FAH-Addict Forum
• Index
Repost of the preceding message
Weedacres:
No it's more simple.
Run a native linux system on it.
Unless you have specific needs you can easily work with linux instead of windows.
Weedacres:
R_34:
A native Linux will solve the problem with the Q8200.
Ubuntu have all the softwares needed to work correctly.
Are you saying that I can run 64 bit Ubuntu on VMWare on a 32 bit XP on the Q8200? If so I'll jump right on that.
A native Linux will solve the problem with the Q8200.
Ubuntu have all the softwares needed to work correctly.
Are you saying that I can run 64 bit Ubuntu on VMWare on a 32 bit XP on the Q8200? If so I'll jump right on that.
No it's more simple.
Run a native linux system on it.
Unless you have specific needs you can easily work with linux instead of windows.
R_34:
Ah,, ok. That won't work. This is our accounting machine. I'd hate to have to change accounting packages. Thanks for the thought though.
I'll keep hoping that someday we'll have a good Windows based SMP folder.
Weedacres:
No it's more simple.
Run a native linux system on it.
Unless you have specific needs you can easily work with linux instead of windows.
R_34:
A native Linux will solve the problem with the Q8200.
Ubuntu have all the softwares needed to work correctly.
Are you saying that I can run 64 bit Ubuntu on VMWare on a 32 bit XP on the Q8200? If so I'll jump right on that.
A native Linux will solve the problem with the Q8200.
Ubuntu have all the softwares needed to work correctly.
Are you saying that I can run 64 bit Ubuntu on VMWare on a 32 bit XP on the Q8200? If so I'll jump right on that.
No it's more simple.
Run a native linux system on it.
Unless you have specific needs you can easily work with linux instead of windows.
Ah,, ok. That won't work. This is our accounting machine. I'd hate to have to change accounting packages. Thanks for the thought though.
I'll keep hoping that someday we'll have a good Windows based SMP folder.
Weedacres:
I don't know why you are getting so "low" PPD on your Q6600
My Q6600 running a 4core NF in VM (and a GPU2 on a 9600GT) and I am getting 5:06TPF, and I am running only 3.2(365x9)G with 12:8 memory PC8500 2x1Gbyte OS is XP-32bit
Earlier in this thread I mentioned it would be interesting to compare the Q6600 side by side with the AMD 940. At least I thought it would be interesting...
Since then I have gotten a lot more serious about overclocking the Q6600.
As it turns out I had to back off on the 940 a bit and am now running it at 3500mhz (17.5x200). I'm not done with it yet but it's been folding error free for several days at this speed.
I'm currently running the Q6600 at 3420 (9x380) with the memory backed off to 380 as well. I'll let it run overnight to make sure it's solid there before continuing upward.
Current stats on P2671 are:
940 @ 3500 = 4865ppd, 5:41TPF
Q6600@3420 = 5184ppd, 5:20TPF
Both machines running 4-core notfreds VMWare Workstation on XP32. The Q6600 notfred is throttled back a bit for the 2.10 performance problem.
Since then I have gotten a lot more serious about overclocking the Q6600.
As it turns out I had to back off on the 940 a bit and am now running it at 3500mhz (17.5x200). I'm not done with it yet but it's been folding error free for several days at this speed.
I'm currently running the Q6600 at 3420 (9x380) with the memory backed off to 380 as well. I'll let it run overnight to make sure it's solid there before continuing upward.
Current stats on P2671 are:
940 @ 3500 = 4865ppd, 5:41TPF
Q6600@3420 = 5184ppd, 5:20TPF
Both machines running 4-core notfreds VMWare Workstation on XP32. The Q6600 notfred is throttled back a bit for the 2.10 performance problem.
I don't know why you are getting so "low" PPD on your Q6600
My Q6600 running a 4core NF in VM (and a GPU2 on a 9600GT) and I am getting 5:06TPF, and I am running only 3.2(365x9)G with 12:8 memory PC8500 2x1Gbyte OS is XP-32bit
My Q6600 VM is also slow ... but I have an ATI client, so the CPU is busy feeding the HD4870 ... and SMP client doesn't like when the CPU does something else 
ikerekes:
Good question, I was feeling great until I read your post
I can think of a couple of reasons:
1. I'm running PC6400 memory, so have had to set the memory ratio to 1:1, so memory is not running at full capacity.
2. I've throttled notfreds by starving it for memory although I've reduced that a bit. It's now set to 824mB.
3 It's also feeding 2x8800gt's.
I can test #2 by allocating 1024 tonight before I retire and see how it looks in the morning.
I have not tried to push memory yet as I've been focused on oc'ing the Q6600.
I don't know of any solution to number 3 if that is a problem. I'm running 180.60 drivers.
Beyond that and all of the other junk this machine runs I don't know.
The 940 on the other hand is a dedicated folder, runs faster with less production.
Weedacres:
I don't know why you are getting so "low" PPD on your Q6600
My Q6600 running a 4core NF in VM (and a GPU2 on a 9600GT) and I am getting 5:06TPF, and I am running only 3.2(365x9)G with 12:8 memory PC8500 2x1Gbyte OS is XP-32bit
Earlier in this thread I mentioned it would be interesting to compare the Q6600 side by side with the AMD 940. At least I thought it would be interesting...
Since then I have gotten a lot more serious about overclocking the Q6600.
As it turns out I had to back off on the 940 a bit and am now running it at 3500mhz (17.5x200). I'm not done with it yet but it's been folding error free for several days at this speed.
I'm currently running the Q6600 at 3420 (9x380) with the memory backed off to 380 as well. I'll let it run overnight to make sure it's solid there before continuing upward.
Current stats on P2671 are:
940 @ 3500 = 4865ppd, 5:41TPF
Q6600@3420 = 5184ppd, 5:20TPF
Both machines running 4-core notfreds VMWare Workstation on XP32. The Q6600 notfred is throttled back a bit for the 2.10 performance problem.
Since then I have gotten a lot more serious about overclocking the Q6600.
As it turns out I had to back off on the 940 a bit and am now running it at 3500mhz (17.5x200). I'm not done with it yet but it's been folding error free for several days at this speed.
I'm currently running the Q6600 at 3420 (9x380) with the memory backed off to 380 as well. I'll let it run overnight to make sure it's solid there before continuing upward.
Current stats on P2671 are:
940 @ 3500 = 4865ppd, 5:41TPF
Q6600@3420 = 5184ppd, 5:20TPF
Both machines running 4-core notfreds VMWare Workstation on XP32. The Q6600 notfred is throttled back a bit for the 2.10 performance problem.
I don't know why you are getting so "low" PPD on your Q6600
My Q6600 running a 4core NF in VM (and a GPU2 on a 9600GT) and I am getting 5:06TPF, and I am running only 3.2(365x9)G with 12:8 memory PC8500 2x1Gbyte OS is XP-32bit
Good question, I was feeling great until I read your post
I can think of a couple of reasons:
1. I'm running PC6400 memory, so have had to set the memory ratio to 1:1, so memory is not running at full capacity.
2. I've throttled notfreds by starving it for memory although I've reduced that a bit. It's now set to 824mB.
3 It's also feeding 2x8800gt's.
I can test #2 by allocating 1024 tonight before I retire and see how it looks in the morning.
I have not tried to push memory yet as I've been focused on oc'ing the Q6600.
I don't know of any solution to number 3 if that is a problem. I'm running 180.60 drivers.
Beyond that and all of the other junk this machine runs I don't know.
The 940 on the other hand is a dedicated folder, runs faster with less production.
Quotation:
Don't feel so bad
I just realized that taking the screenshot, and posting it on imageshack took my PPD down from 5420 to 5180 (like yours) that's actually corresponds very much with toTow's theory, the vm based linux client is very sensitive to all "other" activity in the machine.
Good question, I was feeling great until I read your post
Don't feel so bad
I just realized that taking the screenshot, and posting it on imageshack took my PPD down from 5420 to 5180 (like yours) that's actually corresponds very much with toTow's theory, the vm based linux client is very sensitive to all "other" activity in the machine.
ikerekes:
Very true. I was watching the weather radar earler, 2 java based websites running and ppd dropped to 47xx. We've set the priorities as low as possible to make the machine usable and not affect gpu so should not be surprised.
What FSB x Multiplier are you using?
Edit by Weedacres On 09/07/2009 at 05h13
Quotation:
Don't feel so bad
I just realized that taking the screenshot, and posting it on imageshack took my PPD down from 5420 to 5180 (like yours) that's actually corresponds very much with toTow's theory, the vm based linux client is very sensitive to all "other" activity in the machine.
Good question, I was feeling great until I read your post
Don't feel so bad
I just realized that taking the screenshot, and posting it on imageshack took my PPD down from 5420 to 5180 (like yours) that's actually corresponds very much with toTow's theory, the vm based linux client is very sensitive to all "other" activity in the machine.
Very true. I was watching the weather radar earler, 2 java based websites running and ppd dropped to 47xx. We've set the priorities as low as possible to make the machine usable and not affect gpu so should not be surprised.
What FSB x Multiplier are you using?
Edit by Weedacres On 09/07/2009 at 05h13
Quotation:
365x9
What FSB x Multiplier are you using?
365x9
ikerekes:
Not only SMP in VM, all the smp client doesn't like we use the PC when it's running.
Try 400x8, I think you'll get more PPD thank to better memory bandwith.
Quotation:
Don't feel so bad
I just realized that taking the screenshot, and posting it on imageshack took my PPD down from 5420 to 5180 (like yours) that's actually corresponds very much with toTow's theory, the vm based linux client is very sensitive to all "other" activity in the machine.
Good question, I was feeling great until I read your post
Don't feel so bad
I just realized that taking the screenshot, and posting it on imageshack took my PPD down from 5420 to 5180 (like yours) that's actually corresponds very much with toTow's theory, the vm based linux client is very sensitive to all "other" activity in the machine.
Not only SMP in VM, all the smp client doesn't like we use the PC when it's running.
Try 400x8, I think you'll get more PPD thank to better memory bandwith.
ikerekes:
I finally finished OC'ing the Q6600. 3420mhz (9x380). I also restored notfreds to 1024MB so it's no longer crippled. It's currently showing 5720PPD on P2671.
Oddly enough I'm not having the level of host performance issues like I was when 2.10 first arrived and I have no idea why except that the project mix seems to have changed a bit. Quad's do mostly 2671's and Dual's so mostly 2677.
Strange behavior with this new core.
toTow's theory is accurate, but 2.10 seems much more sensitive than 2.08 did under VM.
Edit by Weedacres On 09/09/2009 at 00h47
Quotation:
Don't feel so bad
I just realized that taking the screenshot, and posting it on imageshack took my PPD down from 5420 to 5180 (like yours) that's actually corresponds very much with toTow's theory, the vm based linux client is very sensitive to all "other" activity in the machine.
Good question, I was feeling great until I read your post
Don't feel so bad
I just realized that taking the screenshot, and posting it on imageshack took my PPD down from 5420 to 5180 (like yours) that's actually corresponds very much with toTow's theory, the vm based linux client is very sensitive to all "other" activity in the machine.
I finally finished OC'ing the Q6600. 3420mhz (9x380). I also restored notfreds to 1024MB so it's no longer crippled. It's currently showing 5720PPD on P2671.
Oddly enough I'm not having the level of host performance issues like I was when 2.10 first arrived and I have no idea why except that the project mix seems to have changed a bit. Quad's do mostly 2671's and Dual's so mostly 2677.
Strange behavior with this new core.
toTow's theory is accurate, but 2.10 seems much more sensitive than 2.08 did under VM.
Edit by Weedacres On 09/09/2009 at 00h47
Quotation:
I am back to 3200mhz(9x356). I tried the 8x400 but my GA-EP35-DS3L apparently doesn't like the 1600 FSB. So I tried to crank the CPU freq with 9 multi. I went up till 3350Mhz and it was creating PPD comparable to yours but had to many seg. faults for my taste so I went back to 3200mhz. That still producing around 5400 PPD.
I totally agree with your finding, 2669 was avarageng 5:02 mpp a 2677 was less than 5 min. currently running a 2675 with:
-- Q6600 --
Min. Time / Frame : 4mn 55s - 5623.32 ppd
Avg. Time / Frame : 4mn 55s - 5623.32 ppd
Cur. Time / Frame : 5mn 00s - 5529.60 ppd
R3F. Time / Frame : 5mn 00s - 5529.60 ppd
Eff. Time / Frame : 5mn 10s - 5351.23 ppd
5 second difference in frame times about 100 PPD
I don't recall that big of differences in 2.8 core.
This numbers in native Ubuntu 8.04-3. I don't like windoze, and for some funny reason I can't set my VM for bridged network, only NAT works and in this way I can't monitor it remotely, with FAHMON or by ssh'ing into the machine and looking at the logs.
I finally finished OC'ing the Q6600. 3420mhz (9x380). I also restored notfreds to 1024MB so it's no longer crippled. It's currently showing 5720PPD on P2671.
I am back to 3200mhz(9x356). I tried the 8x400 but my GA-EP35-DS3L apparently doesn't like the 1600 FSB. So I tried to crank the CPU freq with 9 multi. I went up till 3350Mhz and it was creating PPD comparable to yours but had to many seg. faults for my taste so I went back to 3200mhz. That still producing around 5400 PPD.
I totally agree with your finding, 2669 was avarageng 5:02 mpp a 2677 was less than 5 min. currently running a 2675 with:
-- Q6600 --
Min. Time / Frame : 4mn 55s - 5623.32 ppd
Avg. Time / Frame : 4mn 55s - 5623.32 ppd
Cur. Time / Frame : 5mn 00s - 5529.60 ppd
R3F. Time / Frame : 5mn 00s - 5529.60 ppd
Eff. Time / Frame : 5mn 10s - 5351.23 ppd
5 second difference in frame times about 100 PPD
I don't recall that big of differences in 2.8 core.
This numbers in native Ubuntu 8.04-3. I don't like windoze, and for some funny reason I can't set my VM for bridged network, only NAT works and in this way I can't monitor it remotely, with FAHMON or by ssh'ing into the machine and looking at the logs.
Back on the topic of the heatsink. Perhaps an Admin should split the OC portion of this to it's own topic.
I'm currently running 3 Q6600's in Antec 900's and a Q9550 in an Antec 1200. All these use Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro's. I've been pretty happy with these coolers, but the only Q6600 who's motherboard will allow an OC (3.4 @ 65C) will soon be moving into a 1200. I need the bigger case for the bigger PSU needed to upgrade from 2 8800GTS 512's to 2 GTX260-216's.
The Freezer 7 measures 104 X 58 X 126.5mm and the Prolimatech is 130 X 74 X 158.7mm. That means it's over an inch taller than what I have. It looks like I have about 1 1/2 inches to spare now. I'd like to give this a try, but I also want to make sure it will fit., so Weedacres, could you give me an actual measurement from the motherboard to the top of the heat pipes?
If the fan won't fit due to the RAM used (OCZ Reaper with the big heat pipe), can it be mounted to suck through the HS rather than blow? It looks like it's notched on both sides to accept the fan clips.
I'm currently running 3 Q6600's in Antec 900's and a Q9550 in an Antec 1200. All these use Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro's. I've been pretty happy with these coolers, but the only Q6600 who's motherboard will allow an OC (3.4 @ 65C) will soon be moving into a 1200. I need the bigger case for the bigger PSU needed to upgrade from 2 8800GTS 512's to 2 GTX260-216's.
The Freezer 7 measures 104 X 58 X 126.5mm and the Prolimatech is 130 X 74 X 158.7mm. That means it's over an inch taller than what I have. It looks like I have about 1 1/2 inches to spare now. I'd like to give this a try, but I also want to make sure it will fit., so Weedacres, could you give me an actual measurement from the motherboard to the top of the heat pipes?
If the fan won't fit due to the RAM used (OCZ Reaper with the big heat pipe), can it be mounted to suck through the HS rather than blow? It looks like it's notched on both sides to accept the fan clips.
uncle fuzzy:
You can mount the fans on either or both sides. My experience with heatsink fans is that they work much better blowing than sucking, but whatever works. They will mount in either direction and the heatsink itself can be oriented to any 90degree rotation. You can also use 38mm fans instead of 25mm with would dramatically increase airflow.
The bottom of the heatsink provides quite a bit of clearance over the RAM but I'm using standard sized RAM.
I'll try to pull the machine apart tomorrow and get you some measurements.
Back on the topic of the heatsink. Perhaps an Admin should split the OC portion of this to it's own topic.
I'm currently running 3 Q6600's in Antec 900's and a Q9550 in an Antec 1200. All these use Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro's. I've been pretty happy with these coolers, but the only Q6600 who's motherboard will allow an OC (3.4 @ 65C) will soon be moving into a 1200. I need the bigger case for the bigger PSU needed to upgrade from 2 8800GTS 512's to 2 GTX260-216's.
The Freezer 7 measures 104 X 58 X 126.5mm and the Prolimatech is 130 X 74 X 158.7mm. That means it's over an inch taller than what I have. It looks like I have about 1 1/2 inches to spare now. I'd like to give this a try, but I also want to make sure it will fit., so Weedacres, could you give me an actual measurement from the motherboard to the top of the heat pipes?
If the fan won't fit due to the RAM used (OCZ Reaper with the big heat pipe), can it be mounted to suck through the HS rather than blow? It looks like it's notched on both sides to accept the fan clips.
I'm currently running 3 Q6600's in Antec 900's and a Q9550 in an Antec 1200. All these use Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro's. I've been pretty happy with these coolers, but the only Q6600 who's motherboard will allow an OC (3.4 @ 65C) will soon be moving into a 1200. I need the bigger case for the bigger PSU needed to upgrade from 2 8800GTS 512's to 2 GTX260-216's.
The Freezer 7 measures 104 X 58 X 126.5mm and the Prolimatech is 130 X 74 X 158.7mm. That means it's over an inch taller than what I have. It looks like I have about 1 1/2 inches to spare now. I'd like to give this a try, but I also want to make sure it will fit., so Weedacres, could you give me an actual measurement from the motherboard to the top of the heat pipes?
If the fan won't fit due to the RAM used (OCZ Reaper with the big heat pipe), can it be mounted to suck through the HS rather than blow? It looks like it's notched on both sides to accept the fan clips.
You can mount the fans on either or both sides. My experience with heatsink fans is that they work much better blowing than sucking, but whatever works. They will mount in either direction and the heatsink itself can be oriented to any 90degree rotation. You can also use 38mm fans instead of 25mm with would dramatically increase airflow.
The bottom of the heatsink provides quite a bit of clearance over the RAM but I'm using standard sized RAM.
I'll try to pull the machine apart tomorrow and get you some measurements.
Thanks. I think I have the headroom, but it costs enough I'd like to make sure. The orientation shouldn't be an issue in an Antec 1200. I can always set it to blow out the top fan instead of the rear.
Edit by uncle fuzzy On 09/15/2009 at 06h23
Edit by uncle fuzzy On 09/15/2009 at 06h23
Uncle Fuzzy,
I measured the heatsink on my K9A2. It's 45mm from the pcb to the bottom of the heatsink and 168mm to the top. The fan retention clip sticks down about 5mm but you can slide it up and down a bit so figure on 40mm to the bottom of the clip.
Mine is in an Antec 300 mid tower and I have about 1/2 " clearance between the top of the heatsink pipes and the side cover on the case. The 300 is 8 1/8" wide so anything wider should work unless you have a side case fan directly over the cpu.
Hope this helps.
I measured the heatsink on my K9A2. It's 45mm from the pcb to the bottom of the heatsink and 168mm to the top. The fan retention clip sticks down about 5mm but you can slide it up and down a bit so figure on 40mm to the bottom of the clip.
Mine is in an Antec 300 mid tower and I have about 1/2 " clearance between the top of the heatsink pipes and the side cover on the case. The 300 is 8 1/8" wide so anything wider should work unless you have a side case fan directly over the cpu.
Hope this helps.
Thanks for the measrement. According to Newegg, the 1200 is about a 1/4" wider than the 300. The side panel fan should be below the HS- it's almost directly on the GPUs. Looking at my one 1200, the side fan should miss by an inch.
I think the 300 and 900 were 8.1 and the 1200 is 8.4.
Edit by uncle fuzzy On 09/15/2009 at 23h28
I think the 300 and 900 were 8.1 and the 1200 is 8.4.
Edit by uncle fuzzy On 09/15/2009 at 23h28
• Index
1 User online : 0 Administrator, 0 Moderator, 0 Member and 1 Visitor
User online : No member online
User online : No member online
Answer
You aren't allowed to write in this category