Most processing power/Watt

The SETI@home application is very sensitive to L2 cache size, and needs
neither a display device, a hard drive, nor very much random access memory.
A loosely coupled cluster would likely provide the most bang per buck. With
a large L2 cache, main memory speed is not much of a factor.

You might also consider one, very efficient, switching power supply for the
entire cluster (perhaps a Lamda from ebay?)

Eliminating as many support elements as possible may lower power consumption
per work unit more than going with lower power CPU's.

--
Phil Weldon, pweldonatmindjumpdotcom
For communication,
replace "at" with the 'at sign'
replace "mindjump" with "mindspring."
replace "dot" with "."

"~misfit~" <misfit61nz RemoveThis @yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ZfaKc.1398$N77.176817@news.xtra.co.nz...
 > Something I've been thinking about recently, of the CPUs in the 700Mhz and
 > upwards range, which CPU, or family of CPUs gives the most for the least,
 > electrical-consumption-wise?
 >
 > I'm running a few machines for SETI and am on a budget. I have a bit of
 > hardware and am able to decide which machines to run. I'd just like to
know
 > which will give the best return for money spent on power. Hell, I just run
 > the fastest of what I have at the moment and damn the cost. It'd be nice
to
 > know though, I'm on a budget.
 >
 > Any ideas folks?
 >
 > Cheers,
 > --
 > ~misfit~
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Most processing power/Watt 

Firstly - no I'm not stalking you!

Secondly - we've already (kinda) covered this today already - albeit looking
at it from the other direction (so to speak). I would second another
poster's mention of mobile p4's (but I would, wouldn't I). You can get low
end ones quite cheaply on eBay - slap it in a cheapo 400MHz board with some
cheap PC200/266 DDR's. I doubt if you'd get much better
performance/cost/power consumption elsewhere.

This is a really good general article
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.cpuid.com/PentiumM/index.php" target="_blank">http://www.cpuid.com/PentiumM/index.php</a> - towards the end it has the kind of
C3/Tualatin/Duron/Athlon/P4/P4-M comparisons which are relevant to your
question.

Pete

"~misfit~" <misfit61nz.DeleteThis@yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ZfaKc.1398$N77.176817@news.xtra.co.nz...
 > Something I've been thinking about recently, of the CPUs in the 700Mhz and
 > upwards range, which CPU, or family of CPUs gives the most for the least,
 > electrical-consumption-wise?
 >
 > I'm running a few machines for SETI and am on a budget. I have a bit of
 > hardware and am able to decide which machines to run. I'd just like to
know
 > which will give the best return for money spent on power. Hell, I just run
 > the fastest of what I have at the moment and damn the cost. It'd be nice
to
 > know though, I'm on a budget.
 >
 > Any ideas folks?
 >
 > Cheers,
 > --
 > ~misfit~
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Most processing power/Watt 

~misfit~ wrote:
 > Something I've been thinking about recently, of the CPUs in the
 > 700Mhz and upwards range, which CPU, or family of CPUs gives the most
 > for the least, electrical-consumption-wise?

Of commonly-available, easy to buy, CPUs, probably the Via/Cyrix Nehemiah
ones. But more because they have incrediably low power consumption (sub 10W
IIRC), rather than they have particularily high computing power. The P4E's
are definately off the menu (too much heat), as are the Celerons (as much
power as the P4's, a fraction of the computing grunt), and most of the A64's
(high power usages as well). For off-the-shelf CPUs, the 35W Athlons would
probably take second place. Mobile P4's are generally hamstrung by slow
busses and slow speeds, and don't really perform to well for the power they
comsume AFAIK (though I haven't really been out shopping for them ).

If you're willing to go exotic, you can get a lot better. You can get
XP1800's that use up just 16W (if you can find a source, and if you can get
your hands on a uPGA motherboard). I'm sure Intel has Pentium-M's that can
get pretty close as well. These might even threaten the Via chips because of
their higher computing power.

Of course, it all comes down to initial cost as well. With the exception of
the Via chips (which are relatively cheap to start off with), the cost is
inversely proportional to the computing-grunt-per-watt. If you want a 16W
Athlon in a uPGA board, you're going to have to shell out some big $$$ to
get it.

[...]

--
Michael Brown
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.emboss.co.nz" target="_blank">www.emboss.co.nz</a> : OOS/RSI software and more
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Most processing power/Watt 

Immuno wrote:
 > Firstly - no I'm not stalking you!
 >
 > Secondly - we've already (kinda) covered this today already - albeit
 > looking at it from the other direction (so to speak). I would second
 > another poster's mention of mobile p4's (but I would, wouldn't I).
 > You can get low end ones quite cheaply on eBay - slap it in a cheapo
 > 400MHz board with some cheap PC200/266 DDR's. I doubt if you'd get
 > much better performance/cost/power consumption elsewhere.
 >
 > This is a really good general article
 > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.cpuid.com/PentiumM/index.php" target="_blank">http://www.cpuid.com/PentiumM/index.php</a> - towards the end it has the
 > kind of C3/Tualatin/Duron/Athlon/P4/P4-M comparisons which are
 > relevant to your question.

Thanks Pete, I've just become(ing) the pround owner of a couple of Tualatin
Celerons, 1.5vcore, that run cool. That's what prompted my question. As I
said, I crunch units for SETI. The Tualatins don't actually perform a hell
of a lot better than Coppermine Cellys I have. I mean, they're faster, but
not as much as I'd expected considering the double-sized L2 and the increase
in clock speed. However, I think they do use less power than the
Coppermines, or at least about the same, for a better return.

I'm not in a position to be buying new kit unfortunately. Looking at your
link now.

Cheers,
--
~misfit~

 > "~misfit~" <misfit61nz.RemoveThis@yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote in message
 > news:ZfaKc.1398$N77.176817@news.xtra.co.nz...
  >> Something I've been thinking about recently, of the CPUs in the
  >> 700Mhz and upwards range, which CPU, or family of CPUs gives the
  >> most for the least, electrical-consumption-wise?
  >>
  >> I'm running a few machines for SETI and am on a budget. I have a bit
  >> of hardware and am able to decide which machines to run. I'd just
  >> like to know which will give the best return for money spent on
  >> power. Hell, I just run the fastest of what I have at the moment and
  >> damn the cost. It'd be nice to know though, I'm on a budget.
  >>
  >> Any ideas folks?
  >>
  >> Cheers,
  >> --
  >> ~misfit~<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Most processing power/Watt 

Michael Brown wrote:
 > ~misfit~ wrote:
  >> Something I've been thinking about recently, of the CPUs in the
  >> 700Mhz and upwards range, which CPU, or family of CPUs gives the most
  >> for the least, electrical-consumption-wise?
 >
 > Of commonly-available, easy to buy, CPUs, probably the Via/Cyrix
 > Nehemiah ones. But more because they have incrediably low power
 > consumption (sub 10W IIRC), rather than they have particularily high
 > computing power. The P4E's are definately off the menu (too much
 > heat), as are the Celerons (as much power as the P4's, a fraction of
 > the computing grunt), and most of the A64's (high power usages as
 > well). For off-the-shelf CPUs, the 35W Athlons would probably take
 > second place. Mobile P4's are generally hamstrung by slow busses and
 > slow speeds, and don't really perform to well for the power they
 > comsume AFAIK (though I haven't really been out shopping for them
 > ).
 >
 > If you're willing to go exotic, you can get a lot better. You can get
 > XP1800's that use up just 16W (if you can find a source, and if you
 > can get your hands on a uPGA motherboard). I'm sure Intel has
 > Pentium-M's that can get pretty close as well. These might even
 > threaten the Via chips because of their higher computing power.
 >
 > Of course, it all comes down to initial cost as well. With the
 > exception of the Via chips (which are relatively cheap to start off
 > with), the cost is inversely proportional to the
 > computing-grunt-per-watt. If you want a 16W Athlon in a uPGA board,
 > you're going to have to shell out some big $$$ to get it.
 >
 > [...]

Thanks Michael.
--
~misfit~<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Most processing power/Watt 

Cuzman wrote:
 > "~misfit~" <misfit61nz DeleteThis @yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote in message
 > news:ZfaKc.1398$N77.176817@news.xtra.co.nz...
 >
 > " Something I've been thinking about recently, of the CPUs in the
 > 700Mhz and upwards range, which CPU, or family of CPUs gives the most
 > for the least, electrical-consumption-wise? "
 >
 >
 > You'll be hard-pressed to find something that outperforms an Athlon XP
 > Mobile in that respect.

I think you may be right there, especially at stock speed. However I'm
financially limited to older machines at present. I have a Tualatin Celeron
and another one or two on the way, I think they should be fairly good in
that regard. I'm just trying to work out which machines (I have an XP1800+
OCed to 2.1Ghz, 10.5 x 200, 1.8vcore, but that sucks the power) to leave
running 24/7 to maximise SETI contributions per dollar spent on power. I'm
on an invalid's benefit and certainly not rich.

Cheers,
--
~misfit~<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Most processing power/Watt 

Phil Weldon wrote:
 > The SETI@home application is very sensitive to L2 cache size, and
 > needs neither a display device, a hard drive, nor very much random
 > access memory. A loosely coupled cluster would likely provide the
 > most bang per buck. With a large L2 cache, main memory speed is not
 > much of a factor.
 >
 > You might also consider one, very efficient, switching power supply
 > for the entire cluster (perhaps a Lamda from ebay?)
 >
 > Eliminating as many support elements as possible may lower power
 > consumption per work unit more than going with lower power CPU's.

All good points Phil. However, I'm running the new BOINC client now and I'm
fairly sure it needs a HDD. At least, I don't have the know-how to do it any
other way.

I have heard others mention that Seti is L2-dependant as well. However, from
personal experience I have noticed little, if any, discernable difference
between similarly-clocked Coppermine and Tualatin Celerons (128 and 256KB
respectively). Maybe it's only over 256KB that the benefits kick in.

Thanks for your input.
--
~misfit~

 > "~misfit~" <misfit61nz.DeleteThis@yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote in message
 > news:ZfaKc.1398$N77.176817@news.xtra.co.nz...
  >> Something I've been thinking about recently, of the CPUs in the
  >> 700Mhz and upwards range, which CPU, or family of CPUs gives the
  >> most for the least, electrical-consumption-wise?
  >>
  >> I'm running a few machines for SETI and am on a budget. I have a bit
  >> of hardware and am able to decide which machines to run. I'd just
  >> like to know which will give the best return for money spent on
  >> power. Hell, I just run the fastest of what I have at the moment and
  >> damn the cost. It'd be nice to know though, I'm on a budget.
  >>
  >> Any ideas folks?
  >>
  >> Cheers,
  >> --
  >> ~misfit~<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Most processing power/Watt 

Try this URL
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/3q99/setiopt-1.html" target="_blank">http://arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/3q99/setiopt-1.html</a>

and this URL
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.cox-internet.com/setispy/" target="_blank">http://www.cox-internet.com/setispy/</a>

and this URL

The L2 benefit really kicks in at 1 MByte, unless new versions of the
SETI@home client have been written to make more effecient use of 256 KByte
and 512 KByte L2 caches.

--
Phil Weldon, pweldonatmindjumpdotcom
For communication,
replace "at" with the 'at sign'
replace "mindjump" with "mindspring."
replace "dot" with "."


"~misfit~" <misfit61nz.RemoveThis@yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1mlKc.1601$N77.181349@news.xtra.co.nz...
 > Phil Weldon wrote:
  > > The SETI@home application is very sensitive to L2 cache size, and
  > > needs neither a display device, a hard drive, nor very much random
  > > access memory. A loosely coupled cluster would likely provide the
  > > most bang per buck. With a large L2 cache, main memory speed is not
  > > much of a factor.
  > >
  > > You might also consider one, very efficient, switching power supply
  > > for the entire cluster (perhaps a Lamda from ebay?)
  > >
  > > Eliminating as many support elements as possible may lower power
  > > consumption per work unit more than going with lower power CPU's.
 >
 > All good points Phil. However, I'm running the new BOINC client now and
I'm
 > fairly sure it needs a HDD. At least, I don't have the know-how to do it
any
 > other way.
 >
 > I have heard others mention that Seti is L2-dependant as well. However,
from
 > personal experience I have noticed little, if any, discernable difference
 > between similarly-clocked Coppermine and Tualatin Celerons (128 and 256KB
 > respectively). Maybe it's only over 256KB that the benefits kick in.
 >
 > Thanks for your input.
 > --
 > ~misfit~
 >
  > > "~misfit~" <misfit61nz.RemoveThis@yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote in message
  > > news:ZfaKc.1398$N77.176817@news.xtra.co.nz...
   > >> Something I've been thinking about recently, of the CPUs in the
   > >> 700Mhz and upwards range, which CPU, or family of CPUs gives the
   > >> most for the least, electrical-consumption-wise?
   > >>
   > >> I'm running a few machines for SETI and am on a budget. I have a bit
   > >> of hardware and am able to decide which machines to run. I'd just
   > >> like to know which will give the best return for money spent on
   > >> power. Hell, I just run the fastest of what I have at the moment and
   > >> damn the cost. It'd be nice to know though, I'm on a budget.
   > >>
   > >> Any ideas folks?
   > >>
   > >> Cheers,
   > >> --
   > >> ~misfit~
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Most processing power/Watt 

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 01:58:48 +1200, "~misfit~"
<misfit61nz.DeleteThis@yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote:

 >Something I've been thinking about recently, of the CPUs in the 700Mhz and
 >upwards range, which CPU, or family of CPUs gives the most for the least,
 >electrical-consumption-wise?
 >
 >I'm running a few machines for SETI and am on a budget. I have a bit of
 >hardware and am able to decide which machines to run. I'd just like to know
 >which will give the best return for money spent on power. Hell, I just run
 >the fastest of what I have at the moment and damn the cost. It'd be nice to
 >know though, I'm on a budget.
 >
 >Any ideas folks?
 >
 >Cheers,

SInce most people are not using their systems to 100% processing
capacity most of the time, it could be most power efficient to
just run SETI on your main system as low-priority, and have HDD
spindown set low enough that they're usually asleep when you're
not using system otherwise.

As for a 2nd system, I agree with other posters that large L2 is
most beneficial. Coppermine CPU topped out at 256K L2, and old
P3 ~ 600MHz wasn't as good of a heat vs performance ratio so best
bet is probably a Tualatin P3 w/512K L2 (except too expensive) or
a Barton Mobile underclocked/undervolted.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Most processing power/Watt 

kony wrote:
 > On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 01:58:48 +1200, "~misfit~"
 > <misfit61nz.RemoveThis@yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote:
 >
  >> Something I've been thinking about recently, of the CPUs in the
  >> 700Mhz and upwards range, which CPU, or family of CPUs gives the
  >> most for the least, electrical-consumption-wise?
  >>
  >> I'm running a few machines for SETI and am on a budget. I have a bit
  >> of hardware and am able to decide which machines to run. I'd just
  >> like to know which will give the best return for money spent on
  >> power. Hell, I just run the fastest of what I have at the moment and
  >> damn the cost. It'd be nice to know though, I'm on a budget.
  >>
  >> Any ideas folks?
  >>
  >> Cheers,
 >
 > SInce most people are not using their systems to 100% processing
 > capacity most of the time, it could be most power efficient to
 > just run SETI on your main system as low-priority, and have HDD
 > spindown set low enough that they're usually asleep when you're
 > not using system otherwise.
 >
 > As for a 2nd system, I agree with other posters that large L2 is
 > most beneficial. Coppermine CPU topped out at 256K L2, and old
 > P3 ~ 600MHz wasn't as good of a heat vs performance ratio so best
 > bet is probably a Tualatin P3 w/512K L2 (except too expensive) or
 > a Barton Mobile underclocked/undervolted.

Thanks Dave,
--
~misfit~<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Most processing power/Watt 

Phil Weldon wrote:
 > Try this URL
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/3q99/setiopt-1.html</font" target="_blank">http://arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/3q99/setiopt-1.html</font</a>>

Ummm, when was that was written? The guy mentions his machine, a Celeron
300a @ 450Mhz and version 1.06 was the latest version of SETI GUI (Now
3.0. I read all three pages and saw no mention of L2 cache.

 > and this URL
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.cox-internet.com/setispy/</font" target="_blank">http://www.cox-internet.com/setispy/</font</a>>

Having used SetiSpy myself I'm familiar with this page and have exchanged
emails with Roelof on occasion. However, once again no mention of L2 cache
and it's effect on WU throughput times at this page.

 > and this URL
 >
 > The L2 benefit really kicks in at 1 MByte, unless new versions of the
 > SETI@home client have been written to make more effecient use of 256
 > KByte and 512 KByte L2 caches.

Ok, that could be true. I have only set SETI up on machines having L2 caches
up to 512KB. My girlfriends Barton at 2.2Ghz and my Tbred at 2.1Ghz are very
similar in WU times, hers is slightly faster as you would expect from the
clock-speeds, so I doubt there is much benefit going from 256KB to 512KB. I
would think that, until recently, hardly anyone (considering the user-base
of Seti) had machines with greater than 512KB of L2 cache so it seems a bit
strange to have software that seems optimised for machines other than the
ones it's going to run on.

Cheers,
--
~misfit~

 > "~misfit~" <misfit61nz.DeleteThis@yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote in message
 > news:1mlKc.1601$N77.181349@news.xtra.co.nz...
  >> Phil Weldon wrote:
   >>> The SETI@home application is very sensitive to L2 cache size, and
   >>> needs neither a display device, a hard drive, nor very much random
   >>> access memory. A loosely coupled cluster would likely provide the
   >>> most bang per buck. With a large L2 cache, main memory speed is not
   >>> much of a factor.
   >>>
   >>> You might also consider one, very efficient, switching power supply
   >>> for the entire cluster (perhaps a Lamda from ebay?)
   >>>
   >>> Eliminating as many support elements as possible may lower power
   >>> consumption per work unit more than going with lower power CPU's.
  >>
  >> All good points Phil. However, I'm running the new BOINC client now
  >> and I'm fairly sure it needs a HDD. At least, I don't have the
  >> know-how to do it any other way.
  >>
  >> I have heard others mention that Seti is L2-dependant as well.
  >> However, from personal experience I have noticed little, if any,
  >> discernable difference between similarly-clocked Coppermine and
  >> Tualatin Celerons (128 and 256KB respectively). Maybe it's only over
  >> 256KB that the benefits kick in.
  >>
  >> Thanks for your input.
  >> --
  >> ~misfit~
  >>
   >>> "~misfit~" <misfit61nz.DeleteThis@yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote in message
   >>> news:ZfaKc.1398$N77.176817@news.xtra.co.nz...
   >>>> Something I've been thinking about recently, of the CPUs in the
   >>>> 700Mhz and upwards range, which CPU, or family of CPUs gives the
   >>>> most for the least, electrical-consumption-wise?
   >>>>
   >>>> I'm running a few machines for SETI and am on a budget. I have a
   >>>> bit of hardware and am able to decide which machines to run. I'd
   >>>> just like to know which will give the best return for money spent
   >>>> on power. Hell, I just run the fastest of what I have at the
   >>>> moment and damn the cost. It'd be nice to know though, I'm on a
   >>>> budget.
   >>>>
   >>>> Any ideas folks?
   >>>>
   >>>> Cheers,
   >>>> --
   >>>> ~misfit~<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Most processing power/Watt 

"~misfit~" <misfit61nz.RemoveThis@yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote in message news:<NQCKc.1906$N77.189991@news.xtra.co.nz>...

   > >> Something I've been thinking about recently, of the CPUs in the
   > >> 700Mhz and upwards range, which CPU, or family of CPUs gives the
   > >> most for the least, electrical-consumption-wise?
   > >>
   > >> I'm running a few machines for SETI and am on a budget. I have a bit


I've no idea what your knowledge is misfit, so this might be,
something. Shutting down as many software processes as possible frees
cpu and ram up for the seti task.

The other question is why youre doing seti. If you look in
rec.org.mensa for Penny's explanation of it you'll see that it doesnt
look too likely that its doing what they claim it is. Penny reckons
its military, and nothing at all to do with what it claims. Personally
I dont know about it, but its well worth reading what she says.


Regards, NT<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Most processing power/Watt 

N. Thornton wrote:
 > "~misfit~" <misfit61nz DeleteThis @yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote in message
 > news:<NQCKc.1906$N77.189991@news.xtra.co.nz>...
 >
   >>>> Something I've been thinking about recently, of the CPUs in the
   >>>> 700Mhz and upwards range, which CPU, or family of CPUs gives the
   >>>> most for the least, electrical-consumption-wise?
   >>>>
   >>>> I'm running a few machines for SETI and am on a budget. I have a
   >>>> bit
 >
 >
 > I've no idea what your knowledge is misfit, so this might be,
 > something. Shutting down as many software processes as possible frees
 > cpu and ram up for the seti task.

Thanks. I have it running as lean as I can.

 > The other question is why youre doing seti. If you look in
 > rec.org.mensa for Penny's explanation of it you'll see that it doesnt
 > look too likely that its doing what they claim it is. Penny reckons
 > its military, and nothing at all to do with what it claims. Personally
 > I dont know about it, but its well worth reading what she says.

Just Googled it and read it. Interesting theory. I agree that seti isn't
ideally set-up, however I've been crunching for over five years now and have
sort of developed an inertia. <g>. Also I'm the founder of a team. To me
it's partly about my passion for building/overclocking machines and getting
the best I can out of them. Seti is a way to quantify the success or
otherwise of my hobby. I'm an invalid and it's what I do to keep myself
busy.

There are other distributed computing projects I've looked at. However, in
*all* cases it appears that commercial entities stand to make money out of
my CPU cycles. I don't want my hobby to end up making the rich richer.

Penny could be right about SETI, however, over the years I've read a lot of
criticism of it and conspiracy theories about it. Who do you believe?
Someone who may be taking lithium (Mensa? After all, they say genius is
close to madness. I should know, I once took the test to join Mensa, way
back in the pre-internet days, passed but then decided not to join) or do
you go with your gut feeling?

Thanks for the input NT.
--
~misfit~<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Most processing power/Watt