So I have the bug. I have been running this on some computers that I am not using any more. But I have decided to spend some money on one machine. The only purpose for this computer is to run this program.

It will not be hooked up to a monitor(it could) it will be access through my network. So no graphics, sound cards....DVD drives and such....

I am thinking about Linux for an operating systems, only because I think that it might be better for this program. I dont know it but will learn. I just dont like windows, too much other junk that will never be used.

I am even fine with used parts and I don't want anything that does not contribute to the program. I would like to spend the money in the CPU power you cant have enough.

What I am looking for is some info and or specs that I could forward to a place in my area to build one for me. This is not something that I am willing to do my self. The price depends on how fast/efficient it will be but I am will to spend at lest the price for a new computer.

Any suggestions would be great.

Core 2 Duo is the only option when you go into a new machine.

Or Core 2 Quad...

Or 2x Core 2 Quad...

=;^)

Thanks I did check in to it. A Core 2 Duo is not a problem the Quad might be out of reach.

Stupid question of the day, what is the deference between two Core 2 Duo and a Core 2 Quad.

Would it be better just to go with the Quad or does the 2 Duo have the same power or is it different some how.

Core 2 Extreme (with 4-cores) or yet-to-be-released Core 2 Quad for desktops or server line Woodcrest are actually two Core 2 Duo CPUs put to a single CPU die. The same 2-in-1 concept as we have seen in Pentium D, which it/was 2x P4 put on a single CPU die.

It would do up to 2x more work when fully utilizedl usually 1.8x

Core 2 Duo sounds like a best choice in term of performance and even performance per watt.

A real powerful machine would be server mainboard with 2 sockects and putting two Woodcrest CPUs hence getting 8-cores machine base on Core architecture (would be >$1.000 and not available yet, IIRC). Still about the same price as Core 2 Extreme, which is desktop quad-core.
I believe Macs Pro uses those CPUs.

Just FYI for those confused by the codenames:

Conroe (Core 2 Duo, Core 2 Extreme) is a dual core, single socket chip (2 threads).

Kentsfield (Core 2 Quad, Core 2 Extreme) is a 4 core, single socket chip (4 threads)

Woodcrest (Xeon) is a dual core, up to 2 socket chip (up to 4 threads (2 per chip))

Clovertown (Xeon) is a 4 core, up to 2 socket chip (up to 8 threads (4 per chip))

Yes, thanks.
(it was too early in the morning when I posted, I guess...and when I realized my mistake, I wasn't able to find my post, doh)

A quad core cannot reach the same performance as two dual-cores right now because the same system resources (bus bandwidth, mainly) are shared between a greater number of cores.

All else being the same, each core added results in a smaller gain in performance.

However, a single 2x quad chip system will be cheaper to build than two 1x quad systems. There is only one set of other stuff (chassis, HD, etc.) to buy. Also, it takes up less space, and uses less power.

Thanks everyone I do appreciate the info,

I got this recommendation what do you think about it,

If you are not into overclocking, AMD might be a good choice.

Intel Core 2 Duo aka E6xxx series is good overclocker and generally can be run 1/3 faster without need of extra cooling or higher voltage.

That sayd - you will get considerable more from Core 2 Duo that AMD.
If it is worth extra money is up to you...

I am getting very confused buy all this. I just don't have the experience,

I need to determine if a faster processor is equal to more BOINC processing.

Measure just how much it matters.

Can someone create A BOINC factor to allow me to know if two slower cheaper machines are greater or less than one super high speed expensive machine.

So I can buy the best cost to processing ratio machine.


Or point me in the direction......~

Those are natural questions, I guess.

What projects are you intend to run?
That sayd, some CPUs are doing better on one project and are slower on another; things may change by using different compiler, newer application, optimalizations etc. (it is even more complicated when we go to credit so it is better to omit that factor which is close to useless in term of science anyway)

For example: Intel was better for CPDN in days of it's classic version, then AMD was better during early BOINC era, now it is Intel that is prefered again with Coupled models (or vice-versa).

There is no definite answer to that as things change during time.

Have a look in my signiture link for a list of project and estimated times of running for some hint.

To make long story short:
Very good choice in term of cost to processing ratio should be Intel Core 2 Duo E6400, which is easy to overclock. High-ends models are quite costy, even they are doing 2x more job...

But without putting any estimation of how much you are about to spend...there is no answer for that.

Thanks for your response,

I intend to run Einstein@home and SETI@home only for this computer.

And looking to try to keep it around $800 give or take. After all its just a toy. I have found several ways to save money, so the rest can be spent on the CPU and memory. From what I see it is possible to build what I need in that price range. But unsure of the details and want to make sure that I am not waisting anything.


Thank you for the link, I am looking threw it now!