the i386 macs are all C2D's, and the various P4 Xeon 51XX systems there are also C2D's. Some of them are probably multiprocessor as well. The number one machine has workunits running at once, and the current einstien app has little or no gain from running HT.
If you look at the next page, you'll see a number of 2.4 and 2.66gig c2d's, but they just can't keep pace with their 3gig brethern.
Im running a C2D E6400 myself and you certainly wont find it in the top of the stats. It generally does 2 short WU's every 30mins or so. But i only started running Einstein again on Thursday and while LHC has work it get a tiny 12.5% of CPU time.
Personally my C2D did really well on seti where each core was approx 5 times as fast as my old celery 2Ghz box. On Einstein each core is around 4 times as fast as my old Celery 2Ghz.
They are defiantly very fast machines but i dont think Einstein is really optimized to use their true power as of yet but im shure given time they will prove there worth. out of interest how many top 20 machines have 4 or more cores? Im certain a high end xeon with 4 cores is certain to turn out more work than a dual core any day.
My next cruncher im currently saving for atm is going to be a Core 2 Quad and i think if i threw it all at one project it would easily get into the top 50 computers without an overclock.
Myself with 4 cores ill probably end up running at least 4 or 5 projects at once in case 1 goes down. I have enough problems keeping a decent cache on the C2D.
out of interest how many top 20 machines have 4 or more cores? Im certain a high end xeon with 4 cores is certain to turn out more work than a dual core any day.
In the top 20, all of the Mac Pros are 4 core (2x 2 core).
In the top 20, all of the machines with "Xeon" are 4 core (2x 2 core) or 8 core (2x 4 core).
Core2 performance
)
the i386 macs are all C2D's, and the various P4 Xeon 51XX systems there are also C2D's. Some of them are probably multiprocessor as well. The number one machine has workunits running at once, and the current einstien app has little or no gain from running HT.
If you look at the next page, you'll see a number of 2.4 and 2.66gig c2d's, but they just can't keep pace with their 3gig brethern.
Also, if you're running
)
Also, if you're running multiple projects on one computer, you'll never get to the top with that single machine.
Im running a C2D E6400 myself
)
Im running a C2D E6400 myself and you certainly wont find it in the top of the stats. It generally does 2 short WU's every 30mins or so. But i only started running Einstein again on Thursday and while LHC has work it get a tiny 12.5% of CPU time.
Personally my C2D did really well on seti where each core was approx 5 times as fast as my old celery 2Ghz box. On Einstein each core is around 4 times as fast as my old Celery 2Ghz.
They are defiantly very fast machines but i dont think Einstein is really optimized to use their true power as of yet but im shure given time they will prove there worth. out of interest how many top 20 machines have 4 or more cores? Im certain a high end xeon with 4 cores is certain to turn out more work than a dual core any day.
My next cruncher im currently saving for atm is going to be a Core 2 Quad and i think if i threw it all at one project it would easily get into the top 50 computers without an overclock.
Myself with 4 cores ill probably end up running at least 4 or 5 projects at once in case 1 goes down. I have enough problems keeping a decent cache on the C2D.
RE: out of interest how
)
In the top 20, all of the Mac Pros are 4 core (2x 2 core).
In the top 20, all of the machines with "Xeon" are 4 core (2x 2 core) or 8 core (2x 4 core).
Reno, NV Team: SETI.USA