Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: Building a 64 thread cruncher

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Leiden, the Netherlands
    Posts
    4,372

    Building an AMD-based 64 thread cruncher

    Is this ever gonna stop? A 64 thread cruncher! Is this possible, other than with the latest hardware?

    No, it can still be done with Socket G34

    1. Buy a quad Socket G34 board and four 16-core Opteron 6262 HE "Interlagos" of 85 Watt (= 340 Watt to dispose of)
    2. Buy a quad Socket G34 board and four 16-core Opteron 6366 HE "Abu Dhabi" of 85 Watt

    There are more possible 16-core Opterons, but they have an even higher TDP. Compare that with the new platform and see why I do my recommendation.

    Socket SP3

    1. Buy any SP3 board and a EPYC 7551P of 180 Watt TDP. [recommended]
    2. Buy any SP3 dual board and two EPYC 7281 of 170 Watt TDP each.
    3. Buy any SP3 dual board and two EPYC 7301 of 170 Watt TDP each.
    4. Buy any SP3 dual board and two EPYC 7351 of 170 Watt TDP each.


    The dual SP3 boards can of course also be used to build a 96 or 128 thread cruncher....right at this very moment that is.
    When Starship comes out the 96 thread cruncher can already be build on a single socket SP3 board...
    Last edited by Dirk Broer; 09-07-2017 at 09:16 AM.


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Central Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,333
    I want one or maybe two !





    Challenge me, or correct me, but don't ask me to die quietly.

    …Pursuit is always hard, capturing is really not the focus, it’s the hunt ...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Leiden, the Netherlands
    Posts
    4,372
    Quote Originally Posted by Nflight View Post
    I want one or maybe two !
    Perhaps worth noting is that Windows can't handle this many threads well. On the Scottish Boinc Team forum I came across a topic discussing the limits of Windows when building many-thread crunchers, where some 'heavies' from Seti.USA reported their findings. They've made a '640k' barrier again...Now it is the implementation of NUMA that is at fault.

    There are 64 NUMA memory pipes available. If you run 64 threads or less then each thread will run at 100% load. If you enable 88 threads then Windows will start "sharing" the memory pipes. So the 24 threads (above the 64) would start sharing the memory pipes with 24 of the 1st 64 and therefore would only be running at 50% efficiency because 1/2 the time they are running and 1/2 the time they are waiting for memory.

    You would wind up with 40 threads running at full load and 48 threads running at 50% load ... ie 64 threads. Since the memory channels would have to be continuously loaded/unloaded it would actually be less efficient than just running 64 threads.

    So to overcome this limitation you would set your program up to launch 44 threads at Node 0 (CPU0) and then 44 threads to Node 1 (CPU1). Then all 88 threads would be running at 100% loading.

    We proved the technique works as I had describe in my post to Pete. We launched one BOINC client to node 0 and a 2nd BOINC client to node 1. On our 72 thread machines all threads were running at 100% load.
    Note that Linux is not affected by this limit.
    Last edited by Dirk Broer; 09-25-2017 at 08:21 AM.


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Central Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,333
    I am looking at COmbo's by NewEgg = But really the idea comes from reviewing all the AMD combo's they have put together!





    Challenge me, or correct me, but don't ask me to die quietly.

    …Pursuit is always hard, capturing is really not the focus, it’s the hunt ...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Leiden, the Netherlands
    Posts
    4,372
    Quote Originally Posted by Nflight View Post
    I am looking at COmbo's by NewEgg = But really the idea comes from reviewing all the AMD combo's they have put together!
    Was that with the cynicism mode on? It is all Intel they're throwing at me...


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Central Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,333
    Actually no, They were all leads to AMD processors, really Dirk it must be just you It is a link to = Combo: 3616294
    Last edited by Nflight; 09-30-2017 at 04:35 PM.





    Challenge me, or correct me, but don't ask me to die quietly.

    …Pursuit is always hard, capturing is really not the focus, it’s the hunt ...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Leiden, the Netherlands
    Posts
    4,372
    Quote Originally Posted by Nflight View Post
    Actually no, They were all leads to AMD processors, really Dirk it must be just you It is a link to = Combo: 3616294
    ? Clicking 'All the AMD combo's' I get on a page https://promotions.newegg.com/nepro/16-0744/index.html with a AMD motherboard configurator that won't work, here's why: no AMD.

    The AMD cpu configurator will let me choose between two out-of-stock FX CPUs and by now also an A6-7600K FM2+ APU

    How you have managed to get the combo you selected is beyond me. A CPU you can't select, combined with a mobo that's not there...
    I get it: you went to the preconfigured combo's. I hate preconfigured, I build myself.
    Last edited by Dirk Broer; 10-01-2017 at 12:39 AM.


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Leiden, the Netherlands
    Posts
    4,372
    A new option is available: Buy a 32-core/64-thread Threadripper 2990WX, a TR4 mobo, a M.2 SSD and an unholy lot of DDR4 RAM (to support 64 threads in BOINC you need at least 128GB in my opinion, and I'd rather have 256GB), and you're in big business!
    The Threadripper costs around $1,500; the Mobo a little over $300; the M.2 SSD Samsung 970 Evo 500GB is around $160; eight 16GB sticks for a total of 128GB sets you back around $1,500 again, so for a little under $3,500 you'll be able to blow all your previous CPU records. I do trust you had a Radeon or GeForce video card from a previous system, to keep things cheap...


  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    US
    Posts
    2,229
    Lol, to keep things cheap huh? :-) Well one thing that won't be cheap is the monthly power bill... But then maybe Vaughan would go for it???? The computer that is, not someone elses power bill. hahaha

    Of course I guess it would depend on how you load it up with work.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Leiden, the Netherlands
    Posts
    4,372
    Quote Originally Posted by Brucifer View Post
    Lol, to keep things cheap huh? :-) Well one thing that won't be cheap is the monthly power bill... But then maybe Vaughan would go for it???? The computer that is, not someone elses power bill. hahaha

    Of course I guess it would depend on how you load it up with work.
    Power bill? Depends. I could replace my whole farm with one 32-core/64-thread behemoth, using just one PSU, One SSD, one GPU and one set of RAM and come out better -in terms of active threads- than my present setup.

    But when economics come into play you'd be better off buying a dual EPYC board, and hope that a lower Wattage TDP EPYC2 indeed has 64-cores/128-threads per CPU.
    Last edited by Dirk Broer; 08-07-2018 at 08:33 PM.


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •