chuckula wrote:My Dad is big into folding & other distributed projects that use both CPUs and GPUs for different workloads. On his CPU-bound workloads he recently upgraded from a Core 2 9550 to an Ivy Bridge 3770 (both chips non-overclocked) and got about a 3x performance improvement on the CPU side, plus the machine uses quite a bit less power (it is a dedicated 24/7 machine). He also has a 3570 setup that is about 2.5 times faster than the Core 2 was.
Ivy also has the benefit of PCIe 3.0 so you can probably stack in more GPUs effectively if you have the motherboard slots for them.
Diplomacy42 wrote:Because the OP is not talking about F@h, but a program LIKE F@h (Poem) which is GPU based, all of the discussion about performance per watt is moot (unless there is a cpu bottleneck(there shouldn't be)). In fact, honestly the discussion about switching CPUs to save power is a little moot anyway because the CPU is probably not kept at 100% 24/7. it might be kept at 20-40% if that. if the OP could under-volt his CPU, disable HT, down-clock the cpu, etc, he could maximize his savings without spending a penny.
Forge wrote:...Core 2 Quad was a bad place to be if you were seeking power efficiency.
BIF wrote:Forge wrote:...Core 2 Quad was a bad place to be if you were seeking power efficiency.
Oh, I just can't wait for my electric bill to arrive!
Forge wrote:...Intel had to dump a lot of the deepest idle/sleep stuff to get two CPUs in one socket to work.
Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 2 guests