Slashdot Mirror
Building The Fastest Desktop Possible
hero_or_what writes "Tom's Hardware has built one the fastest PCs on the planet. Its basically an overclocked Athlon running at 1600MHZ!! The beast is described here. I wonder how long this monster would take to do a "make world"."
Heh, I'd just like to see what its Bovine RC5 keyrate is. I mean, an Athlon 1440 can get about 5 Mkeys/sec, so I can only imagine what this beast gets..
Alex Bischoff
---
Alex Bischoff
HTML/CSS coder for hire
Well you are off by a few years there, its 5761 years not 6000 years. And I'm not sure that this exactly follows more's law.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
The rather ironic thing is that by Jewish thought Hashem created the world, with a word, the first programing language.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
The fast computer isn't nesseccarily the problem.
It is something of a lifestyle thing. People seem to think that getting things done faster mean that they'll have more free time. That's not really true. They'll just find more things to do in the same time frame. The 'faster' thing seems to get into our psychology and we start demanding things come sooner and sooner.
I know people like to do or handle multiple things at once (call on the phone while driving while shaving / doing makup) but I wonder how much this affects long term emotional stability.
Do you?
That's the point.
Comparisons like this are very hard to make, of course, because any benchmark that runs on the older machine can run entirely in L1 or L2 cache on the newer one, representing an entirely unrealistic workload for the new machine.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
I never claimed that 2 800's are as fast as one 1.6GHz. I understand the limitations of SMP, but for MY main uses (which I outlined in my original posting) the dual processors are more appreciated.
However, for your run-of-the-mill Win9x gamer, the 1.6GHz is certainly a better option. This isn't my needs..
Maybe 20% less time than it takes most desktops?
Vidi, Vici, Veni
I could do with one too.
/. and k5 whilst waiting for stuff to compile, thus wasting more time than is necessary (as it takes time to notice that my stuff is ready and waiting for me, and time to "just finish the bit I'm reading now"). I also wouldn't be sat there waiting for it to be ready, thinking "if only I had a faster machine, this wouldn't take so long" (I have a P3 450)
I write code, for fun and profit. Compiling code takes time; not huge amounts of it (I currently do all my coding in Java), but enough. (Previously, in C++, our in-house libraries could take an hour or more...)
With my current (work) machine, it can take anything between 2 and 5 minutes between making a change to the source, and getting so see whether or not that fixed the problem. That's time spent compiling the code (a few seconds), starting the server (a minute or so in debug mode), parsing and compiling the page(s) (a minute or so for an average jsp), etc. (I currently do jsp/servlet work, for web sites deployed on Linux boxes running Apache and Resin)
Much past 5:30pm, that's just too long (especially on a Saturday or Sunday...).
With a faster machine, the whole process would take less time (well, duh), and I'd be happier. I'd also be less inclined to read
No, the average user doesn't need that much speed; gamers, coders, 3d modellers/artists, people running number-crunching simulations, etc, do.
Cheers,
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
You REALLY haven't tried Visual Studio DotNet Beta1 yet ? Have you?
NT reboot times are not really dependent on processor speed. They'll always take a while due to disk access times, services which wait on other services to start, intentional wait periods thrown in by developers to keep their bad software from killing itself, etc.
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
Who would continue using a tape drive on the 64 once the 1541 (5-1/4") drive came out? The Commodore PET was the last computer with which anyone should have been forced to live with a tape drive. Heck, once the 1571 was built into the C=128 - now that was loading in speed and style.
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Well... let's see here:
The MSI K7-Master has 4 133MHz DDR slots (or 266 if you want to say that)... and the memory used was Micron PC-2100 CL 2.5 DDR... but of course, that was mentioned on page three and four of the article, which you can't be bothered to read.
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Yeah, enlarging the L2 increases can increase the die size and decrease yield, both of which help lead to increased pricing. Since AMD likes to be able to battle on cost, this probably won't happen soon. What would be interesting is once the SMP chipset comes out if they would offer several options for cache size, trying to hit the entry server market... I would guess not, but who knows.
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Did you happen to read the article? Tom used a Vapochill to keep the system at temperatures way below normal. Heat is definitely not a problem for this system.
wolf31o2 Developer, Gentoo Linux Games Team
L1 and L2 cache are "small" on the current P4 because the P4 core was designed for 0,13 micron tech. Intel usually does its core with the next die-size in mind, which means version 1.0 of every new Intel CPU is running on an inaddequate die-size. The Pentium Pro also had this problem, when it came out people found it barely faster than a 200 Mhz Pentium. As we have seen with the Pentium III E 1 Ghz, the core can do much much better than a Pentium. It just needs to get a an adequate die-size.
When 0,13 micron fabs are ready Intel will put out a new version of the Pentium 4 with optimized core, large caches, higher speeds and it will also be much cheaper to manufacture. The format will also change (different socket and motherboards).
Why the 760 motherboard? And with a 133MHz bus? Why not the new Asus K7M 761, with its DDR 266MHz bus? I have a feeling this project was started in about November.
I don't think the point is that everybody and their grandma should be running a 1.6 GHz machine. Think of motorsports: companies invest a significant amount of money to make their car go around the track as fast as possible. They don't do this because they want to put an 800 horsepower turbo V8 in my Civic. But that racing technology certainly carries over to even practical cars.
I say overclock the hell out of those CPUs. And then give me one that runs faster and is more stable.
-- "Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage." -Naomi Littlebear
I don't want this to be a flame, but it feels like one in my head already.
Why anything then? Why has man ever accomplished anything? Because accomplishment feels good, it helps us to advance. Go west, go farther, climb higher, have knowledge of the distant stars, see the smallest things imaginable........and yes, make your computer go faster. It's a pretty basic drive.
I'm sure you pine for the days of BASIC and your C-64, but the rest of us are trying to accomplish wonderful things and fulfill grand visions. It certainly was simpler and easier back then, and I would be the first to agree that the complexity of life, society, and technology may not be doing us a lot of good, but don't ask why.
"Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
I do not agree with this. I thought exactly the same thing a year and a half ago and built a Dual PII 400mhz system on a Gigabit 6bxd motherboard. When running Linux the system *rocks* compared to similarly priced single processor system at the time.
:-)
However, it sucks as a game machine. Unless you run Win2000, then all windows games are just on a single processor. While 400mhz is fairly fast for my needs on a gaming system, having it dual processor enabled would make flight simulator, Quake or Reader Rabbit's Kindergarten way faster.
For the average user using Win98, spending money on a single processor system is the way to go. For the average geek running Win2000 or Linux, then I agree that a dual setup is ideal. I really like mine, but it is not for everyone.
p.s. I have been spending more time in Windows since I can't find an email client that supports SMTP Auth with mailandnews.com. Otherwise Linux would be almost exclusive.
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
fun to wait eh?
:)
*yoink* no more broadband for you
instead we've decided to replace it with a trusty good ole 300bps modem which should provide you with years if not decades of fun on the net
It allowed Intel to release a high-clock CPU, and 'show off' the P4. Unfortunately, it kinda backfired, because people who run clocks that fast tend to care (and know) about actual performance VS numbers. The end resuult was a slow machine that gave the P4 a bad name.
I think that the P4 architecture actually has some hope --- if/when they ever release a full implementation.
--
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
I expect we'll all be able to buy systems at least this by next year.
http://www.pcfactory.co.kr/1600overclock.htm
These guys took a 1.2G chip to 1.6G and, frankly, the box alone makes the project cool beyond anything you're going to buy. Sure a Peltier (156Watt) isn't exactly standard kit in an OEM PC but 12x133MHz has gotta fizz.
0daymeme.com: Great stuff.
Who needs this for games? Why games?!?
.NET
You're going to need this to run Windows XP + Office XP
that and a T3. Fear
"the Power Box is a real system, running quietly and reliably without making any headaches" - Tom's Hardware
If Tom found that the box was not running stable, he would have lowered the clock speed until he found a speed that worked perfectly. That's what he does, and that's what he's trying to do here.. push the available technology to its limits and see just how fast fast can get.
"the real reason we have a computer on our desktops - to perform productive work for our bosses"
First of all, speak for yourself, not everyone else.. there are plenty of other uses for computers besides producing for an employer. Secondly, how can you claim that a faster computer will not aid in productivity? The world is FULL of applications just waiting for faster computers to become available. Real time video processing, ray tracing, language interpretation, gene analysis.. etc.
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
Not too long ago the Linux community was about getting the most out of hardware. In the days of the Pentium 233, folks were able to make 486/66 systems jump sing and dance with Linux. By the time the Pentium II rolled around, a Pentium 200 was more than enough for an awesome desktop. Even today, most linux distros will work great on a 486/100, but it appears that is changing. The Linux world has slowly been turning into yet-another-windows forced churn, just like Apple in recent years. Code optimization has given way to throwing more hardware at the problem. People that once poked fun at the latest, fastest wiz-bang hardware for being overkill are now chomping at the bit to get that 1.5 GHz P4 or 1.6 GHz Athlon. Some are waiting a few more months for 2 GHz systems before they upgrade. Regardless of the hardware, it's the mentality that's changing. Gone are the days of pride, tight code, and making things work. Today the community just waits for faster hardware to solve their problems.
I think you are losing sight of why most people got into computers... I don't overclock my machine so my boss can benifit from it. I do it cause I want that little bit of extra power for me... My games, my apps. If my boss want better proformance out of my machine at work he can buy me somethign better than the P2 400 I'm running.
MG
Randomly distributing Karma whenever possible.
to perform productive work for our bosses
You need to re-evaluate your priorities. My "Boss" can go fuck himself. Life is short - I exchange 8 hours of my day for money to eat, clothe and shelter myself. Nothing more. My Heart, Soul and Conscience do not belong to my 'Boss'.
There's no such thing as a free lunch dudes.
Bullshit - come to my home; Ill serve you a wonderfull free meal (your all invited). Ive got more than enough for everyone. No strings attached. We can talk about Linux, Life, Art and the Universe. Why so cynical?
Do we really need this kind of processing ability? Like come on, who REALLY needs an Athalon running that fast?
I do. One of my hobbies is 3-D graphics. Now, admittedly, I use one of the lower end software packages, mostly because it does what I want, but even it has taken 5 days to render a 1000 x 1000 scene.
Of course, most of that was due to my (over)use of objects with their material set to diamond... But the multiple (10+) light sources refracted and reflected nicely!
(Note to self, stop imbedding light sources inside diamond objects.)
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
...with the big fuzzy dice hanging down in front of your "chop-top" monitor.
Imagine a 21" monitor that's 6"x20"...a must for a Lowrider PC amigo.
Ruger
Too bad ol' Tommy boy there didn't spend as much time building his server as he spent on his little 1600mhz gameboy! Seems he's been /.'d
How slow can you go...
Just some thoughts:
... maybe earlier
... (Just look at the Windows 2000 service pack (100MB!! even on DSL that gives you enough time to "smell the roses!")
The "dark ages of personal computing:"
IIRC, around mid-80's
8 mhz 8 bit CPU max.
640K RAM
300 bps modem.
10MB Harddisk (if you were priveleged to have a harddrive)
video: CGA (Color Graphics Adaptor) Max. Resolution 640x200@2 colors, or, color resolution of 320x200@4 colors. 3D acceleration? Forget it.
Cost of a system like this? 3-5K
Today's "Average modern PC"
In 2001
1GHz (1000 mhz) CPU (32 bit)
40 GB harddrive (40,000 MB)
256MB RAM
Modem: 1MBIT DSL connection (Who still uses a modem??)
Video: 1600x1200@32,000 colors, 3D acceleration in hardware. Lots of polygons, really fast.
Price? About 2K
Comparison?
We've increased CPU speed 100-fold,
Memory capacity more than 400 fold.
Disk capacity 4000 fold.
And Graphic capabilities are astounding compared to the systems of yesteryear.
When you look at it this way, Just remember: CPU power has been the slowest to increase.
So we get more space, faster and cheaper. With numbers like this, you still have to wait
---
The (Hopefully) Great Slashdot Blackout
I remember when I was in school, programming my Commodore 64, and the joy was in just how primitive it all was. Just typing in those BASIC commands, waiting while that tape drive chugged away - that was half the fun of it.
Nowadays, everything's instantaneous, and people don't realize the fun of waiting. This is a problem with our culture I think. Everything has to be so fast.
It's all fast food, fast cars, fast living, and it's not good for us.
It is no coincidence that in countries where they take things slowly that they have lower rates of heart disease, and lower incidence of stress-related industry.
Sure it's nice to have fast things every now and then, but I worry that people will forget the experience of waiting - the thrill of anticipation as that new game installs, the pause while the computer boots up, etc. It would be great to just go to a nice restaurant with nice slow service, and then to come back and use that Commodore 64 again.
All this speed means that people don't appreciate what they've got - they don't appreciate the joys of living - the call of birdsong, the flowers coming up in the spring - because they're too busy. And busy doing what? Busy doing things too damn quickly. Of course I'm not saying that progress is bad, but just that this is symptomatic of the ever faster pace of life; the way we don't speak to each other, the fact we take minutes for meals, and seconds for just talking. We should take the time out to enjoy life every now and then.
Or you could stick with that old comp and keep watching This Thing over and over.
-I fear the easter bunny.
6 days, plus 1 day of rest. :)
Erlang Developer and podcaster
I wonder how long this monster would take to do a "make world"."
Unless he got ultra-fast hard drives and boatloads of RAM with it, probably not a great deal faster than an 800 MHz box. Goes double for make world because it has sooooo many files to compile.
Besides, if I'm not doing games, I'd rather have two boxes that were running within tolerance than one with a voided warranty on the verge of melting.
--
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Its all very well having a 1600GHz Athlon on your desk, but what use it it if Windows crashes every five minutes because you are overheating ? Is it just me or does anyone else agree that we should really confine ourselves to running our CPUs at the speed they were designed for rather than some arbitary speed we choose ?
There's no such thing as a free lunch dudes.
AMD, however, still stick to the tradition of engineer led design. The Athlon, simply the most powerful processor on the market, should be much more scalable to higher clock speeds than the PIII, and will continiue to outperform the P4 until Intel get their act together and release it with the large cache it was supposed to have.
I forsee AMD greatly increasing its share of the processor market this year.
However, AMD's future still depends on the Sledgehammer. That processor might just give it a long term edge over Intel, for the first time.
--
Clarity does not require the absence of impurities,
/* And you'll never guess what the dog had */
/* in its mouth... */
--Larry Wall in stab.c from perl
Seriously, 1.6GHz sounds VERY impressive, but I'll take more CPU's and better components over a faster CPU any day.
I've had my Dual 466 Celeron for over a year and a half now, and it's absolutely fantastic, and rock-solid stable. Sure, I've upgraded the RAM over that time from 128MB to 512, but through it all I've felt no need to upgrade the processor(s)
The motherboard recently went south on me and I had to replace it. I got looking around and noticed that Asus now has a dual PIII board for ~$230CDN. I ended up just RMAing this board, but I know when I do eventually need to upgrade there's no WAY I'll be going back to a single processor board.
If you're running Linux, FreeBSD or Win2k (or even BeOS) an SMP system makes a world of difference under heavy load. Recompiling? Encoding MP3's? Running VMWare? These operations are sped up very noticeably.
For people looking for a new machine: Save your precious dollars on the fastest processor. Fill up on RAM, get a good video card, and get an SMP board. I'd rather have 2 800MHz chips than a 1.6GHz any day of the week.
AMD: I'd rather get an SMP chipset out of you than Yet Another "Fastest" Processor. I'd much rather own a Duron or Athalon than a crappy Celeron or PIII, but I'd take an SMP Celeron over a single Duron..
I wanna see a Lowrider computer magazine.
I mean, chromed RAID arrays, hydraulic monitor positioning,
overstuffed, ergonomic workstations, boxes covered with shaggy purple fur, golden G4 cubes buffed to a mirror-like finish...
THAT's where it's at.
--K
$make world.c
Hmmm.... immeaurable by the naked eye. Let's see if it runs.
$./world
"Hello, World."
Yippee! Don't need no 1600MHz Athlon to make my world!
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
I wonder how long this monster would take to do a "make world".
Six days?
- Mike
How 'bout some comparisons between some non-x86 processors?
I've never seen anything about how fast a fired-up Alpha can go.
Or how fast the 1.6 GHz Athlon compares to the 733 MHz G4 (Except from Apple, of course)
I use an X86 processor too... but there's better stuff out there.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Somehow I don't think that babes in bikinis dripping over the latest PC system will sell magazines(I could be wrong).
Attention all planets of the Solar Federation! We have assumed control! - Neil Peart