I have that brand new Core i7-4770K configuration (4GB 1333MHz Dual Rank, Dual Channel, CL9 RAM; 320GB 7200rpm HDD; no OC yet) I've mentioned in the parent thread before. My experiences with it are very impressive. The installation of Windows 7 x64 was faster than usual. I do a lot of such installations on very different configurations. My last two was i5-3470s (8GB 1600MHz Dual Rank, Dual channel CL9 RAM; 1TB 7200rpm HDD; no OC).
Right now I'm experimenting with Rosetta @ home on it. The aim of my experiments is to figure out how many simultaneous tasks are optimal, and whether the type of RAM used changes the RAC or not? Also to find out if Windows XP x64 could be installed properly on it, as there is no official support for Windows XP x86 and x64.
I had some random system restarts, but a slight increase in the RAM voltage (by 50mV) fixed this issue. I'm planning to change the RAMs to 1600MHz Single Rank, Dual Channel, CL11.
You can check the results of this experimental host here and here. I've never earned over 1000 credits in R@h for a 24h workunit.
I am an Intel "fan", but I've no doubt that AMD CPUs can outperform Intel CPUs in some applications (and vice versa of course). But if you take the energy costs in consideration, the recent Intel 22nm CPUs are better (the question is that how long it takes to save the price difference between Intel and AMD CPUs by the lower energy costs?)

Well let me start it, as it is mainly my "fault" that this thread existed.

Edit Zoltan beat me, so I am second :)

An i5 has another architecture than an i7 with HT. The Xeon's have yet another architecture and thus AMD processors does also. That must be taken into account when compare, but could be hard in reality.

You cannot compare apples with pears, is something that is what we say in Dutch when things are being compared that are not the same (and can't be compared). It is both fruit and healthy, but that's it.
Same as compare women and men, they are both human but their architecture is significantly different...
____________
Greetings from TJ

Same as compare women and men, they are both human but their architecture is significantly different...

This is off-thread bur how do you get such long WU's? Mine complete in about 10000 seconds for 50-100 credits.
My Rosie are here: http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/results.php?userid=308421

What is the important difference between single rank and dual rank memory?

I have 12GB in both i7's but have never seen that more than 5.8 was used.
____________
Greetings from TJ

This is off-thread bur how do you get such long WU's? Mine complete in about 10000 seconds for 50-100 credits.

What is the important difference between single rank and dual rank memory?

I have 12GB in both i7's but have never seen that more than 5.8 was used.

That's okay, but what you don't see in task manager is the saturation of the memory bus. I think R@h is a very memory intensive application, and 6 of them (plus a GPUGrid task) could saturate the memory bus to a level where the PC became unresponsive (and unusable).

You can set the "target CPU runtime" in your Rosetta@home preferences.

Posting here, mainly for full disclosure about myself.

I am not an Intel fanboy, period. I've owned many non-Intel CPUs, starting with an AMD 386sx, moving to an AMD 386DX-40, then to a UMC 486, then at some point to an AMD Athlon XP and directly after that to an AMD Athlon-64 X2.

Sadly for AMD hot-blooded fanboys, after Intel introduced the Nehalem architecture, AMD lost the performance crown! As simple as that, really! For a few years AMD was playing the tune and Intel danced to it, but unfortunately for AMD, things changed. For a few years, AMD set the performance bar and Intel followed far behind. But that finished and AMD had to return to the price game.

The price game is a good thing for us all, of course! With processing power surpassing almost all our everyday needs, what we really want is cheap adequately powerful CPUs. Without AMD, Intel would (as it has done for years in the past) charge gold for baked sand.

So, we love AMD and we need it to keep Intel's prices under control. And AMD has achieved that pretty successfully over the years, forcing Intel to sell a myriad of low to mid level CPUs at low prices, of course higher than AMD's prices, which is a good thing for AMD!

BUT, at least for the time being, the high performance war has been lost for AMD. I really do hope it will manage to come up with an architecture that will surpass Intel and introduce new levels of performance. This will be good for all of us and I will be among the first to buy the AMD chip!
____________

An i5 has another architecture than an i7 with HT. The Xeon's have yet another architecture and thus AMD processors does also. That must be taken into account when compare, but could be hard in reality.

You cannot compare apples with pears, is something that is what we say in Dutch when things are being compared that are not the same (and can't be compared). It is both fruit and healthy, but that's it.

after Intel introduced the Nehalem architecture, AMD lost the performance crown![/i] As simple as that, really! For a few years AMD was playing the tune and Intel danced to it, but unfortunately for AMD, things changed. For a few years, AMD set the performance bar and Intel followed far behind. But that finished and AMD had to return to the price game.

The price game is a good thing for us all, of course! With processing power surpassing almost all our everyday needs, what we really want is cheap adequately powerful CPUs. Without AMD, Intel would (as it has done for years in the past) charge gold for baked sand.

So, we love AMD and we need it to keep Intel's prices under control. And AMD has achieved that pretty successfully over the years, forcing Intel to sell a myriad of low to mid level CPUs at low prices, of course higher than AMD's prices, which is a good thing for AMD!

BUT, at least for the time being, the high performance war has been lost for AMD. I really do hope it will manage to come up with an architecture that will surpass Intel and introduce new levels of performance. This will be good for all of us and I will be among the first to buy the AMD chip!

You're not old, you are experienced! In the early eighties I was nagging for a Commodore 64, but it was to expensive, but I got an ZX Spectrum from my dad. I was the only one at school with a computer first, even the math teachers where jealous. Later I got an America friend (his dad was from the Army and they lived in the Netherlands for a few years). Very cheap I got then an real IBM. Rock solid but slow as later found. There was shop with brand-less PC's and one had a mathematical coprocessor and did Fourier calculations at least 1000 times faster then the 5 times expensive IBM. These mathematical coprocessors are now integrated, for the young readers :)
____________
Greetings from TJ

There was shop with brand-less PC's and one had a mathematical coprocessor and did Fourier calculations at least 1000 times faster then the 5 times expensive IBM. These mathematical coprocessors are now integrated, for the young readers :)

I had some random system restarts, but a slight increase in the RAM voltage (by 50mV) fixed this issue.

Two things what I think. A MOBO for Intel, is almost twice as costly than and AMD MOBO, same specs with a lot of room for GPU, USB 3.0.

Indeed AMD uses more Watt then Intel, but not in my case. I have two Bloomfields, using 130W maximum, the AMD would use 125W. Okay not a win.

The plan was a new rig in the autumn, mainly for crunching, but also general use, with Office, mail, TV via browser etc. So that would be an six core Intel with good quality parts. All the Pentiums, Celerons would go out of the door to make room, as they are not used anymore. Sometimes for testing some crap software of experimenting with Linux (Ubuntu).

But now I have 2 GTX660 and they don't run smooth in the things they are in (however the T7400 not bad). So for around 400 euri I could get all the parts I need, the GPU's are already here.

But it is possible that I can't think good anymore this time and two packets of chips for dinner :)

If someone can make a nice system with Intel for 400 euri, I would like to now. Keep in mind the case must be large (roomy), seems to be the most expensive part.
____________
Greetings from TJ

If someone can make a nice system with Intel for 400 euri, I would like to now. Keep in mind the case must be large (roomy), seems to be the most expensive part.

I have browsed a bit and searched only in the Netherlands (where a lot of parts are more expensive than in the US). An i7-4770K (four core), 84W, €317. An i7-3930K (six core), 130W, €530. Nice Xeons with 40W and 80W, but with prices of four digets, so that is no option for me.

Skgiven has a nice idea of getting a cheap i3 or i5 and make a rig for GPU crunching only. But I know myself then I will do more with the system and then it won´t work. Not that I am depended on 1 system. I have taken a lot of old stuff home from work...Won´t do that anymore, unless there is a T7400 :)
____________
Greetings from TJ

If someone can make a nice system with Intel for 400 euri, I would like to now. Keep in mind the case must be large (roomy), seems to be the most expensive part.

There are some good inexpensive cases with excellent airflow. I've used the Antec 300 for years. Nice quality with 3 speed 140mm top fan and 3 speed 120mm rear fan. Add a 120mm side fan and 1 or two 120mm front fans and you're set. There are also some minor variations of the basic 300 case now. Other low cost options are the NZXT Source 120 and the Corsair Carbide 200R, both of which will hold enough fans to made a wind tunnel jealous. Have used dozens of the Antec 300 and am in the process of testing the other two. For all 3 the quality is decent. A super expensive case won't get you much more in practical terms. Definitely prefer cases with the PS on the bottom.

I have browsed a bit and searched only in the Netherlands (where a lot of parts are more expensive than in the US). An i7-4770K (four core), 84W, €317. An i7-3930K (six core), 130W, €530.

Four GPU's is not to bad if you take two GTRX690 :-)

Sorry for the Intel fans, but I will build an AMD based one first, with the 2 GRX660. I will keep it cheap as I am not that enthusiastic about there performance, but they are here no and must do GG.
Then with Zoltan's tip in mind, I wait for the 4th generation extreme one's to see how to do and what the prices air. That can become a "super cruncher" with two GTX770, or one 690. And would be something for the winter. First for the money reason and second because summer is start to run and then my attic becomes to warm. In fact it already is.
____________
Greetings from TJ

There are some good inexpensive cases with excellent airflow. I've used the Antec 300 for years. Nice quality with 3 speed 140mm top fan and 3 speed 120mm rear fan. Add a 120mm side fan and 1 or two 120mm front fans and you're set. There are also some minor variations of the basic 300 case now. Other low cost options are the NZXT Source 120 and the Corsair Carbide 200R, both of which will hold enough fans to made a wind tunnel jealous. Have used dozens of the Antec 300 and am in the process of testing the other two. For all 3 the quality is decent. A super expensive case won't get you much more in practical terms. Definitely prefer cases with the PS on the bottom.

Now I see plenty cases with fans in the front, but the front is closed, like the Corsair Obsidian 550D for example. That seems a roomy case, price in Germany acceptable for it. But why is the front closed while it has fans there?
I work in physics but can not explain this yet. There must be side openings for sure, but if that sucks enough air? Its not funneled like a jet engine. Would be glad for an explanation.

I'd consider 180€ far too much for a mainboard, especially if it shall "only" run 2 GPUs. In this case I'd choose 2 standard PCIe slots, so 8x PCIe 3 for plenty of bandwidth. And considering TJs current thermal problems I wouldn't recommend he'd try 4 GPUs ;)

As far as the AMD vs Intel question. The 990FX MB you bought has 2 x16 slots, much preferable to a board with 2 x8 or an x16 and x4 slot. I think you made a good choice, I think you'll be happy with the FX-8350 too. Realistically we're not talking much CPU performance difference at all compared to the fastest Intels. People get all excited over 10-15%. Big deal. Those are game benchmarks, not the massively threaded scientific apps we run. Remember too that Intel "owns" the benchmark comapnies and a good share of the "performance" sites, not to mention their dirty compiler tricks.

I used to run more Intel than AMD in the P2 and P3 days but comparing the two, my AMDs always ended up faring better and costing less. As I mentioned I've been building PCs for many years. One thing I've noticed is that I keep having to fix the Intel based systems and the AMDs just keep running and running. I've still got quite a few in businesses chugging along doing their more than decade old accounting and other business chores without me ever having to do more than blow the dust out every few years. Works for me.

The quad with the 550Ti problems, is more then 5 years old. Its a Dell XPS, small, shiny black edition with a rubber mat on top. The model was only short available. I got it due to an action of dell with 20% discount and some free stuff. It came out the box, ran for 4 year 24/7 without problem, then the GPU broke (stripes on screen) and then I bought the GTX550Ti due to it light PSU and could do GG. It worked fine until yesterday when I swapped the 55oTo for the 660 to test.
But 5 year ago there was a lot of complaining about Vista, it was unstable, nod drivers and so on. But I have never had problems.

Around 15 year back there was a "privet PC project", one could use salary before tax and the employer paid also a part. Then I was the only one who bought an AMD, it was way cheaper, and I had the biggest HD and a CD-burner as well and a 18.1 inch flat screen. There was a limit. So by choosing AMD I had the "biggest system" of all participants. But I would get trouble said IT and colleagues. But also this system server me for 10 years (no crunching).

So it is a bit one own experience and likings. I don´t mind to have all sorts of PC´s
____________
Greetings from TJ

If someone can make a nice system with Intel for 400 euri, I would like to now. Keep in mind the case must be large (roomy), seems to be the most expensive part.

There are some good inexpensive cases with excellent airflow. I've used the Antec 300 for years. Nice quality with 3 speed 140mm top fan and 3 speed 120mm rear fan. Add a 120mm side fan and 1 or two 120mm front fans and you're set. There are also some minor variations of the basic 300 case now. Other low cost options are the NZXT Source 120 and the Corsair Carbide 200R, both of which will hold enough fans to made a wind tunnel jealous. Have used dozens of the Antec 300 and am in the process of testing the other two. For all 3 the quality is decent. A super expensive case won't get you much more in practical terms. Definitely prefer cases with the PS on the bottom.

As far as the AMD vs Intel question. The 990FX MB you bought has 2 x16 slots, much preferable to a board with 2 x8 or an x16 and x4 slot. I think you made a good choice, I think you'll be happy with the FX-8350 too. Realistically we're not talking much CPU performance difference at all compared to the fastest Intels. People get all excited over 10-15%. Big deal. Those are game benchmarks, not the massively threaded scientific apps we run. Remember too that Intel "owns" the benchmark comapnies and a good share of the "performance" sites, not to mention their dirty compiler tricks.

As far as I know these dirty tricks are not present in the latest versions of that compiler. However, it came to my mind, that the Yoyo client could be "optimized" to AMD CPUs, still we don't call this "dirty tricks". NVidia also used "dirty tricks" for better benchmark results.

There are many little things which made me not to like AMD, for example their driver support is worse than Intel's.

I used to run more Intel than AMD in the P2 and P3 days but comparing the two, my AMDs always ended up faring better and costing less. As I mentioned I've been building PCs for many years. One thing I've noticed is that I keep having to fix the Intel based systems and the AMDs just keep running and running. I've still got quite a few in businesses chugging along doing their more than decade old accounting and other business chores without me ever having to do more than blow the dust out every few years. Works for me.

It's interesting, because I had such difficulties with AMD configurations at these times (leaking and bloated capacitors, way too loud cooling), so I gave up on AMD. One of our customer had a PIII 733MHz configuration with 64MB SDRAM, running Win'98(!) until recently, when their ERP system stopped working on Win'98 after an update (mainly for security reasons). A local "wiseman" tried to install WinXP on that PC, but he gave up because it was way too slow, but it's still working. They have an Athlon XP based PC (from a different source) which still working, even though it's hot.

Indeed nice systems Beyond, but after careful examination of pictures I saw one thing that I don´t like. I want the PSU in the bottom, but I want holes in the bottom as well because I want its fan facing downwards, not into the case, where warm (lukewarm) air flows towards the MOBO.
Air in from the side will work I guess, but I like one big or two fans behind a grit (with dust filter).

Indeed nice systems Beyond, but after careful examination of pictures I saw one thing that I don´t like. I want the PSU in the bottom, but I want holes in the bottom as well because I want its fan facing downwards, not into the case, where warm (lukewarm) air flows towards the MOBO.
Air in from the side will work I guess, but I like one big or two fans behind a grit (with dust filter).

I always install the PS with the fan on the bottom. There's enough of an airspace. Even if you turned it upside down the fan inside the PS would be sucking in the air and expelling it out the back of the case. Holes in the botton are OK, maybe more airflow but the floor level is also where the dirt/dust is. Take your pick, I've heard both sides argued. Big surprise...

...servers spread around my house, one of each in 5 rooms to even out the heat distribution...

...servers spread around my house, one of each in 5 rooms to even out the heat distribution...
Expensive heater. How could you sleep? I also want PC´s on the floor where we sleep, to get my attic cooler, but the misses won´t... to much noise.

I always install the PS with the fan on the bottom. There's enough of an airspace. Even if you turned it upside down the fan inside the PS would be sucking in the air and expelling it out the back of the case. Holes in the botton are OK, maybe more airflow but the floor level is also where the dirt/dust is. Take your pick, I've heard both sides argued. Big surprise...

I don't understand the PSU at the bottom trend. PSUs suck air from inside the case and thus contribute to expelling warm air. So, why would anyone put them at the bottom, where cool air is?

There's only one reason for me: better cooling for the PSU itself. Maybe important for high-end 1KW PSUs, but for more modest ones, I don't think it makes much sense.
____________

Yoyo's ecm client is simply wrapped and why would ecm optimize for AMD when there are far more Intels running the project?

There are many little things which made me not to like AMD, for example their driver support is worse than Intel's.

What drivers? CPU???

Surely you know that the bad capacitors had nothing to do with CPUs and were equally common on all motherboards, a result of the motherboard companies buying crappy, defective Chinese capacitors. It was a dark period for motherboards, many failed.

A friend and the largest cruncher on our team during that period all Intel with ECS MBs (22 PCs). They all failed (Chinese capacitors), he was not happy.

Besides my business experiences, I'll relate a personal one from quite a while ago. I had an equal number of regular AMD desktop systems and very expensive large cache Intel servers spread around my house, one of each in 5 rooms to even out the heat distribution. Lightning storm: everything went dark. When the power returned 3 of the expensive Intel servers were dead, 2 MBs and 1 CPU. Within a week the other 2 failed. All of the AMD systems survived and never showed a sign of the catastrophe. Not a large statistical sample but telling. Pretty much the end of my trusting expensive Intel servers...

I don't understand the PSU at the bottom trend. PSUs suck air from inside the case and thus contribute to expelling warm air. So, why would anyone put them at the bottom, where cool air is?

There's only one reason for me: better cooling for the PSU itself.

Maybe important for high-end 1KW PSUs, but for more modest ones, I don't think it makes much sense.

Yes PSU are an important part of a PC, but are mainly forgotten or cheap. The old T7400 (7 years old) has already a 80+ gold edition.
____________
Greetings from TJ

I don't understand the PSU at the bottom trend. PSUs suck air from inside the case and thus contribute to expelling warm air. So, why would anyone put them at the bottom, where cool air is?

There's only one reason for me: better cooling for the PSU itself.

You are right about that.

No. :) I mean the drivers for the chipset around it. I recall some bad VIA drivers causing various problems, or the chipset was way slower than the competing Intels. There was a point when AMD decided to make chipsets for their own processors, because they weren't satisfied with the 3rd party chipsets. Intel did the same for the same reason, but earlier. NVidia chipsets were quite good, as far as I can recall them.

Surely you know that the bad capacitors had nothing to do with CPUs and were equally common on all motherboards, a result of the motherboard companies buying crappy, defective Chinese capacitors. It was a dark period for motherboards, many failed.

Yes, I know. The "defect" caused by a stolen formula of the electrolyte, which turned out to be incomplete at the time it was stolen. So the electrolyte was degraded by normal usage, the result of this degradation was a gas (hydrogen, if I remember it correctly), and that bloated them, reduced their capacity, forcing the FETs swiching more, causing more heat. This process, however, was faster at higher temperatures, so the hotter AMDs failed earlier.

The problem had a "financial" component: those, who bought AMD for their lower prices, usually bought a cheaper mainboard for it, and these cheaper mainboards were made of cheaper components.

Besides my business experiences, I'll relate a personal one from quite a while ago. I had an equal number of regular AMD desktop systems and very expensive large cache Intel servers spread around my house, one of each in 5 rooms to even out the heat distribution. Lightning storm: everything went dark. When the power returned 3 of the expensive Intel servers were dead, 2 MBs and 1 CPU. Within a week the other 2 failed. All of the AMD systems survived and never showed a sign of the catastrophe. Not a large statistical sample but telling. Pretty much the end of my trusting expensive Intel servers...

I can understand that. The PSUs in those servers weren't up to their tasks... regarding spike suppression. These spike suppressors could withstand only a limited number of spikes, depending on the power of the spikes they receive, so it is highly recommended to have power strips with built-in spike (or surge) suppressors.

I always install the PS with the fan on the bottom. There's enough of an airspace. Even if you turned it upside down the fan inside the PS would be sucking in the air and expelling it out the back of the case. Holes in the botton are OK, maybe more airflow but the floor level is also where the dirt/dust is. Take your pick, I've heard both sides argued. Big surprise...

After reading it again I understand. Off course to fan in the PSU sucks as well, so it could help as extra cooling faced up.

I always install the PS with the fan on the bottom. There's enough of an airspace. Even if you turned it upside down the fan inside the PS would be sucking in the air and expelling it out the back of the case. Holes in the botton are OK, maybe more airflow but the floor level is also where the dirt/dust is. Take your pick, I've heard both sides argued. Big surprise...

After reading it again I understand. Off course to fan in the PSU sucks as well, so it could help as extra cooling faced up.

If the PSU at the bottom, there is no point to place it facing up. The idea of the PSU at the bottom is to make the PSU run cooler by having fresh, cool air directly from the outside. It's too bad that the PSU works like a vacuum cleaner, but it's almost the same when it's placed above the MB. The dirt/dust caused mainly by people walking around the PCs reaching approximately to 1m high, so there is a little difference if the PSU is at the bottom, or at the top of the MB, regarding the dirt.

The problem had a "financial" component: those, who bought AMD for their lower prices, usually bought a cheaper mainboard for it, and these cheaper mainboards were made of cheaper components.

If true (it wasn't for me) it's not exactly fair to compare low quality boards to high quality boards.

So are you saying that AMD isn't good because you bought poor quality motherboards for them and those boards failed at a higher rate?

They all were on APC 600 sine wave UPSes (I bought a bulk purchase of them) and used them both at businesses and here. A couple of the AMD systems were just on surge strips. They weren't damaged and made me wonder about the importance of UPSes...

So are you saying that AMD isn't good because you bought poor quality motherboards for them and those boards failed at a higher rate?

No, I'm not saying that, that's nonsense. We're talking about how our past experiences influence our present choices (in our case, why am I an Intel "fan"). I'm saying that any system built by cheap components to minimize its purchasing expenses will fail earlier, than an optimal one.

They all were on APC 600 sine wave UPSes (I bought a bulk purchase of them) and used them both at businesses and here. A couple of the AMD systems were just on surge strips. They weren't damaged and made me wonder about the importance of UPSes...

If they were APC Back UPS 600, they could make the situation worse, because they are switching (offline) type UPSes. They switch to batteries only when the power fails (you can hear the relays clicking inside when it happens). When a power failure is caused by lightning, this behavior can double the amplitude of the surge on the "protected" equipment. The electricity supply of sensitive equipment should be made uninterruptable by online UPSes (for example the APC Smart series), which are always run from the batteries, however the batteries are always charged from the mains. In that way the protected equipment is not connected to the source of the surges, and when a power outage happens, the switch to batteries won't cause an additional surge, because no such switch taking place.

I think we're all smart enough not to blame failing motherboards on either Intel or AMD ;) And from personal experience CPUs last pretty much infinitely (until you don't want to use them any more), unless you run them at serious voltages, but mainboards and PSUs fail far more often, followed by HDDs and GPUs.

And from the chipset and driver side I don't think there are any reservations against the current choices for AMD. The SATA controller may be a bit slower, there's no SSD caching availalbe like Intel SRT and there's no native PCIe 3. But none of this is a game stopper for crunching GPU-Grid. For POEM on anything but low-end cards you'd need the full 16x PCIe 3, though.

Part of our discussion here seems to revolve around two different philosophies. One philosophy is that since AMD processors are less expensive, then people are going with components that are all cheaper. My philosophy is that if someone's budget is say $1000, then save money on the less expensive CPU and install a better MB, PS and GPU. As far as power saving goes, a part of the cost savings can buy you a gold or platinum PS that offers power reduction for the whole system and can possibly net you a power reduction overall.

I think there's an AM3+ ASUS board with PCIe 3 but not sure how available it is.

Part of our discussion here seems to revolve around two different philosophies. One philosophy is that since AMD processors are less expensive, then people are going with components that are all cheaper. My philosophy is that if someone's budget is say $1000, then save money on the less expensive CPU and install a better MB, PS and GPU. As far as power saving goes, a part of the cost savings can buy you a gold or platinum PS that offers power reduction for the whole system and can possibly net you a power reduction overall.

Whatever your price target is. $1000 was simply an example. In the US I can build a pretty nice PC for $1000 though, especially considering watching for sales and rebates.

To my opinion this must mean that ready of the shelf PC's for 400-1500 euri are junk for our needs.

Whatever your price target is. $1000 was simply an example. In the US I can build a pretty nice PC for $1000 though, especially considering watching for sales and rebates.

The T7400 has two Xeons E5430 and thus 8 real cores and runs quite cool. But these Xeons are old and are end of live as Intel said.
The most recent Xeons are to expensive, but how are the ideas´s about a previous generation Xeon?


____________
Greetings from TJ

I think your two E5430 Xeons will be pretty decent crunchers! Not high-end by any means, but the fact you have 8 real full cores (with FP units) means you'll have decent BOINC throughput. 8 full cores aren't easy to find!

Look here for this processor's relative performance in cpubenchmark.net. The fact that you have two CPUs means that, at least for BOINC usage, you'll have almost twice the performance, being somewhere here. Not bad at all!
____________

I think your two E5430 Xeons will be pretty decent crunchers! Not high-end by any means, but the fact you have 8 real full cores (with FP units) means you'll have decent BOINC throughput. 8 full cores aren't easy to find!

Look here for this processor's relative performance in cpubenchmark.net. The fact that you have two CPUs means that, at least for BOINC usage, you'll have almost twice the performance, being somewhere here. Not bad at all!

By sine wave UPS I was indicating they were the APC Smart-UPS 600. I was also oversimplifying a bit (saving some typing). All were APC Smart-UPS models. One of the failed Intel servers was on a Smart-UPS 900 and one was a Smart-UPS 1400 with both an Intel server and an AMD desktop attached. The Intel server failed and the AMD ran until it was obsolete for my use and I gave it to someone who needed a PC.

By sine wave UPS I was indicating they were the APC Smart-UPS 600. I was also oversimplifying a bit (saving some typing). All were APC Smart-UPS models. One of the failed Intel servers was on a Smart-UPS 900 and one was a Smart-UPS 1400 with both an Intel server and an AMD desktop attached. The Intel server failed and the AMD ran until it was obsolete for my use and I gave it to someone who needed a PC.

That is very strange. However you should have asked APC for some compensation... There were no insurance on those UPSes?

@Zoltan: I'd be very interested in an investigation whether Haswell scales better with HT than previous chips. The reason I suspect this: it's got more execution units! They're not terribly relevant to FP crunching, but in mixed workloads they should definitely show. And BOINC is the best real world usage case for mixed workloads.
I know this is not easy to measure, but so far I haven't seen any meaningful data besides the usual benchmarks. I also suspect Haswell will show quite some teeth under heavy server load.. but still no benchies.

@Haswell in general: I think people are looking at this chip in the wrong way, or were simply expecting too much. I think Haswell is great for BOINC, even if you can't use AVX2 yet. Great in the way "a significantly better choice than Ivy, for the same price".

Skgiven has a nice idea of getting a cheap i3 or i5 and make a rig for GPU crunching only. But I know myself then I will do more with the system and then it won´t work. Not that I am depended on 1 system. I have taken a lot of old stuff home from work...Won´t do that anymore, unless there is a T7400 :)

I went for an even cheaper G2020 (~£50), rather than an i3 for ~£120, an MSI board with 3 slots (2 immediately useful, but the 3rd has potential if I use a riser) and a reasonable 80+ PSU (30decibels at400W).
My i7-3770K @4.2GHz is in an identical 2/3 PCIE slot sub-€100 motherboard with two GPU’s (was 3 for a while with a riser).
While the Gigabyte GA-Z87X-OC is an excellent motherboard and something I might consider if I wanted 3 or 4 top GPU’s (GTX780s) for a new build, my ambitions are rather more reserved, and I like the challenge of doing it on the cheap.
Going by the specs, even the ‘GA-X58-OC Force’ motherboard won’t allow you to have 4 GPU running at PCIE3X16. Anyway, it's an extreme end board and requires water cooling - it's for rich plumbers :)

The two GTX660 have cost me €420, so €580 for the rest is not possible in the Netherlands.

You can buy the following from Amazon.de:

Two GTX 660’s (€182each) €364
Corsair TX650 €75
Motherboard ~€90
8GB DDR3 €65
CPU ~€60
128GB SSD €78
External USB2 DVDRW €30
Antec Three Hundred Two €66
- Total €828

Some are more than 10 years old and work still great, even all the fans. From brandless rigs, I had to replace fans within a year. Could absolutely be coincidence though.

Some are more than 10 years old and work still great, even all the fans. From brandless rigs, I had to replace fans within a year. Could absolutely be coincidence though.

Totally depends on the fans you buy. For instance the Antec case I mentioned comes with 2 tri-speed fans. They generally last a long time. If you add more fans you can go cheap cheap and replace them more often or you can get quality fans and probably never replace them. BTW I've had to replace plenty of fans on Dell and other brand name systems too.

What I have read and heard from other people the build in graphics from Sandy Bridge aren´t great either.
What I see is that a lot of computers (of the shelf) are build smaller and smaller. BOINC started as a project to use PC´s idle time on a CPU only. But now we have GPU´s to crunch really fast. And a lot of crunchers build
crunch-dedicated rigs.
Personally I think that build in features of two devices into one will always have a loss somewhere. The link that skgiven posted shows that clearly.
I thinks these APU´s are great for office use and browsing/mailing.
____________
Greetings from TJ

Something like this?

Going back a bit to the APU discussion, the benefit of the A10-6800K over the A10-6700 is limited to the CPU’s top performance and supposedly 2133MHz RAM vs 1866MHz for the lesser model (which might help at some GPU projects). It’s not a processor I would recommend for several reasons. The 100W TDP is poor vs the 65W TDP of the A10-6700, which has the same GPU with the same GPU clocks and shader count.

While both AMD and Intel CPU’s with integrated GPU’s make for good desktop/office systems they are not really much use for crunching, relative to discrete GPUs. BTW. I found that AMD iGPU processors ran surprisingly cool and quiet with the box set heatsink – even when crunching.

By the end of the year Kaveri 3rd Generation A series APUs should change things a bit, maybe up to a 30% improvement in terms of CPU performance/Watt. The APUs will be 28nm Graphics Core Next and the CPUs are supposed to bring 15 to 20% improvement per cycle (IPC). While this is relatively better than Intel’s i7-3000 to i7-4000 (5 or 10%) move AMD have to catch up on several 22nm Intel revisions. I thought this might bring in 35 to 45W APU desktop processors, but the speculation is still 65W, which is actually a good thing. For GPU crunching and especially mixed CPU/GPU, hUMA will be very interesting. It should at least remove some bottlenecks and better facilitate the devs, but I suspect it might find itself a special place with some projects. It’s really the first glimpse of the next step forward in computing, and it’s far too early to say if it will only increase GPU performance by ~40% or more than double it…

From Tom's Hardware:

"Here's the bombshell we figured out from today's testing: for overclocking, a quad-core Haswell-based processor at 22 nm requires more cooling than a six-core Sandy Bridge-E CPU at 32 nm, even though its lower power consumption produces less heat. The back-up for this is that two of the coolers from our Sandy Bridge-E cooling round-up re-appeared today with far worse apparent performance. Most overclockers blame Intel’s newer integrated heat spreader and transfer material for this discrepancy. These days, cheap paste replaces solder for connecting the CPU die to the spreader.

Cross-compatibility between LGA 1150, 1155, and 1156 sinks theoretically makes it possible for us to test dozens of heat sinks and fans. Unfortunately, most solutions are too small to cope with the heat issues an overclocked Haswell-based CPU suffers."

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-heat-sink-haswell,3554-25.html

It also makes one wonder if all this heat buildup is only due to the poor transfer material or if Intel is being less than honest about the power draw of Haswell. Low power ratings sell processors...

It also makes one wonder if all this heat buildup is only due to the poor transfer material or if Intel is being less than honest about the power draw of Haswell. Low power ratings sell processors...

Heat, I had a lot of problems with heat, the liquid cooler is back in the alienware and does okay when the CPU is doing nothing, 38-40°C, When running Rosetta then fast to 68-72°C.

If I could choose I would buy a CPU that stays cool when active, even if it would use 200Watt, then one with a low TDP and a lot of heat.
Anyway next project is to build the AMD driven rig with the two GTX660's in a big case with a lot of fans. I have checked a lot of them and the CM storm trooper will be it. Plenty of room, lots of fans, dust filters and both panels can be removed for easy building.
____________
Greetings from TJ

Heat, I had a lot of problems with heat, the liquid cooler is back in the alienware and does okay when the CPU is doing nothing, 38-40°C, When running Rosetta then fast to 68-72°C.

If I could choose I would buy a CPU that stays cool when active, even if it would use 200Watt, then one with a low TDP and a lot of heat.
Anyway next project is to build the AMD driven rig with the two GTX660's in a big case with a lot of fans. I have checked a lot of them and the CM storm trooper will be it. Plenty of room, lots of fans, dust filters and both panels can be removed for easy building.

Heat, I had a lot of problems with heat, the liquid cooler is back in the alienware and does okay when the CPU is doing nothing, 38-40°C, When running Rosetta then fast to 68-72°C.

If I could choose I would buy a CPU that stays cool when active, even if it would use 200Watt, then one with a low TDP and a lot of heat.
Anyway next project is to build the AMD driven rig with the two GTX660's in a big case with a lot of fans. I have checked a lot of them and the CM storm trooper will be it. Plenty of room, lots of fans, dust filters and both panels can be removed for easy building.

That doesn't make sense; if it used 200 watts, where would all the watts go? It can't disappear. It gets converted into heat.

SK wrote:

My understanding is that Haswell Iris Pro is actually 2 chips, a separate CPU and a GPU on the one 1150 processor board
http://media.pcgamer.com/files/2013/06/Haswell-Iris-Pro.jpg

No, the extra chip is the 128 MB eDRAM working as a L4$ in the top models