• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Now I want two computers with AMD x2 6000+

TylerZambori

New Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2007
Messages
130 (0.02/day)
Here's what I want to do now:

First I want to do an upgrade on my existing computer, which already has
all the drives it needs and a PSU:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+
Asus M2N-SLI mobo
ati x950pro graphics card
G.skill ram 4 gb

That'll cost me $629 and that's all that computer needs to be
usable again.

Then I want to build another one:

$129 Asus M2N-SLI Deluxe http://tinyurl.com/2zzhqr
$360 pny 8800 gts 640mb
$170 3.0 ghz amd athlon x2
$160 4 gb ram
$200 seagate barracuda 500gb drives, (two of them) http://tinyurl.com/2yngmq

$80.00 case $ 80
$38.00 DVD $ 38
$38.00 DVD $ 38
$60.00 Thermaltake CL-P0401 110mm Full-Range Fan CPU Cooler
$20.00 KINGWIN KF-91-1T-W SATA Mobile Rack Tray (2 of these)
$67.50 Scythe SFF21F S-FLEX 120mm Case Fan (5 of these) http://tinyurl.com/2ghmwy


$1,322.50

So for $1951.50 I'll have two computers which I will network together,
and use the second computer when I really want to do some rendering
for 3D work. So I'll have four cores, basically, which I'd basically only
really need for real rendering work anyway. My 3D program allows
unlimited render nodes. And I won't have to overclock, which I don't
want to do. I'm not into gaming.

How about that?

PS: I already have a nice 650 watt PSU and 120 gb HD just for the OS,
for the new computer.
 

TylerZambori

New Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2007
Messages
130 (0.02/day)
And I was thinking: even though the AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+
is about the same as the Intel e6600, which is only 2.4ghz,
I think this system will still be faster than the 2.4ghz dual xeon system
I built 4 years ago! Because other things have improved since
then.
 

pt

not a suicide-bomber
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,956 (1.36/day)
Location
Portugal
Processor AMD Turion 64 X2 Mobile TL-60 (Trinidad)
Motherboard ASUS F3Ka (ATI RS690M)
Cooling stock
Memory Nanya 2x1GB ddr2 667@5-5-5-15-2T
Video Card(s) ATI Mobility Radeon HD2600 512MB DDR2@ 580mhz/486mhz
Storage 160GB on laptop+250GB external
Display(s) ASUS 15.4
Case Asus Laptop F3Ka chassis
Audio Device(s) on-board
Power Supply 1:30minutes battery
Software "genui xp", 'cause i hated vista
are you going to overclock?
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2007
Messages
2,276 (0.36/day)
Location
Cairns QLD, Aussie
System Name GaMEr / HTPC
Processor FX8320 4.5ghz so far NB- 2815mhz / X2 255 @ 3.2ghz (Temp till BD)
Motherboard 990FX-UD5 / GA-MA785GPMT-US2H
Cooling XSPC - 240rad 480rad 5 x 120mm out, 6 x 80mm in / H220-edge 1/2" & 2 x 120mm Magma
Memory 4gb PI 6,8,6,18 1T 1706mhz / 4gb Crucial D9's 1400 @ 6,6,6,18,1T
Video Card(s) 3gb HD7950 / Onboard
Storage 2 x 120gb Sandisk ultra plus 2tb WD / 60gb vertex 2 + 2 x 2tb WD Greens
Display(s) 3x24in Dell Ultra (portrait) / NEC 32" FullHD LCD
Case LL PC71A Full tower / Antec fusion black with Imon remote Modded for WC
Audio Device(s) OB / Auzentech cinema 7.1
Power Supply TT 700w TR2 / TT 600w Litepower modded with Noctua S12 fan.
Software 7 Ult / 7 premium x64
why don't you just get a Q6600 man, then you will really have 4 cores on the one pc and it will only cost you about 150 bucks more.... It has heaps more horsepower than the 6000 especially if you are doing cad/rendering etc..

They have just dropped in price to around 300 in the states...
 

TylerZambori

New Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2007
Messages
130 (0.02/day)
why don't you just get a Q6600 man, then you will really have 4 cores on the one pc and it will only cost you about 150 bucks more.... It has heaps more horsepower than the 6000 especially if you are doing cad/rendering etc..

They have just dropped in price to around 300 in the states...

well, $221 more actually.

I won't overclock.

This thread was interesting:

http://tinyurl.com/ysd4ln

So the AMD x2 6000+ was significantly faster than the e6600 at rendering
in Cinema 4D. Also, it had 4:08 minutes as compared to the q6600's 2:34
minutes.

Hm....so if the q6600 actually did it in 2 minutes, then I guess I could be
impressed.

So what if I could actually halve the time with two AMD x2 6000+'s?
The price for both is roughly the same right now. Two of these versus
one q6600.
 

Wile E

Power User
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
24,318 (3.81/day)
System Name The ClusterF**k
Processor 980X @ 4Ghz
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD5 BIOS F12
Cooling MCR-320, DDC-1 pump w/Bitspower res top (1/2" fittings), Koolance CPU-360
Memory 3x2GB Mushkin Redlines 1600Mhz 6-8-6-24 1T
Video Card(s) Evga GTX 580
Storage Corsair Neutron GTX 240GB, 2xSeagate 320GB RAID0; 2xSeagate 3TB; 2xSamsung 2TB; Samsung 1.5TB
Display(s) HP LP2475w 24" 1920x1200 IPS
Case Technofront Bench Station
Audio Device(s) Auzentech X-Fi Forte into Onkyo SR606 and Polk TSi200's + RM6750
Power Supply ENERMAX Galaxy EVO EGX1250EWT 1250W
Software Win7 Ultimate N x64, OSX 10.8.4
well, $221 more actually.

I won't overclock.

This thread was interesting:

http://tinyurl.com/ysd4ln

So the AMD x2 6000+ was significantly faster than the e6600 at rendering
in Cinema 4D. Also, it had 4:08 minutes as compared to the q6600's 2:34
minutes.

Hm....so if the q6600 actually did it in 2 minutes, then I guess I could be
impressed.

So what if I could actually halve the time with two AMD x2 6000+'s?
The price for both is roughly the same right now. Two of these versus
one q6600.
But how would you use 2 6000+'s to work on one task? I say Intel is the way to go here.
 

Wile E

Power User
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
24,318 (3.81/day)
System Name The ClusterF**k
Processor 980X @ 4Ghz
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD5 BIOS F12
Cooling MCR-320, DDC-1 pump w/Bitspower res top (1/2" fittings), Koolance CPU-360
Memory 3x2GB Mushkin Redlines 1600Mhz 6-8-6-24 1T
Video Card(s) Evga GTX 580
Storage Corsair Neutron GTX 240GB, 2xSeagate 320GB RAID0; 2xSeagate 3TB; 2xSamsung 2TB; Samsung 1.5TB
Display(s) HP LP2475w 24" 1920x1200 IPS
Case Technofront Bench Station
Audio Device(s) Auzentech X-Fi Forte into Onkyo SR606 and Polk TSi200's + RM6750
Power Supply ENERMAX Galaxy EVO EGX1250EWT 1250W
Software Win7 Ultimate N x64, OSX 10.8.4
Link doesn't work for me. Anyway, having 4 cores in one socket will be much more efficient that 4 cores in 2 computers. I say Q6600, FTW.
 

TylerZambori

New Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2007
Messages
130 (0.02/day)
Oh this is very interesting:

http://tinyurl.com/2muhqp

a thread titled: What is increase in speed with distributed rendering?

And I quote:

06-22-2007, 06:16 PM
bgolden


What is increase in speed with distributed rendering?
I'm sure this is probably difficult to answer with so many variables with processing speed, network speed, etc., but is there a basic equation such as '4 additional nodes will render an animation in 1/4 of the time?'

We're setting up a render farm and inquiring minds want to know. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance for any responses . . .



06-22-2007, 06:34 PM
Lightwolf

Basically, yes. As long as you distribute a frame sequence, you will get a fairly linear speed increase. However, depending on your set-up, never faster than the time it takes for your slowest machine to render a single frame.

Cheers,
Mike

very interesting! So two computers with an AMD X2 6000+ should do better than
a q6600, which we all know does not get a linear speed increase.

I was going to do this inexpensive upgrade first anyway, then build a newer one.
Might as well take advantage of the parts that still work on the dead computer.
 

TylerZambori

New Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2007
Messages
130 (0.02/day)

Wile E

Power User
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
24,318 (3.81/day)
System Name The ClusterF**k
Processor 980X @ 4Ghz
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD5 BIOS F12
Cooling MCR-320, DDC-1 pump w/Bitspower res top (1/2" fittings), Koolance CPU-360
Memory 3x2GB Mushkin Redlines 1600Mhz 6-8-6-24 1T
Video Card(s) Evga GTX 580
Storage Corsair Neutron GTX 240GB, 2xSeagate 320GB RAID0; 2xSeagate 3TB; 2xSamsung 2TB; Samsung 1.5TB
Display(s) HP LP2475w 24" 1920x1200 IPS
Case Technofront Bench Station
Audio Device(s) Auzentech X-Fi Forte into Onkyo SR606 and Polk TSi200's + RM6750
Power Supply ENERMAX Galaxy EVO EGX1250EWT 1250W
Software Win7 Ultimate N x64, OSX 10.8.4
I don't see how it can be a linear increase going over a network. There are all kinds of variables and overheads in doing that. The network itself requires an overhead. Maybe if you had 5 machines, it might be worthwhile, but with 2 I highly doubt they will out perform a single quad, who's only overhead is the system bus.

I see your point on wanting to resurrect the dead system, but then again, you could always just sell the working parts, and try to get a Q67*0 instead, which will leave behind any questions of the AMDs outperforming it. It's not even a contest at that point.


EDIT: Note, I'm not saying that the 6000+ is a bad cpu, I just believe the Intel Quad is the better idea for your uses.
 
Last edited:

Wile E

Power User
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
24,318 (3.81/day)
System Name The ClusterF**k
Processor 980X @ 4Ghz
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD5 BIOS F12
Cooling MCR-320, DDC-1 pump w/Bitspower res top (1/2" fittings), Koolance CPU-360
Memory 3x2GB Mushkin Redlines 1600Mhz 6-8-6-24 1T
Video Card(s) Evga GTX 580
Storage Corsair Neutron GTX 240GB, 2xSeagate 320GB RAID0; 2xSeagate 3TB; 2xSamsung 2TB; Samsung 1.5TB
Display(s) HP LP2475w 24" 1920x1200 IPS
Case Technofront Bench Station
Audio Device(s) Auzentech X-Fi Forte into Onkyo SR606 and Polk TSi200's + RM6750
Power Supply ENERMAX Galaxy EVO EGX1250EWT 1250W
Software Win7 Ultimate N x64, OSX 10.8.4
I don't see how it can be a linear increase going over a network. There are all kinds of variables and overheads in doing that. The network itself requires an overhead. Maybe if you had 5 machines, it might be worthwhile, but with 2 I highly doubt they will out perform a single quad, who's only overhead is the system bus.

I see your point on wanting to resurrect the dead system, but then again, you could always just sell the working parts, and try to get a Q67*0 instead, which will leave behind any questions of the AMDs outperforming it. It's not even a contest at that point.
I don't have permission to access the page. Even after I registered and logged in, it still gives me the error.
 

rick22

New Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
628 (0.10/day)
System Name bubba
Processor e something
Motherboard old but good mobo
Cooling my farts
Memory can't find it
Video Card(s) EVGA 250 took a shit..back to my 4850..fk off ati fanboys
Storage i think i have one
Display(s) not sure but it sucks
Case lol my mouth
Audio Device(s) me
Power Supply ass farts
Software that sucks to
Benchmark Scores i'm so fat i sat on the bench and smashed assssit
pny is the low end on the 8800 640...for a few more bucks you could an evga ....
 

TylerZambori

New Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2007
Messages
130 (0.02/day)
I don't see how it can be a linear increase going over a network. There are all kinds of variables and overheads in doing that. The network itself requires an overhead. Maybe if you had 5 machines, it might be worthwhile, but with 2 I highly doubt they will out perform a single quad, who's only overhead is the system bus.

I see your point on wanting to resurrect the dead system, but then again, you could always just sell the working parts, and try to get a Q67*0 instead, which will leave behind any questions of the AMDs outperforming it. It's not even a contest at that point.


EDIT: Note, I'm not saying that the 6000+ is a bad cpu, I just believe the Intel Quad is the better idea for your uses.

If you're talking about the Intel Q6700, why do you want me to compare a $170 cpu
with one that costs $559 at the cheapest?
 

Wile E

Power User
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
24,318 (3.81/day)
System Name The ClusterF**k
Processor 980X @ 4Ghz
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD5 BIOS F12
Cooling MCR-320, DDC-1 pump w/Bitspower res top (1/2" fittings), Koolance CPU-360
Memory 3x2GB Mushkin Redlines 1600Mhz 6-8-6-24 1T
Video Card(s) Evga GTX 580
Storage Corsair Neutron GTX 240GB, 2xSeagate 320GB RAID0; 2xSeagate 3TB; 2xSamsung 2TB; Samsung 1.5TB
Display(s) HP LP2475w 24" 1920x1200 IPS
Case Technofront Bench Station
Audio Device(s) Auzentech X-Fi Forte into Onkyo SR606 and Polk TSi200's + RM6750
Power Supply ENERMAX Galaxy EVO EGX1250EWT 1250W
Software Win7 Ultimate N x64, OSX 10.8.4
If you're talking about the Intel Q6700, why do you want me to compare a $170 cpu
with one that costs $559 at the cheapest?
I'm not comparing it to a $170 cpu, I'm comparing it to 2 $170 cpus, as per your proposed builds. So that's $340. Going with the quad also saves you from having to buy the mobo, ram and video card for a second computer. So building 1 high-end quad will outperform, and be, at the very least, the same price, maybe even cheaper.

EDIT: If you play your cards right, you might even be able to squeeze in an 8800GTX instead of the GTS.
 
Last edited:

TylerZambori

New Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2007
Messages
130 (0.02/day)
I'm not comparing it to a $170 cpu, I'm comparing it to 2 $170 cpus, as per your proposed builds. So that's $340. Going with the quad also saves you from having to buy the mobo, ram and video card for a second computer. So building 1 high-end quad will outperform, and be, at the very least, the same price, maybe even cheaper.

EDIT: If you play your cards right, you might even be able to squeeze in an 8800GTX instead of the GTS.

well I guess the question is whether or not what "lightwolf" said was true. You're saying it's not true. You're not giving me any real numbers here, to back up what you're saying.

Looks to me like the 6000+ is really equivalent to the e6750, not the e6600 as everybody says. The 6000+ costs $65 less.

The q6600 got a result of 2:34 as opposed to 4:05 for the 6000+ and e6750. That's about
58% more efficient. I don't think that's so great, for twice the price, and it wants
a more expensive motherboard too.
 

Wile E

Power User
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
24,318 (3.81/day)
System Name The ClusterF**k
Processor 980X @ 4Ghz
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD5 BIOS F12
Cooling MCR-320, DDC-1 pump w/Bitspower res top (1/2" fittings), Koolance CPU-360
Memory 3x2GB Mushkin Redlines 1600Mhz 6-8-6-24 1T
Video Card(s) Evga GTX 580
Storage Corsair Neutron GTX 240GB, 2xSeagate 320GB RAID0; 2xSeagate 3TB; 2xSamsung 2TB; Samsung 1.5TB
Display(s) HP LP2475w 24" 1920x1200 IPS
Case Technofront Bench Station
Audio Device(s) Auzentech X-Fi Forte into Onkyo SR606 and Polk TSi200's + RM6750
Power Supply ENERMAX Galaxy EVO EGX1250EWT 1250W
Software Win7 Ultimate N x64, OSX 10.8.4
Since I can't seem to visit the link, what kind of numbers is he claiming? Did he even provide actual numbers from a real test? I mean, to me, common sense dictates that communicating across one chipset, as per the Intel Quad setup, is far more effiecient than communicating across a chipset, then across a lan, then across another chipset, as per the networked 6000+s setup.

EDIT: And another thing you may not be considering, is that at a certain point during 3D rendering, the hard drive may become a bottle neck. Most high end rendering machines run a high speed RAID array to match.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 20, 2004
Messages
10,487 (1.45/day)
With the current pricecuts you can get a quad for around $300 ($266 per 1000), you'd also save on buying other parts twice. Next to that the quad also helps in other applications while renderfarms are quite limited.
 

Wile E

Power User
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
24,318 (3.81/day)
System Name The ClusterF**k
Processor 980X @ 4Ghz
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD5 BIOS F12
Cooling MCR-320, DDC-1 pump w/Bitspower res top (1/2" fittings), Koolance CPU-360
Memory 3x2GB Mushkin Redlines 1600Mhz 6-8-6-24 1T
Video Card(s) Evga GTX 580
Storage Corsair Neutron GTX 240GB, 2xSeagate 320GB RAID0; 2xSeagate 3TB; 2xSamsung 2TB; Samsung 1.5TB
Display(s) HP LP2475w 24" 1920x1200 IPS
Case Technofront Bench Station
Audio Device(s) Auzentech X-Fi Forte into Onkyo SR606 and Polk TSi200's + RM6750
Power Supply ENERMAX Galaxy EVO EGX1250EWT 1250W
Software Win7 Ultimate N x64, OSX 10.8.4
With the current pricecuts you can get a quad for around $300 ($266 per 1000), you'd also save on buying other parts twice. Next to that the quad also helps in other applications while renderfarms are quite limited.
Do you have any experience with render farms? How well do they scale?
 

TylerZambori

New Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2007
Messages
130 (0.02/day)
Since I can't seem to visit the link, what kind of numbers is he claiming? Did he even provide actual numbers from a real test? I mean, to me, common sense dictates that communicating across one chipset, as per the Intel Quad setup, is far more effiecient than communicating across a chipset, then across a lan, then across another chipset, as per the networked 6000+s setup.

EDIT: And another thing you may not be considering, is that at a certain point during 3D rendering, the hard drive may become a bottle neck. Most high end rendering machines run a high speed RAID array to match.

I already have a raid array.

So you don't have any numbers, so you ask me for some more. I wish we could
have a real discussion about it.
 

TylerZambori

New Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2007
Messages
130 (0.02/day)
With the current pricecuts you can get a quad for around $300 ($266 per 1000), you'd also save on buying other parts twice. Next to that the quad also helps in other applications while renderfarms are quite limited.

well that might be something to consider. Like what applications?
I don't do games.

And the quad price went up.
 
Joined
May 20, 2004
Messages
10,487 (1.45/day)
Do you have any experience with render farms? How well do they scale?

Just did some reading on them, most software doesn't support farms, mostly high end expensive stuff. Couldn't give you numbers about how they scale, I would imagine this is highly dependent on the application. Take Seti for example, basically this is one big renderfarm (doesn't render anything, but it is a way to distribute work) and scales good. However, when there is more network traffic I'd imagine this becoming a bottleneck pretty fast. Imagine video converting for example, which requires fast storage.
I'm not sure how much data is involved when rendering 3D stuff or whatever using various packages. I do believe that with just 2 systems the immense bandwidth a C2Q or even Xeon/Opteron system outperforms the network link by far.


well that might be something to consider. Like what applications?
I don't do games.

And the quad price went up.

Windows itself utilizes multiple cores, your rendering applications do as well. Besides that video converting and such. Besides that every program you run can run on a separate core.
The quad prices didn't go up, they should drop in stores everywhere anytime now, prices got lowered the 22nd of this month. Either way, the C2Q will outperform 2 6000+'s and be cheaper.
 

TylerZambori

New Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2007
Messages
130 (0.02/day)
Just did some reading on them, most software doesn't support farms, mostly high end expensive stuff.

I have a 3D program that does support it.


Couldn't give you numbers about how they scale, I would imagine this is highly dependent on the application. Take Seti for example, basically this is one big renderfarm (doesn't render anything, but it is a way to distribute work) and scales good. However, when there is more network traffic I'd imagine this becoming a bottleneck pretty fast. Imagine video converting for example, which requires fast storage.
I'm not sure how much data is involved when rendering 3D stuff or whatever using various packages. I do believe that with just 2 systems the immense bandwidth a C2Q or even Xeon/Opteron system outperforms the network link by far.

but what do you base that on?




Windows itself utilizes multiple cores, your rendering applications do as well. Besides that video converting and such. Besides that every program you run can run on a separate core.
The quad prices didn't go up, they should drop in stores everywhere anytime now, prices got lowered the 22nd of this month. Either way, the C2Q will outperform 2 6000+'s and be cheaper.

I should get a quad core just to run windows faster????

There was an article on msnbc just today about how most applications
can't even use four cores.

I am not so sure that a quad core would outperform 2 6000+'s.

Would a quad core outperform 2 Intel 6750's? working together in the
manner I described?
 

TylerZambori

New Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2007
Messages
130 (0.02/day)
The quad prices didn't go up, they should drop in stores everywhere anytime now, prices got lowered the 22nd of this month.

yes they did, on newegg, but it seems there are some places that are still around $300.
 
Joined
May 20, 2004
Messages
10,487 (1.45/day)
I have a 3D program that does support it.
I know, I read your posts. It's such programs that do support it, besides that there isn't much.

but what do you base that on?

Gbit network, effectively about 500Mbit bandwidth, relatively high latency is a lot slower than the FSB, the farm is connected via a LAN, the quad core has 2 dual cores connected via the FSB. The lower latency and higher bandwidth should be way more efficient, besides that there is no overhead from the software that links the 2 systems either.

I should get a quad core just to run windows faster????

There was an article on msnbc just today about how most applications
can't even use four cores.

I am not so sure that a quad core would outperform 2 6000+'s.

Would a quad core outperform 2 Intel 6750's? working together in the
manner I described?

Your rendering programs do support multiple cores, and 4 cores in 1 system is faster than 4 cores in a single system. And since the Core 2 architecture outperforms the AMD by far the choice is quite simple. The boost in Windows is a nice extra. I simply would forget about bottlenecking via a LAN.
 
Top