I will need the most powerful number-cruncher I can get my hands on in a few months. I was thinking something with dual-processors, maybe a RAID configuration…But, I don’t know exactly. If you had a few grand to spend, and the directive to build a mathematical-modelling computer, what would you build?
Req’s:
Windows environment (2000 & XP)
Running MatLab and Statistica
Max $5,000 (but preferably for under $3000)
Thanks-
-Tcat
Why would you assemble a serious numerical modelling workstation and then run it on a Windows operating system?
-Sean
I put together a fast system recently for under $3000:
Dual processor Compaq Evo W6000 2.4 gig Xeon workstation - $2000 from Tigerdirect.com - came with two 10000 scsi drives
Extra 512 megs of RAM, from somewhere I found on Froogle.com - cheap
Quadro 4 750 graphics card - ~$300 from somewhere I found on the web on pricewatch.com - you won’t need this (probably)
17" flat panel dell refurbed display to match the one I already have - $400 from tigerdirect.com
I could have built this exact same system on the compaq/hp website for around $5400, or I probably could have built my own for less but then I wouldn’t get the 3 years of free on site service.
Not familar with your applications, but I run datasets in different software (more database related). My app frequently swaps to the hard drive with the data I crunch (some sets are several gigs), so to get the max performance, I need the most RAM and fastest HD I can afford.
However, my work is probably much different - its more relational database stuff, so loads of processing power are not needed, as there is little mathematical computing happening.
The best you’d be able to do on a Windows platform would be w/ Intel’s new chipset that supports the new 800 Mhz FSB (I think its the 865PE) and as much DDR II RAM as the mobo will allow, coupled with the fastest processor (hyperthreaded, if your apps support it) you can afford. Throw is a few SCSI fast and wide drives in a RAID config and you’ll be all set.
If you have to sacrifice anything for price, go with some of the faster EIDE drives with large buffers instead of SCSI. If your applications do not need to access the HD much, you can probably skip the RAID config, which will also add $s.
Wait until just before you need the machine to buy it to make sure you get the most bang for your buck. You should be able to save money by building it yourself (be sure to look up computer performance tweaks, such as ensuring that DMA is enabled, etc).
IMHO, AMD platforms offer the best bang for the buck, but Intel’s top of the line processors and mobo will give you better raw performance if you can afford them.
Seriously. Use Linux or Solaris. Either will run on Intel processors.
Because that is what I use in the office, and that is what my employees know…I need to be able to run MatLab and Statistica, as well as Excel to translate it into a useable format (or at least have an exportable file to Excel). Plus the data I will be using comes from Bloomberg, so it needs to be able to use DDE links (hmm, maybe just text files, hmmm…) I do have a Linux server, so…I can run it on that. But if you are suggesting a different system or setup, then please suggest away and I will listen.
Plus, I have heard that dual-processors are the fastest, and that they only work on Windows systems. Correct me if I am wrong.
-Tcat
Sorry, my post was in reply to Fuji.
…and it only takes 1 post for the Linux faithful to bring us OT.
If you’re willing to try the new Opteron AMD CPU, you could have dual 1.4s, 6GB of DDR memory, and a mainboard for about $2600.00. you’ll need drives, case, floppy etc. 18GB SCSI drives go for < $100 a decent raid controller ~400. so say you go RAID 5 using 5 18GB drives, gives you 324GB storage.
CPUs, MB and Memory: 2600.
case, floppy, CD: 200.
5 18GB drives: 500.
RAID controller: 400.
total: ~3700.
you could probably be around the same price with the XEON, at a faster CPU speed, but it’s still a 32 bit processor. Windows 2003 server has a 64bit edition out as well.
Other OSs, including Linux, will run dual CPUs just fine. On the other hand, don’t be put off your choice by people with agendas.
The new Intel 3 GHz processors with hyperthreading can offer a substantial improvement over a single processor, as well (although not as good as two processors of the same speed).
You could ask those people at Alienware to make you something maybe?
http://www.alienware.com/
For number crunching applications, an Athlon XP will generally perform far, far better than a Pentium 4. Most of the P4’s speed advantages come from its SSE and SSE2 SIMD engines, which aren’t very applicable to number crunching. At Distributed.net RC5-72 Encryption, the Pentium 4 3.06Ghz-HT processor scores 4.29MKeys/sec, while the Athlon XP 2800+ scores 7.23MKeys/sec. This is a purely integer task that does not benefit from SSE or SSE2. In floating point applications, the gap will most likely be significantly larger. Note the Athlon XP’s dominance in spreadsheet-heavy office benchmarks.
Place a pair of Athlon MP 2800+ processors in an SMP board, or even a single Athlon XP 3200+ in an nForce2 motherboard with dual-channel DDR400, and you’ll get an incredibly fast system for a low price.
It would be in your best interest, of course, to find benchmarks performed with the exact tasks you plan on running. I think it’s more than likely that the Athlon XP will still come out far ahead of the P4.
I should note that I’m not trying to be a raving AMD fanboy. I’m not saying that the Athlon XP will beat the P4 in everything, it won’t, but every processor has areas where it excels. The P4 excels at hard 3D rendering (as opposed to 3D gaming) and media encoding, while the Athlon XP excels at hard number crunching and office applications. In your case, the Athlon XP is most likely the best match for your needs.
Matlab isn’t parallel. So unless you can run a lot of scripts simulatenously (as opposed to sequentially) you might not want a multiple processor. On the other hand, a dual processor is nice for waiting Matlab scripts to finish… you run Matlab on one CPU, you use the other CPU to surf, watch anime, etc.
Get lots and lots of RAM. No matter how much RAM I have, I can always manage a way to thrash my computer with Matlab. Then again, I’m in computer vision/neural networks, which are always a memory hog…
My life (for now) is Matlab and more Matlab. Here’s my setup if you want it (cost about $2000).
-Roomy Antec full tower server with lots of cooling fans
-SuperMicro X5DA8
-Dual Xeon 2.4 gHz, 533 FSB
-1 gig DDR, 4 GB virtual memory (planning to put in 2 more 1 gig sticks soon… the X5DAE/X5DA8 has 6 DDR slots)
-SCSI “working” hard drive.
Runs Matlab MUCH faster than my other computer which had 1 gig DIMM and 2.0 gHz Althon. Much, much, much faster, and the computer is much nicer with thrashing (with the Althon processor, the computer died as opposed to running pretty slow until Matlab figured there wasn’t enough memory & shut down).
Unfortunately, The Athlons no longer have any viable dual processor motherboards out. Your choices are either Xeons(Intel) or Opterons (AMD) if you want to go dual processor. On the other hand, a single Barton(AMD) 3200+ would also perform a very admirable job.
The Tyan Tiger MPX is a viable motherboard. It supports two Athlon MP processors and up to 4GB of PC2100 DDR RAM. It’s the successor to the venerable Tyan Tiger MP, and appears to have good reviews overall.
I would add to Alereon’s post that with a window radiator repair kit used on specific solder points on the back of the motherboard to disable the multiplier and a bit on top of the chip to enable multiprocessor functionality, combined with a few hundred bucks’ worth of watercooling or phase-change cooling, AMD XP chips are hitting the 2 gig range. You can buy a pair of chips for a little over a hundred bucks.
Come to the dark side…
Sorry, I made a bad link to the multiplier disabling article:
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_unlock/
The new Bartons are stellar with advanced cooling techniques, pushing into the 2.4 G range and far eclipsing any Intel product at a similar clock speed, but I cannot tell if the same multiprocessing jumper short circuit works on the new Bartons. I thought that jumper might have been left off of the new chips, but a clever bird might discern if the pins were left in place, and if the solder points remain on the back of the board…
In a few months, I’m going to fire up this Koolance box I just scored and see if that works. My personal requirements are whatever runs [Doom ]| the fastest. The new Doom will be far more graphics-intensive than anything you’ll need… but if you’re on the company account I’ll point out that the very latest graphics cards will improve screen-rendering speed dramatically in combination with a pirate-but-not-illegal XP setup, which may make it look faster; it could prove to be a vital selling point once the toy–I mean system–is procured.
Thanks folks.
This is solely a number cruncher for the quants to use. I have plenty of other computers to use for gaming. I want it sitting in a corner working 24/7 on models. We will ALWAYS need more tests to be run, more power to be used, etc. And I don’t need to watch what is going on, so we generally turn off the screen updating to make things faster anyways.
As for price, yeah, this is on the company tab, but it is my company…so…I can’t really justify extra expense for not much extra output.
And Sofa, whattheheckareyoutalkingabout? I’m intrigued, but that is all Greek to me. What advances would those modifications give me, and why aren’t they modified like that to start? If those were beneficial mods, why wouldn’t they already be done? I’m not opposed to tweaking, but I myself am not a tech. I’m just looking for the info so I can go to the local computer shop and say “Hele ty volej! Dej mi monster computer!”
-Tcat
Tomcat: He was referring to modifications that let you overclock the processor, which is running it beyond its rated speed. You can get a speed boost, but you will void the warranty, possibly kill it, and definitely risk its stability. Not something you want to do to a production box.
