that comes from overclocking. I encode raw HD transport streams to H.264 on my quad core. I was able to take the 2.4GHz chip to 3.2GHz (and this was on a B3 stepping) without problem. How confident am I? Very. I validate all overclocks with several days worth of Prime95 with roundoff checking. This machine (an overclocked machine running Vista, no less) has had uptimes approaching 40 days (and I rebooted to swap out RAM sticks). It's solid. The difference in encode times between 4 cores 2.4GHz and 4 cores at 3.2GHz is dramatic--overclocking is still very much alive and very much worthwhile. So I spent $290 and pushed it beyond the performance of Intel's $1100 EE chip. One thing that really isn't considered is the growth of quad core supported apps. My guess is that next year lots of new apps are going to support Quad core and the years after that even more. That means your Quad core processor is actually going to get faster over time, which will not be the case for dual core. Sure it will. Keep in mind that most applications have a -single- worker thread, meaning that pervasive multithreading will benefit dual, tri, and quad-cores. Luckily, my quad-core killer app (x264) scales very well with processor cores already. Greg
Re: [H] Dual core or Quad core?
It can but IMHO the risk is low. The issue is that as the feature size in processors got smaller and smaller you start getting friction (for lack of a better word) of the electrical current. This can indeed erode the pathways in the chip and can lead to degradation. However most of Intel's chips are made to last for 10 years under normal use. Even if that is cut in half, most of us don't use a chip more than a few years. And you also have to take into account the manufacturing methods. Intel (and AMD) doesn't actually make hundreds of different chips for all the different speeds of each type. They usually make one of each type and then sell it at different prices and different speeds because that is what the market wants. Sometimes they test the chips and the ones that meet (or exceed) the manufacturing spec get clock higher while the others get clocked slower. But sometimes the market demand for the lower end chips is so high they have to sell chips that could run faster at lower speeds. The only issue I have ever run into after 12 years of overclocking CPUs is stability. Sometimes you can bump the CPU voltage to offset this but that leads to more heat and more power usage. I have seen degradation of a chip after a long period of overclocking, most notable with my venerable Celeron 333 chip which I ran at 800 Mhz for almost a year. After a while it got more and more unstable and I had to bump the speed back down, first to 500 and then back to 333. The chip didn't explode or fry, just lost its ability to overclock. Bottom line, the only danger in overclocking is heat and instability. With the former you just get a bigger heatsink and with the latter you test the system and only run it at the speed/instability level you are comfortable with. -- Brian Weeden On 11/8/07, Rick Glazier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was under the impression that over-clocking erroded the electronics at a microscopic level... (A hidden cost so to speak...) Rick Glazier From: Winterlight I am surprised that anybody is still screwing around with overclocking considering the the price and power of modern processors.
Re: [H] Dual core or Quad core?
Winterlight [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK; These two statements: I am surprised that anybody is still screwing around with overclocking and We are the HWG right...high end and on the edge of performance. don't jive. :) Seriously, I agree the need to/advantage of overclocking has deminished greatly. -- Al
Re: [H] Dual core or Quad core?
that looks like a fine board to me...core 2 quad is your ticket... we seem to have very similar needs in a PC. Brian Weeden wrote: Right now I'm playing Orange Box (friggin AWESOME), Bioshock (when it doesn't crash), Civ 4, and AOE 3. I'm mainly an RTS / strategy gamer but do grab the occasional FPS but only the ones with good first person as I don't get into the multiplayer shooters much. For mobo I was looking at the ASUS P5K-E/WIFI-AP http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E16813131196 Dual video cards is not something I plan on doing anytime soon but onboard USB, Fireware, LAN, and audio is.
[H] Dual core or Quad core?
I've finally decided to upgrade my main system from the Althon 64 3000+ and nForce4 mobo that have served me so well for the past couple years. I definitely going Intel for the first time in a long time but can't decide whether it is worth it for the Quad core as opposed to the Dual core. I am looking at both the Core2Dou E6650 and the Quad core Q6600. The Core2Dou is $170 on Newegg while the QuadCore is $285. It would be going into my main PC which is use for work (some numerical simulation), video rendering, and gaming. I guess the question comes down to how much multiple cores would help. From what I have seen, only a few games support 4 cores and not that many more support 2 cores. I already have an ATI X1950XT that I won't be replacing for at least another year so that might end up being the limiter on gaming anyways. All I know is right now the Athlon 64 is the bottleneck. I know certain video/audio encoders support 4 and it will help there but I don't do that much. And the numerical simulations I currently use are not multi-core aware. The budget is tight this time around which I guess is why I'm banging my head so hard about that last $100. I guess the bottom line is does everyone think that $100 for 2 more cores is a good long-term investment? -- Brian Weeden
Re: [H] Dual core or Quad core?
If you arent doing any heavy audio/video encoding or have a desire to run a virtualized operating system I'd get a better dual-core instead of a quad. -Tharin O. Brian Weeden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've finally decided to upgrade my main system from the Althon 64 3000+ and nForce4 mobo that have served me so well for the past couple years. I definitely going Intel for the first time in a long time but can't decide whether it is worth it for the Quad core as opposed to the Dual core. I am looking at both the Core2Dou E6650 and the Quad core Q6600. The Core2Dou is $170 on Newegg while the QuadCore is $285. It would be going into my main PC which is use for work (some numerical simulation), video rendering, and gaming. I guess the question comes down to how much multiple cores would help. From what I have seen, only a few games support 4 cores and not that many more support 2 cores. I already have an ATI X1950XT that I won't be replacing for at least another year so that might end up being the limiter on gaming anyways. All I know is right now the Athlon 64 is the bottleneck. I know certain video/audio encoders support 4 and it will help there but I don't do that much. And the numerical simulations I currently use are not multi-core aware. The budget is tight this time around which I guess is why I'm banging my head so hard about that last $100. I guess the bottom line is does everyone think that $100 for 2 more cores is a good long-term investment? -- Brian Weeden
