Six cores on their way

gizmo71 · May 13, 2011, 10:32:37

Been playing around with a i3-based box (mostly built out of bits I had lying around spare) with a view to replacing my aging Core 2 E5300-based server with something that can run several virtual machines. It's not been going very well though; works okay if it just sits there but as soon as I started any Hyper-V machines inside it it starts to get confused and eventually ends up with corrupted data.

So I've taken the plunge back into the AMD world and ordered an Athlon X6 1055T; hopefully being a bit more pro-oriented it'll cope better with the large memory loading I'm going to be asking it to take (a Small Business Server 12GB VM, a Windows 7 download sandbox VM and a Server 2008 file server VM, plus the host itself of course) than the i3 box.

Not really sure how far to get my hopes up - it's been about 6 years since I ran anything not made by Intel!

Gary · May 13, 2011, 10:38:01

I have a i7 2600s in one of my iMacs and thats four cores with hyper threading and turbo boost taking it from 2.8 to 3.4Ghz when not using all four cores, think something like that anyway, and still so many programs don't use all four cores let, alone 6.

pctech · May 13, 2011, 11:55:58

Not quite so cheap (and I'll admit don't know that much about AMD's offerings) but personally for servers I'd always go for a Xeon.

gizmo71 · May 13, 2011, 12:29:58

Quote from: Gary on May 13, 2011, 10:38:01
so many programs don't use all four cores let, alone 6.

Which is why none of my "normal" machines have more than two cores with hyperthreading, but since I'm going to be running at least three virtual machines (one of which will eventually be running Exchange 2010) plus the host operating system I think it's worth it.

Quote from: pctech on May 13, 2011, 11:55:58
Not quite so cheap (and I'll admit don't know that much about AMD's offerings) but personally for servers I'd always go for a Xeon.

Massively more expensive though. I'm paying under £200 for mobo and CPU - the cheapest 6-core Xeon I could see was over £750! (Most of the cost is for the extra L1/L2/L3 cache, plus the 'plumbing' for running in a multi-processor board.)

Given that my old (SBS 2008, with Exchange 2007) has run happily if a little slowly on an E5300 with just 4GB for the past few years I don't want to go nuts - I'll reserve that for my next iRacing rig - Xeon E3-1290 anyone?

pctech · May 13, 2011, 12:43:33

I will say though that my personal experience of VMs running on core 2s isn't that great.

Set up a test system at work using Virtual PC with Windows Server 2003 on one VM and Vista on the other running on top of Windows Server 2003 with 2 GB of RAM and it was sluggish to say the least. (trying to recreate the environment at a training centre we'd been to for Vista training so colleagues could practice but even there it ran quite slow)

They wanted to put Vista and XP in a VM environment on our normal test systems and I successfully argued that it was not representative of a customer's system at home and the sluggishness would slow down problem investigation so we ended up with dual boot config instead.

gizmo71 · May 13, 2011, 13:29:25

Quote from: pctech on May 13, 2011, 12:43:33
I will say though that my personal experience of VMs running on core 2s isn't that great.

Mine's non-existent, as my server (E5200 - not an E5300 as stated above) just missed out on the hardware virtualisation supported needed for Hyper-V (the E5300 got it). Plus the mobo never supported more than 4GB, and the requirements for SBS 2011 have gone up to 8GB absolute minimum, so I have to move hardware whatever I do, and it makes sense to virtualise it and make disaster recovery a much simpler process than a bare metal restore is (I have successfully restored SBS 2008 to different hardware, but it's not a pretty process!).

SBS's biggest problem is that by default it throws everything onto the same host with Exchange - and of course Exchange loves to eat memory. Going virtual will give me much better control over that by allowing me to move SharePoint, file server, WSUS and so on off onto boxes not shared with Exchange without having to have multiple physical servers.

It's very much a voyage of discovery for me, one that I was enjoying until the i3's corruption problems stalled it.

Technical Ben · May 13, 2011, 16:07:58

Quote from: Gary on May 13, 2011, 10:38:01
I have a i7 2600s in one of my iMacs and thats four cores with hyper threading and turbo boost taking it from 2.8 to 3.4Ghz when not using all four cores, think something like that anyway, and still so many programs don't use all four cores let, alone 6.

I got an AMD Phenny II x3 2.8GHZ and run it similarly. It has "cool and quiet" instead of turbo boost. So instead of overclocking when using a single core, it underclocks when not using all 2.8GHZ (if that makes any sense

). This saves power, as you only get full speed when it's needed. I wonder if I can set it up to do what the i7 does? I see the point. With single thread tasks, you want higher clocks, with multi thread tasks, you want more cores, but this increases heat, so you underclock it. With my AMD chip, I find most multithread tasks need the extra speed too, like raytracting or video encoding. So no point in underclocking the cores. I get good temps, so no worry.

Currently, I have it unlocked at 4 cores, and 3.2ghz. It runs at .8ghz when web browsing, so theoretically, I should not get too much extra power consumption (or cost!) over the long run.
I can clock individual cores, but only manually currently, not automatically. I think I can install AMD "overdrive" software, and do the same. Will check it out!

[edit. I can! Using profiles. As long as the driver detects the program has loaded, I can overclock 1 core, and underclock the others. Brilliant!]

Hopefully the AMD x6 chips are good at virtual machines. I've not used an I7 so I cannot compare. Toms Hardware probably has some really good charts to compare on! (perhaps you can ask them?) For budget, AMD are great, but theoretically Intel overclock more. Intel have a higher performance (12 threads with HT enabled) and even the i5 can outperform an AMD x6. So check it first. I have no idea what the price points are though, so AMD might still be a bargain, or might not.

gizmo71 · May 13, 2011, 17:13:11

Quote from: Technical Ben on May 13, 2011, 16:07:58
I got an AMD Phenny II x3 2.8GHZ and run it similarly. It has "cool and quiet" instead of turbo boost. So instead of overclocking when using a single core, it underclocks when not using all 2.8GHZ (if that makes any sense ). This saves power, as you only get full speed when it's needed.

The Intel chips all do that too. My i3 box only draws 40W total from the wall when quiesced; that's about the same as my Core 2 box does but with 500MHz more oomph and hyperthreading. Of course they both run very high efficiency power supplies and laptop hard drives - I've always compromised my servers' performance to keep power consumption down as obviously electricity isn't cheap these days.

I've also got some stuff for my GigaByte mobos that reduces the chipset speeds when the load is light, which saves a couple of watts more.

Technical Ben · May 13, 2011, 18:56:34

Cool.
I cannot get the individual profiles working for the Overdive software. Mainly because it's all greek. Absolutely no explanation other than "pressing this button does [buzzword]". Even then, it sometimes works, sometimes defaults back and sometimes crashes. :/
Bit of a pity really, as it looks like a really detailed and powerful tool.

esh · May 14, 2011, 12:55:25

I have an old 2GHz dual-core running as a combined dhcp/router/file-server/web-server here with VMWare virtual machines with a mere 2GB of RAM and it's perfectly fine, though admittedly it's Linux.

The other linux box is a dual-socket quad core (8 logical CPUs) and that has been great for some things. I'll have to try it on Windows sometime. I have also been Intel for a long time. My last AMD was the dual core in the server I mentioned up there, one of the X2 EE offerings.

pctech · May 14, 2011, 14:03:53

Linux does definitely perform better than Windows on a Pentium D with 2 GB (my current system)

gizmo71 · May 14, 2011, 14:15:16

My last dual CPU was an Athlon 1900+ MP. Any old iron, any old iron, any any any old iron.

Still got it up in the loft though I doubt it'd run with enough memory to do Windows 7. Outside of full on rack servers, the multi-core CPUs are soooo much more power efficient it's amazing really to see how much more oomph a simple dual core Pentium now has compared to that box, and using less electricity and way, way quieter (IIRC the CPU fans on that thing would probably have been enough to lift a small helicoper

).

X6 arrived first thing this morning, but the mobo didn't arrive until this afternoon as they'd put it on the wrong truck.

Good effort to actually deliver it on a Saturday in those circumstances I guess!

Just bolted all the bits in - had completely slipped under my radar that I'd been a discrete graphics card, but in amongst my vast hoard of old carp there was an Orchid Kelvin 64 PCI so that'll do just fine. Just starting a Windows Server install - normally takes under an hour to get it up and running.

Looks like it's using about 55W at idle which is pretty darned good considering it's got three times the horsepower of the i3!

gizmo71 · May 14, 2011, 21:55:40

Well, it's all built and installed; Server 2008 R2 as host, one 2008R2 VM and one Windows 7. That was enough to make the i3 box unstable, so if it survives a week like that without any errors I'll be happy.

Looks like it's chewing up about 70W at the wall which really isn't bad considering just how much grunt it's got. Might need to find a quieter CPU fan for it though. $:-\$

Only worrying thing so far is that there appears to be a problem with one of my SATA drive bays. Luckily I have a load spare so that one's going in the bin rather than worrying about what might be wrong with it.

esh · May 15, 2011, 00:10:21

I'm using some enormous 160mm tall silverstone finned heatsinks on my workstation, with 120mm Noctua fans attached (they are really very quiet, £10 a shot, but worth it).

Technical Ben · May 15, 2011, 00:21:57

LOL. Your using one of these on an X6?

As for the cooler. I just got an old model Zalman. Big round thing it is. Massive thing, but cool and quiet. Not sure what their new square coolers perform like.

gizmo71 · May 15, 2011, 10:53:29

Quote from: Technical Ben on May 15, 2011, 00:21:57
LOL. Your using one of these on an X6?

Yep.

I do virtually everything with the box remotely (it will eventually get moved under the stairs where the current server lives), only need a card at all to do the initial install and any future troubleshooting. It has actually got an RS232 port on the back so in theory it could run fully headless, but the last time I tried to measure the power consumption of that card I failed - it was less than one watt!

Quote from: Technical Ben on May 15, 2011, 00:21:57
As for the cooler. I just got an old model Zalman. Big round thing it is. Massive thing, but cool and quiet. Not sure what their new square coolers perform like.

My games box has one of these big Noctua puppies. The stock Intel coolers are pretty quiet - the AMD ones seem a bit old fashioned by comparison.

esh · May 15, 2011, 11:50:03

Looks very similar to what I have gizmo. Noctua didn't make that all in one solution back in mid-2008 when I built it up, so I used the Silverstone heatsinks combined with Noctua fans instead. It's a great design either way, cool and very quiet.

Technical Ben · May 15, 2011, 13:52:08

I'd also agree the difference between my AMD1800+ cooler (10 years old?) and the X3 coolers are probably size only. Any design changes are less than minimal to say the least.

It did have a digital speed controller though. The Zalman does not.

The newer Zalmans might do.

gizmo71 · May 17, 2011, 20:17:18

I'm gobsmacked. This thing is mega (or will be if it survives a week of soak testing) - now that all the Windows updates have stopped gushing into the new installs it's showing 44 watts at the wall at idle.

Technical Ben · May 17, 2011, 23:05:19

I'd hate to know what my 550 watt psu pulls

esh · May 18, 2011, 13:55:00

Intel had a prototype 80-core at one time. Anyone know what happened to that? Maybe it was a research dead end.

gizmo71 · May 18, 2011, 14:26:35

Quote from: esh on May 18, 2011, 13:55:00
Intel had a prototype 80-core at one time. Anyone know what happened to that? Maybe it was a research dead end.

Ah, the old Polaris.

These days we call them graphics cards.

For example, the GTX 590 has 1024 cores.

pctech · May 18, 2011, 18:15:59

Am really surprised that Polaris was never actually released as a commercial product by Intel.

I'll bet faceook and google would have bought them by the lorry load.

Rik · May 18, 2011, 18:16:51

Wouldn't they have been delivered by rocket?

pctech · May 18, 2011, 18:17:28

Glenn · May 18, 2011, 18:32:15

Quote from: Rik on May 18, 2011, 18:16:51
Wouldn't they have been delivered by rocket?

Maybe, but it's a poor service, they all exploded.

Rik · May 18, 2011, 18:33:44

A bit like me after baked beans.

Glenn · May 18, 2011, 18:35:12

or a

if it delivers in the correct direction.

Rik · May 18, 2011, 18:35:46

I have a steady aim...

psp83 · May 18, 2011, 23:24:57

For my main box I run a i7 & 8gb RAM (soon to be 12gb) and it runs several VM's fine with no slow down or problems.

I was thinking about getting another box running AMD, let me know how you get on with it gizmo71.

Technical Ben · May 21, 2011, 12:44:23

I got AMD overdrive working the way I wanted. Had a sudden realisation of what I was doing wrong, so reinstalled it.
I have to manually set the options, but now, when I open up the programs, it clocks to that program.
So I have set my single core software (old programs and stuff) to overclock one core, and underclock the others.
For the programs that use all cores, I have all cores running at normal speed. This way, I'm not pushing the cores when they are not even being used. Then Cool n Quiet turns the CPU down to 800mhz when the pc is not in use. Sleep mode kicks in when I leave the pc all together.

The helpful thing is, the program allows me to set "processor affinity". With windows 7 it's a bit hit and miss, so it's good to be able to save the settings for permanent.

[edit]
Nope. Still hitting a road block.
I cannot have both a standard overclock, and a program setting. So if I exit the program, my entire system goes back to default settings. Hmmm...
Seems the program works fine on install. On a system reboot, all the settings go wierd. Lost temp settings, lost overclock settings. It is all there, I just cannot change it now. Stupid software!

(Double edit)
Seems it needs admin privileges, but did not ask for it! So, it was not saving the details (Win 7 AUC stopping it). Now it's back to keeping the settings!

gizmo71 · May 21, 2011, 17:29:24

I have UAC turned off by group policy.

Technical Ben · May 21, 2011, 17:37:48

The software is still causing me a headache. Getting BSOD now it's installed. might remove it again.

FritzBox · May 21, 2011, 20:22:18

Did read somewhere, think it was PC Pro, that ten cores were on it's way

gizmo71 · May 22, 2011, 09:46:51

Quote from: FritzBox on May 21, 2011, 20:22:18
Did read somewhere, think it was PC Pro, that ten cores were on it's way

They're already here; Xeon E7s have 10, and AMD do some Opterons with 12.

Technical Ben · May 22, 2011, 10:08:15

You can't possible need more than 12 cores.

Rik · May 22, 2011, 10:16:58

They said that about 1MB of memory once.

Technical Ben · May 22, 2011, 12:37:38

You mean 128k was not enough?!

Rik · May 22, 2011, 15:17:18

I can remember when 32k was a luxury.

gizmo71 · May 22, 2011, 15:46:10

Quote from: Rik on May 22, 2011, 10:16:58
They said that about 1MB of memory once.

640K. And it was Bill Gates... but he never actually said it. What he did say about it later was nearly as interesting - and says a lot about how poor the computing industry is at predicting its own future:

Quote from: Bill Gates, 1989I have to say that in 1981, making those decisions, I felt like I was providing enough freedom for 10 years. That is, a move from 64k to 640k felt like something that would last a great deal of time. Well, it didn't - it took about only 6 years before people started to see that as a real problem.

gizmo71 · May 23, 2011, 20:19:46

Well, after a week of soak testing I've started to migrate real data onto the new server. Been through the Small Business Server migration guide and I'm thinking maybe I'll give that a proper go next weekend, after which I can decommission the old server (which will then get rebuilt as a replacement for my mum's ancient and unreliable Pentium 4 box).

It seems to have settled down to around 45W at idle, which I'm just blown away by. One thing I've noticed is that the Intel chips can only throttle clock speed at the whole chip level (caveat shutting whole cores down to do the turbo trick), whereas the AMDs can throttle per core which must make them more efficient under low loads.

Technical Ben · May 23, 2011, 23:36:44

Yep. Percore is great. I've been running a little sim game from an independent developer. It is only coded for 1 core. So I run 3 at 2ghz, and 1 at 3.4GHz! Runs at 45c.

Else I can oc all or half the cores if it's a multi core program.

I have no idea if you could set it for 1 core on each program. IE, for each VM clock the CPU at default. Actually, that idea is rubbish if your VMs can use multithreads anyhow.

gizmo71 · Jun 16, 2011, 12:22:24

Well it's been in live use for over three weeks now and hasn't given me any trouble at all.

If anything, the huge jump in CPU power over my old server has shown up how weak those laptop drivers are - even with two of them striped together for the majority of the virtual machine virtual drives they're very obviously the bottleneck 99% of the time. If only WD made a 750GB VelociRaptor - the largest at 600GB is just a fraction too small to migrate the whole kit and caboodle onto it, and two will push the power consumption up by 6+ watts which in a 24/7 machine isn't worth it when performance isn't critical.