If price isn't a big factor I'd go with another 5950x You can always run less cores/threads on the 5950x, but you can't make more cores/threads that don't exist on a 5900x. If price is a big factor, I'd consider a 3900x. I see them going used on this forum and others occasionally for around $350 and they're still a very capable processor.So it looks like a 5900 might be better than a 5950 for primegrid just from skimming this thread. If I wanted to play around with random projects, better to get another 5950 or a 5900?
No, 5950X is definitely better than 5900X. They have the same (default) PPT, same amount of cache, and same amount of RAM bandwidth. Yet the 5950X has got more execution units. Therefore, the 5950X wins. (In absolute performance, and in performance/Watt at default PPT. But perhaps not in performance/investment, depending on how it is accounted.)So it looks like a 5900 might be better than a 5950 for primegrid just from skimming this thread.
I'm seeing just under 2hrs per task on my i5-3470 running all four cores per task. Only 6mb L3 cache.I have every FMA3 capable CPU I own running on it at this point(as far as I know). Does anybody know if the app is optimized at all for AVX? (not avx2). I'm pretty sure that was a thing back in the day but I don't see mention of it on their website. I'm just wondering if booting up an old Sandy Bridge i5 is worth it.
Edit- this was a silly question from me, please ignore it. Of course it's worth it, even if the PPD is not great. An i5 3470s(Ivy Bridge, I had it mixed up for a second, but still no FMA3) and an i3-4030u (has FMA3 but low cache/clock speed/core count) have been added to the cause.
If price isn't a big factor I'd go with another 5950x You can always run less cores/threads on the 5950x, but you can't make more cores/threads that don't exist on a 5900x. If price is a big factor, I'd consider a 3900x. I see them going used on this forum and others occasionally for around $350 and they're still a very capable processor.
That seems really good(and better than I would have expected), hopefully mine is similar. I have it running all four cores as well. I'm seeing about an hour and 35 minutes per task on an FMA3 capable i5-4570 also running all 4 cores, so maybe it does use AVX, and then the jump from AVX to AVX2/FMA3 is less substantial than the initial performance jump to AVX. I'm probably not going to setup any of the old pre Sandy Bridge hardware I have here to test that, though.I'm seeing just under 2hrs per task on my i5-3470 running all four cores per task. Only 6mb L3 cache.
Not all of us. I have an i7-6700 I bought used from the For Sale/For Trade forum here, a Xeon I bought from @TennesseeTony, an i3 in a tiny HTPC, and a Sandy Bridge laptop I just added to this Challenge. The rest of my hardware I'm renting from Digital Ocean. (They gave me some free credits I'm burning through.)All of you guys have some incredible hardware...must be nice.
Mine is the S model with the slightly lower TDP, so it may also not be using turbo boost as much as your's. It seems to be running at 3.2GHz pretty much at all times currently.Edit: I'm sure your numbers regarding the 3470 are more accurate. I only looked the estimated time for a cached work unit and those estimates are likely skewed by a few double check tasks I may have had.
Now that you say so, I 'grep'ed through stderr.txt of the currently running work and saw a few of those.Just saw a post at PrimeGrid that work units with 512k FFT size have started to appear.
grep 'FFT length' /var/lib/boinc/slots/*/*
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|S||SiDock challenge, February 3–10||Distributed Computing||31|
|Folding@Home bigadv EOL 2nd Anniversary Challenge on 12:00 UTC January 23rd: The race is over.||Distributed Computing||210|
|WW app @ PrimeGrid||Distributed Computing||6|
|T||WCG - 16th Birthday Challenge||Distributed Computing||167|
|Info Thor Challenge 2020 (WCG)||Distributed Computing||130|