Multiprocessor and Vista

  • Thread starter Thread starter phuile
  • Start date Start date
P

phuile

I'd like to buy a system that has 4 processors on the machine. Can
someone advise me as to which motherboard, processors, bios etc that I
need to know? Also, where can I get a machine like this? Dell Precision
can support up to 2 Quad core processor, and I am wondering what's the
performance difference between putting 4 processors (type to be
advised) in a machine, and having a machine that has 2 Quad core
processors.

I planned to run Vista Ultimate (64-bit) and a 3D software on the
machine, these has to be able to support it.

Thanks for any advise, as I couldn't find more info on the MS Vista
site.
 
More information concerning the processors. The 2 processors in the
Dell machine will most probably be Intel Xeon Quad core. I think what I
am asking is whether there is a way I can put 4 of these onto a
machine, and if so, which motherboard etc. Or is this not a possible
option, for various reasons.

Thanks again for any help.
 
phuile said:
I'd like to buy a system that has 4 processors on the machine. Can
someone advise me as to which motherboard, processors, bios etc that I
need to know? Also, where can I get a machine like this? Dell Precision
can support up to 2 Quad core processor, and I am wondering what's the
performance difference between putting 4 processors (type to be
advised) in a machine, and having a machine that has 2 Quad core
processors.
Click to expand...

Dual processors or higher will require you to get a Xeon, doesn't matter
if it's single-, dual-, or quad-core. If you want a Core 2 Quad, then it
will only be single processor.

Yousuf Khan
 
I am actually thinking of putting 4 Quad Xeon processor in one machine
(my second post added that). And I'd like to know if it can be done. If
so, what motherboard, and other things should I get and know about
this, I also need to run Vista and a 3D app and I want to know whether
Vista Ultimate will work with that too.

I'd like some advice on this, thanks.
 
phuile said:
I am actually thinking of putting 4 Quad Xeon processor in one machine
(my second post added that). And I'd like to know if it can be done. If
so, what motherboard, and other things should I get and know about
this, I also need to run Vista and a 3D app and I want to know whether
Vista Ultimate will work with that too.
Click to expand...

Then you'd be looking at buying a server, I don't think 4 socket
motherboards are commonly available to the consumer for purchase.

Yousuf Khan
 
I am actually thinking of putting 4 Quad Xeon processor in one machine
(my second post added that).
Click to expand...

In that case you're going to have to wait for a few months at least.
Intel does not currently offer any quad-core XeonMP chips for 4-socket
servers.

Currently the only 4-socket processors that Intel offers are the Xeon
7000 and Xeon 7100 series, both of which are based off the old
"Netburst" architecture from the Pentium 4 (as opposed to the "Core"
architecture for the Core 2 Duo, Core 2 Quad, etc.) and both of which
are dual-core chips.

As it stands now, Intel's 4-socket offerings are pretty pathetic. You
will get much *MUCH* better performance by putting 2 Xeon 5300
quad-core chips in a 2-socket server than by putting 4 Xeon 7100
dual-core chips in a 4-socket server. If you really want a 4-socket
server your best bet is 4 AMD Opteron 8200 series (dual-core) chips,
though they'll still be both slower and more expensive than than a
pair of Xeon 5300 quad-core chips.

Note though that this WILL change in the next 6 months or so. Both
AMD and Intel are expected to bring out new quad-core processors for
4+ socket servers. If you're really set on a 16-core system (4 x
quad-core) then it would be WELL worth you're while to at least
inquire with some vendors as to when they expect such products to be
available.

And I'd like to know if it can be done. If
so, what motherboard, and other things should I get and know about
this, I also need to run Vista and a 3D app and I want to know whether
Vista Ultimate will work with that too.
Click to expand...

Microsoft licensing goes by the number of sockets on a system. I am
not sure exactly of what version of Vista supports what (Microsoft
seems to have no desire to actually TELL us why there are 5+ different
versions, just that we should all get Ultimate), however as best as I
can figure out they are ALL limited to only 1 or 2 sockets. Typically
to get a version of Windows to work on a 4-socket system you need a
"Server" edition. Vista Server has not yet been officially announced,
so no word on exactly when that will be available. For now you're
looking at Win2K3 Server Standard Edition (Enterprise or Datacenter
Editions will also work, but NOT the Small Business or Web Editions)

As for motherboards, those will not be available until processors are
available.
I'd like some advice on this, thanks.
Click to expand...

Unless you absolutely need 16-cores, you should REALLY be considering
getting a pair of Quad core Xeon 5300 processors. Not only are these
available now, they're also faster than any 4-socket x86 system
currently available, they're cheaper and they will work with Windows
Vista Ultimate.
 
Thanks Tony, for your detailed reply. What I am after is actually
performance. I do 3D work and if I am investing in a new machine, I'd
like it to provide the maximum performance I can afford. Basically that
means to cut down rendering time as much as possible. It is worth
paying more for waiting just a few minutes for a test render vs. 3
hours, for example. So really I am after productivity, and thus
performace. Plus I need to be on 64-Bit Vista (Ultimate I think), so
perhaps that rules out the 4 processors option.

Now that you know what I am after, do you think the 2 Xeon Quad
processor solution is a good bet?

Thanks.
 
Thanks Tony, for your detailed reply. What I am after is actually
performance. I do 3D work and if I am investing in a new machine, I'd
like it to provide the maximum performance I can afford. Basically that
means to cut down rendering time as much as possible. It is worth
paying more for waiting just a few minutes for a test render vs. 3
hours, for example.
Click to expand...

Got ya. And presumably this rendering can be easily broken down into
multiple threads? Most rendering can, but it's definitely important
to make sure before dropping down a wad of cash!
So really I am after productivity, and thus
performace. Plus I need to be on 64-Bit Vista (Ultimate I think), so
perhaps that rules out the 4 processors option.
Click to expand...

You might want to do a bit more digging, but as far as I know that is
correct, no version of Vista will support 4 processors (sockets).
Now that you know what I am after, do you think the 2 Xeon Quad
processor solution is a good bet?
Click to expand...

Best bet out there at the moment. The only problem you might
encounter is that they aren't widely available to the end-user. Most
quad-core Xeon systems are sold through the big OEMs.

Ohh, another thing to keep in mind, as far as I know all dual-socket
Xeon systems these days use FB-DDR2 memory. This stuff is also going
to set you back a pretty penny when compared to regular DDR.

Just did a quick check at Dell, and a fairly bare-bones Precision
Workstation 690 with two Xeon 5345 (quad core) processors and 4GB of
memory will set you back by a bit over $5000. That's actually
somewhat cheaper then I was expecting, and it should be about the
fastest single system on the plannet for what you're looking for.

Of note, if it's an option you may want to consider a cluster. I know
a lot of big graphics companies just get a big cluster and send
rendering jobs off to there. Certainly putting a handful of
rackmounted servers, all with dual or quad-core chips in them, is
going to render things faster than any single desktop. Of course,
that also complicates the software somewhat and the performance
improvements might not justify the costs.
 
In that case you're going to have to wait for a few months at least.
Intel does not currently offer any quad-core XeonMP chips for 4-socket
servers.

Currently the only 4-socket processors that Intel offers are the Xeon
7000 and Xeon 7100 series, both of which are based off the old
"Netburst" architecture from the Pentium 4 (as opposed to the "Core"
architecture for the Core 2 Duo, Core 2 Quad, etc.) and both of which
are dual-core chips.

As it stands now, Intel's 4-socket offerings are pretty pathetic. You
will get much *MUCH* better performance by putting 2 Xeon 5300
quad-core chips in a 2-socket server than by putting 4 Xeon 7100
dual-core chips in a 4-socket server. If you really want a 4-socket
server your best bet is 4 AMD Opteron 8200 series (dual-core) chips,
though they'll still be both slower and more expensive than than a
pair of Xeon 5300 quad-core chips.

Note though that this WILL change in the next 6 months or so. Both
AMD and Intel are expected to bring out new quad-core processors for
4+ socket servers. If you're really set on a 16-core system (4 x
quad-core) then it would be WELL worth you're while to at least
inquire with some vendors as to when they expect such products to be
available.



Microsoft licensing goes by the number of sockets on a system. I am
not sure exactly of what version of Vista supports what (Microsoft
seems to have no desire to actually TELL us why there are 5+ different
versions, just that we should all get Ultimate), however as best as I
can figure out they are ALL limited to only 1 or 2 sockets. Typically
to get a version of Windows to work on a 4-socket system you need a
"Server" edition. Vista Server has not yet been officially announced,
so no word on exactly when that will be available. For now you're
looking at Win2K3 Server Standard Edition (Enterprise or Datacenter
Editions will also work, but NOT the Small Business or Web Editions)

As for motherboards, those will not be available until processors are
available.


Unless you absolutely need 16-cores, you should REALLY be considering
getting a pair of Quad core Xeon 5300 processors. Not only are these
available now, they're also faster than any 4-socket x86 system
currently available, they're cheaper and they will work with Windows
Vista Ultimate.
Click to expand...

It all is perfectly correct when the only thing to be concerned with
is pure CPU performance. However if we take into account video and
memory subsystems, it becomes not so clear-cut.

Intel DIB architecture is adequate to support 2 cores on each bus.
When 4 cores share the same bus it becomes a bottleneck. Add to that
slower bus of Quad (IIRC Intel had to drop it comparing to Duo), and
things become quite dependent on the particular app the OP intends to
run. If it is bandwidth-hungry then Opterons might have an advantage.
Besides Xeons use FB memory with higher latencies (there is no Intel
multiple socket chipset using DDRx as of now), and this may also
become a factor.

Another thing to consider is video. The OP stated he wants to run 3D
graphics app, and it may well be that video is even more important
than CPU. The OP may want the latest and greatest from NVDA/ATI in
SLI/xFire config. And the fact is that there is no multiple socket
Intel chipset capable of 2 or more PCIe x16 slots, and none is planned
for near future ( http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36941 ).
In most 3D apps SLI will rip single card systems apart, as long as the
CPU is capable to supply the GPUs with the data - and Opterons are
quite capable, though admittedly not as good as current Quad core
Xeons. I remember reading about a 4 socket board that is SLI-capable
(though it might be just an aberration - since I didn't plan to go 4
CPU 2 video, I didn't pay attention, it well could've been an article
about a 4 socket board and another 2 socket SLI board, but the
suspects are the same - Tyan, Supermicro, maybe a couple of others -
check them out if interested). I'd also suggest to check 4x4
solutions - running on non-registered RAM, they are a bit faster than
similar Opteron systems with registered RAM, and also are guaranteed
to have 2 full PCIe x16 slots (not x8 in physical x16 like some other
SLI systems). The video may make all the difference today, and there
is a chance to upgrade to faster clock 4-core Athlon/Opteron around
mid-year.

Anyway no matter what is the choice of the platform the system is
going to cost quite a chunk of change, so I suggest to evaluate all
options before taking a plunge.

NNN
 
Another thing to consider is video. The OP stated he wants to run 3D
graphics app, and it may well be that video is even more important
than CPU. The OP may want the latest and greatest from NVDA/ATI in
SLI/xFire config. And the fact is that there is no multiple socket
Intel chipset capable of 2 or more PCIe x16 slots, and none is planned
for near future ( http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36941 ).
In most 3D apps SLI will rip single card systems apart, as long as the
CPU is capable to supply the GPUs with the data - and Opterons are
quite capable, though admittedly not as good as current Quad core
Xeons. I remember reading about a 4 socket board that is SLI-capable
(though it might be just an aberration - since I didn't plan to go 4
CPU 2 video, I didn't pay attention, it well could've been an article
about a 4 socket board and another 2 socket SLI board, but the
suspects are the same - Tyan, Supermicro, maybe a couple of others -
check them out if interested). I'd also suggest to check 4x4
solutions - running on non-registered RAM, they are a bit faster than
similar Opteron systems with registered RAM, and also are guaranteed
to have 2 full PCIe x16 slots (not x8 in physical x16 like some other
SLI systems). The video may make all the difference today, and there
is a chance to upgrade to faster clock 4-core Athlon/Opteron around
mid-year.
Click to expand...

It was a little surprising that Intel would try to counter the 4x4 just
after it said it was not necessary. Everybody knows that AMD's 4x4 parts
are just Opterons with dual-Opteron motherboards. However, it's easier
to modify Opteron motherboards to become gaming rigs. You can't just
take a bog standard server chipset and motherboard and call it a gaming rig.

Yousuf Khan
 
Back
Top