It's a long story, but the short of it is am I really being "upgraded" when being substituted an Intel P4 524 Prescott 3.06 Ghz instead of an AMD Athlon64 3500+ ?

The AMD seems to have larger L1 cache, and the Intel larger L2 cache.

Supposedly the P4 is hyperthreaded. Does this mean two instances of Rosetta?

Do I even dare ask about speed? I "assume" that per AMD's rating-equivalent, the Athlon is 3500 while the Intel is 3060.

Just want to know if I'm really being done a "favor".

Thanx!

I'd stick with the Athlon 64 3500+ myself.

---

Team mauisun.org

Yes, hyperthreaded means two Rosetta WUs run at the same time (if you wish, and have enough memory for it). But this doesn't double your throughput. Much of the work is floating point calculations, and the two threads share floating point resources. I believe I've seen posts that running one "CPU" as compared to two (see General Preferences) is only 10-15% difference in throughput.

---

Add this signature to your EMail:
Running Microsoft's "System Idle Process" will never help cure cancer, AIDS nor Alzheimer's. But running Rosetta@home just might!
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/

Hi Penguin,

according to benchmarks they are roughly the same performance. But I'd also stay with the 3500+, for one reason as it should perform better on Rosetta. The Pentium is still the 533 (4*133) quadpumped version, no 800 or more and thus pretty outdated. And you get a TDP (Thermal Design Power) of 101 W for a 89 W, which is 10% more power draw on the CPU alone.

One "if": if the machine you are getting would already support Core 2 Duos and already has fast RAM that you can use on them then it might be worth a thought (which I doubt, as the components would cost considerably more than those for a 524). But "if", you might upgrade pretty cheap in a year or so and have a real runner at home. So have a look at what is inside the Pentium package, maybe it is a surprise...

Regards,

Christoph

Essentially, Compaq screwed up my original Presario sr1710nx (Sempron 3400+). Offered to replace it with a Presario sr1920nx (Athlon 64 3500+). But after waiting and waiting, they seem to be out-of-stock. So now they're offering to "upgrade" me an alleged second time to a Presario sr1930nx (P4 524).

The 524 I believe is a S775, but don't think I could pop a C2D into it.

I may try to insist that I originally purchased an AMD cpu, and if they're gonna upgrade me to what they have in-stock, it needs to be AMD.

As I intend to use this new box, whatever it is, as a 24/7 Rosetta cruncher, if it makes a difference, I will fight with Compaq over it.

Hi Penguin,

according to benchmarks they are roughly the same performance. But I'd also stay with the 3500+, for one reason as it should perform better on Rosetta. The Pentium is still the 533 (4*133) quadpumped version, no 800 or more and thus pretty outdated. And you get a TDP (Thermal Design Power) of 101 W for a 89 W, which is 10% more power draw on the CPU alone.

One "if": if the machine you are getting would already support Core 2 Duos and already has fast RAM that you can use on them then it might be worth a thought (which I doubt, as the components would cost considerably more than those for a 524). But "if", you might upgrade pretty cheap in a year or so and have a real runner at home. So have a look at what is inside the Pentium package, maybe it is a surprise...

Regards,

Christoph

And you get a TDP (Thermal Design Power) of 101 W for a 89 W, which is 10% more power draw on the CPU alone.

Those two numbers are not comparable at all. The 101 W for the Pentium is about 3/4 of what the processor can actually need when running a hot-running program. Intel figures the processor can just throttle back if it's overheating, so a heatsink that can handle 101 W is good enough.

AMD, OTOH, calls for an 89 W envelope so that the processor can be easily upgraded to another "89 W" processor using the same heatsink. Thus, the 3500+ could actually generate less than half of 89 W. (And as AMD sells faster dual core processors in the 89 W envelope, that could well be the case.)

Thus, the Prescott might actually generate 3 times the heat of the Athlon.

OK, Compaq is fighting me. I need to ensure I am standing on firm ground. Assuming pc at full load 24/7, AMD 90 watts and Intel 150 watts, and a cost of $0.30 kW/h, how much more is it costing me per month to run the Intel?

I say about $15, Compaq says about $0.33.

What are the calculations to be used?

Thanx.

And you get a TDP (Thermal Design Power) of 101 W for a 89 W, which is 10% more power draw on the CPU alone.

Those two numbers are not comparable at all. The 101 W for the Pentium is about 3/4 of what the processor can actually need when running a hot-running program. Intel figures the processor can just throttle back if it's overheating, so a heatsink that can handle 101 W is good enough.

AMD, OTOH, calls for an 89 W envelope so that the processor can be easily upgraded to another "89 W" processor using the same heatsink. Thus, the 3500+ could actually generate less than half of 89 W. (And as AMD sells faster dual core processors in the 89 W envelope, that could well be the case.)

Thus, the Prescott might actually generate 3 times the heat of the Athlon.

OK, Compaq is fighting me. I need to ensure I am standing on firm ground. Assuming pc at full load 24/7, AMD 90 watts and Intel 150 watts, and a cost of $0.30 kW/h, how much more is it costing me per month to run the Intel?

I say about $15, Compaq says about $0.33.

What are the calculations to be used?

Well, assuming the 90 W and 150 W are what's used at the wall, the Intel would be 60 watts (0.06 kW) more.

0.06kW * 24hours/day = 1.44kW-hours/day
1.44kW-hours/day * $0.30/kW-hour = $0.432/day
$0.432/day * 356day/year = $157.68/year
$157.68/year / 12months/year = $13.14/month

So I get: $13.14/month

they're probably not considering 24/7 running with the CPU maxed.

It's not really their decision anyway though - it's your money and their screw-up!

---

Thanx. Ballpark of what I was expecting. Compaq rep was trying to "bully" me into believing that it was about $3 per year.

Well, assuming the 90 W and 150 W are what's used at the wall, the Intel would be 60 watts (0.06 kW) more.

0.06kW * 24hours/day = 1.44kW-hours/day
1.44kW-hours/day * $0.30/kW-hour = $0.432/day
$0.432/day * 356day/year = $157.68/year
$157.68/year / 12months/year = $13.14/month

So I get: $13.14/month

At least I know where I stand as I go up the chain-of-commmand. I'm really a very reasonable guy, but I don't like being bullied.

It's not really their decision anyway though - it's your money and their screw-up!

Since it is just for crunching, you should do a search for comparable computers in the stats and have a look at the credit they get.

Though you do need to be carful, if they run 24/7 then it's easy just look at the RAC, it's be a good enough indicator.

---

Team mauisun.org

if checking RAC, make sure you check ones with the same memory speed - I belive (although I haven't seen proof) that it can become a limiting factor rather than CPU speed and cache.

---

It's amazing what a couple of $0.39 stamps and a few polite-but-firm letters to very senior management can do for a line-manager's "attitude".

STARTED WITH: AMD Socket 939 Sempron 3400+ 2.0 GHz (L2 = 128kb), 256MB DDR RAM, 100GB HDD, Win XP Home.

PROMISED UPGRADE (Out of Stock): AMD Socket 939 Athlon64 3500+ 2.2 GHz (L2 = 512kb), 512MB DDR RAM, 200GB HDD, Win XP Home.

SECOND PROMISED UPGRADE (I didn't want Intel 524 as per this thread): Intel Prescott 3.06 GHZ (L2 = 1mb), 512MB DDR RAM, 200GB HDD, Win XP Home.

PROMISED UPGRADE AFTER LINE-MANAGER "ATTITUDE-ADJUSTMENT": AMD Socket AM2 Athlon64 3800+ 2.4GHz (L2 = 512kb), 1GB DDR2 RAM, 200GB HDD, Win XP Media Center with upgrade to Vista.

I understand that for the same type of processor (i.e., A64 3800+) that socket AM2 is supposed to be about 10%-20% faster than socket 939.

Not too shabby for an initial investment of $199! 24/7 Rosetta, here we come!

Thanx for all your help!

OK, Compaq is fighting me. I need to ensure I am standing on firm ground.

It's a long story, but the short of it is am I really being "upgraded" when being substituted an Intel P4 524 Prescott 3.06 Ghz instead of an AMD Athlon64 3500+ ?

The AMD seems to have larger L1 cache, and the Intel larger L2 cache.

Supposedly the P4 is hyperthreaded. Does this mean two instances of Rosetta?

Do I even dare ask about speed? I "assume" that per AMD's rating-equivalent, the Athlon is 3500 while the Intel is 3060.

Just want to know if I'm really being done a "favor".

Thanx!

Tell me how you got the original deal! I would love to get the same thing!!!

It's amazing what a couple of $0.39 stamps and a few polite-but-firm letters to very senior management can do for a line-manager's "attitude".

STARTED WITH: AMD Socket 939 Sempron 3400+ 2.0 GHz (L2 = 128kb), 256MB DDR RAM, 100GB HDD, Win XP Home.

PROMISED UPGRADE (Out of Stock): AMD Socket 939 Athlon64 3500+ 2.2 GHz (L2 = 512kb), 512MB DDR RAM, 200GB HDD, Win XP Home.

SECOND PROMISED UPGRADE (I didn't want Intel 524 as per this thread): Intel Prescott 3.06 GHZ (L2 = 1mb), 512MB DDR RAM, 200GB HDD, Win XP Home.

PROMISED UPGRADE AFTER LINE-MANAGER "ATTITUDE-ADJUSTMENT": AMD Socket AM2 Athlon64 3800+ 2.4GHz (L2 = 512kb), 1GB DDR2 RAM, 200GB HDD, Win XP Media Center with upgrade to Vista.

I understand that for the same type of processor (i.e., A64 3800+) that socket AM2 is supposed to be about 10%-20% faster than socket 939.

Not too shabby for an initial investment of $199! 24/7 Rosetta, here we come!

Thanx for all your help!

OK, Compaq is fighting me. I need to ensure I am standing on firm ground.

It's a long story, but the short of it is am I really being "upgraded" when being substituted an Intel P4 524 Prescott 3.06 Ghz instead of an AMD Athlon64 3500+ ?

The AMD seems to have larger L1 cache, and the Intel larger L2 cache.

Supposedly the P4 is hyperthreaded. Does this mean two instances of Rosetta?

Do I even dare ask about speed? I "assume" that per AMD's rating-equivalent, the Athlon is 3500 while the Intel is 3060.

Just want to know if I'm really being done a "favor".

Thanx!

Lets just hope you don't need another 'promised upgrade' ;-)
Nice and a good platform near the beginning of it's life as well.

---

Team mauisun.org

I understand that for the same type of processor (i.e., A64 3800+) that socket AM2 is supposed to be about 10%-20% faster than socket 939.

Doubt it... Particularly not for Rosetta, which is more tied to the processor speed than anything else.

What speed is the DDR2 memory? I'd accept nothing less than 667MHz...

--
Mats

---

My numbers (and my memory) were off a bit, per Wikipedia's entry on AM2:

"AnandTech reported that Socket AM2 system performance was 0-7% faster than Socket 939 equivalents with most applications about 2% faster"

DDR2 will be 533Mhz. My understanding (I've certainly been wrong before) is that 667 is actually worse than 533, and benefits only start showing up at 800.

Toms Hardware : "...well, either 533 or 800, because 667 isnt really useful because of the latency, if you overclock a little, and drop the ram multiplier so that you can actually tighten the latencies and be somewhere between 533-667 then it wouldn't be a problem, but 667 isn't really significantly faster then 533. otherwise 800 is a no stress no hassle good buy. honestly tho, you wont be able to tell the difference at all while gaming. it will just be usefull for overclocking"

I understand that for the same type of processor (i.e., A64 3800+) that socket AM2 is supposed to be about 10%-20% faster than socket 939.

Doubt it... Particularly not for Rosetta, which is more tied to the processor speed than anything else.

What speed is the DDR2 memory? I'd accept nothing less than 667MHz...

--
Mats

The "promised" AMD A64 3800+ has arrived!

Not a C2D, but at least a step up (4x the L2 cache) from a Sempron 3400+.

Hopefully this will take some of the pressure off my poor AMD XP-M 2500+ which has been trying to compensate for the 2.5 months Compaq had the desktop under multiple "repairs".

Rosetta wu's, here we come!

Yea!

Lets just hope you don't need another 'promised upgrade' ;-)
Nice and a good platform near the beginning of it's life as well.

The "promised" AMD A64 3800+ has arrived!

Not a C2D, but at least a step up (4x the L2 cache) from a Sempron 3400+.

Hopefully this will take some of the pressure off my poor AMD XP-M 2500+ which has been trying to compensate for the 2.5 months Compaq had the desktop under multiple "repairs".

Rosetta wu's, here we come!

Yea!

Lets just hope you don't need another 'promised upgrade' ;-)
Nice and a good platform near the beginning of it's life as well.

and there it is https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=355355

(so when are you going to try to figure how long it will take for you to catch up to what you would have done with the Sempron)

---

Team mauisun.org

Lets see, Sempron (@2GHz) was averaging ~ 260 credits/24hrs, initial results suggest that A64 (@2.4GHz) is averaging ~320 credits/24hrs.

Appears that 20% increase in GHz is resulting in about 30% increase in performance. Apples and oranges in some respects: Athon vs Sempron, DDR2 vs DDR, Socket AM2 vs Socket 939...

So, lost ~ 75 days @ ~ 260/day = 19,500 OUCH !

Will earn an additional 80 credits/day...

244 days to make up for lost credits, after that its pure gravy!

It might go a little faster if Who? would be willing to "loan" me his dual socketed quad core Xeon! (at least I think that what the Monster is)

That was fun!

and there it is https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=355355

(so when are you going to try to figure how long it will take for you to catch up to what you would have done with the Sempron)