1. 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+

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by TylerZambori, Jul 24, 2007.

  1. TylerZambori New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    130 (0.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2
    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.
     
  2. TylerZambori New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    130 (0.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2
    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.
     
  3. pt

    pt not a suicide-bomber

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2006
    Messages:
    8,981 (2.72/day)
    Thanks Received:
    208
    Location:
    Portugal
    are you going to overclock?
     
  4. DrunkenMafia

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    2,277 (0.76/day)
    Thanks Received:
    232
    Location:
    Cairns QLD, Aussie
    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...
     
  5. TylerZambori New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    130 (0.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2
    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.
     
  6. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (7.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    But how would you use 2 6000+'s to work on one task? I say Intel is the way to go here.
     
  7. TylerZambori New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    130 (0.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2
    screamernet!

    http://tinyurl.com/2tv4m2

    a thread titled: screamernet is Multithreaded?
     
  8. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (7.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    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.
     
  9. TylerZambori New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    130 (0.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2
    Oh this is very interesting:

    http://tinyurl.com/2muhqp

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

    And I quote:

    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.
     
  10. TylerZambori New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    130 (0.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2
    What about the known fact that there's a loss in "speed per core"?
    I'm talking about the memory management overhead thing.

    I hope this link works better:

    http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71365&highlight=screamernet

    looks to me like it's not more efficient.
     
  11. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (7.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    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: Jul 24, 2007
  12. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (7.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    I don't have permission to access the page. Even after I registered and logged in, it still gives me the error.
     
  13. rick22

    rick22 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Messages:
    629 (0.20/day)
    Thanks Received:
    34
    pny is the low end on the 8800 640...for a few more bucks you could an evga ....
     
  14. TylerZambori New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    130 (0.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2
    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?
     
  15. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (7.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    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: Jul 24, 2007
  16. TylerZambori New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    130 (0.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2
    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.
     
  17. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (7.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    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: Jul 24, 2007
  18. DanTheBanjoman Señor Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,553 (2.66/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,383
    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.
     
  19. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (7.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    Do you have any experience with render farms? How well do they scale?
     
  20. TylerZambori New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    130 (0.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2
    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.
     
  21. TylerZambori New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    130 (0.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2
    well that might be something to consider. Like what applications?
    I don't do games.

    And the quad price went up.
     
  22. DanTheBanjoman Señor Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,553 (2.66/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,383
    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.


    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.
     
  23. TylerZambori New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    130 (0.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2
    I have a 3D program that does support it.


    but what do you base that on?




    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?
     
  24. TylerZambori New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    130 (0.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2
    yes they did, on newegg, but it seems there are some places that are still around $300.
     
  25. DanTheBanjoman Señor Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,553 (2.66/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,383
    I know, I read your posts. It's such programs that do support it, besides that there isn't much.

    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.

    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.
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page