[fiestarry]

Hi,
I have the peripherals, so I am looking for only a CPU . My budget is around 60 k for the CPU alone. I can go higher if it will be future proof for five years. I have been out of touch with configurations for a few years now because I worked on my high end office computers. I need this for my parallel research at home.

[AnandB]

Get a Ryzen 3950X, think it will be just above 60k.

[Joxster]

Originally Posted by fiestarry

Hi,
I have the peripherals, so I am looking for only a CPU . My budget is around 60 k for the CPU alone. I can go higher if it will be future proof for five years. I have been out of touch with configurations for a few years now because I worked on my high end office computers. I need this for my parallel research at home.

Originally Posted by AnandB

Get a Ryzen 3950X, think it will be just above 60k.

Completely agree with AnandB. Get a Ryzen 9 3950X if it fits in your budget. Nothing comes close to it at that price-point.

Here's a detailed review if you're interested in knowing what you're buying before spending your hard-earned money.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmqT2-2seT0

Cheers

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by AnandB

Get a Ryzen 3950X, think it will be just above 60k.

CPU with higher core count are really expensive. the 3950x lists at 91K+ on Amazon. Here are the listed prices

https://www.amazon.in/Processors/b?i...ode=1375391031

Then there is the fact that most of the popular processors cannot be used in multi-CPU configurations. That is where XEONS had an advantage - 2 CPU for normal XEON and 4+ for the multi cpu versions.

There are dual CPU boards for AMD but I doubt their availability or support in India. Any way 2 x 8 core CPU are less than half the price of a 16 core. I doubt that at around USD 4,000/- the cost of 64 core CPU will appeal to non institutional user.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/6/21...icing-ces-2020

[AnandB]

You should not use Amazon for any part buying. Check mdcomputers which list it as 65k.

[Joxster]

Originally Posted by Aroy

Then there is the fact that most of the popular processors cannot be used in multi-CPU configurations. That is where XEONS had an advantage - 2 CPU for normal XEON and 4+ for the multi cpu versions.

Sorry to say, but the information you are providing is very outdated. What according to you is the advantage of having a multi-CPU setup vs having a single-CPU setup? As far as I'm aware, multi-CPU is a disadvantage in every way except core count, and that is where AMD totally changed the game. The core count on Intel's biggest baddest Xeon CPU is 28 cores and 56 threads, which is not even half of what AMD provides on their top end EPYC CPU which is 64 cores and 128 threads. So, in summary, the most expensive dual-CPU Xeon system would have 56 cores and 112 threads, while AMD provides 64 cores and 128 threads in a single CPU, and if you want to do a dual-CPU AMD setup, that would be 128 cores & 256 threads. I'm sure the numbers help to make the decision for themselves. On top of all this, AMD is cheaper than Intel despite offering far superior performance, and that's why companies like Google & Twitter are moving their DC infrastructure to AMD - link here if interested in reading.

Here's an article highlighting why multi-CPU setups should be avoided if possible:

Since 2005, computer CPU chip makers have increasingly adopted the use of multiple cores to increase performance. Each core runs a separate computing task, so the computer gets more work done. Before the rush to multi-core CPUs, computer designers sometimes put two, four or more single-core CPUs into a system. As of October 2011, server computers have two or more multi-core CPU chips in the same machine.

Software:
Either multiple CPUs or multiple cores require software programmed to recognize them. Operating systems, such as Linux or Microsoft Windows, began on single-CPU, single-core computers. Versions that recognize multi-core computers require additional programming effort. Unless the software knows the difference between single and multiple CPUs, it will act as if the computer has a single CPU, and the other computing resources will remain idle. The same goes for application software. For example, a 3D graphics modeling program may run no faster on a single-core computer than a multi-core one. If the program can split up CPU-intensive tasks and assign them to different cores, the program completes those tasks more quickly.

Energy Efficiency:
A multi-core computer has better energy efficiency than one with multiple CPUs. Multiple CPUs mean multiple copies of the same integrated circuit sit on a circuit board, with associated wiring between them and other chips. Consolidating the cores onto one chip reduces the energy used to send signals from chip to chip. It also eliminates some of the extra chips needed to manage signals between CPUs. If the computer goes from two CPUs to one multi-core CPU, it also reduces the number of CPU cooling fans from two to one, saving additional energy.

Space and Cost:
Multi-core chips save circuit-board and packaging space compared to multiple CPU designs. Having a single CPU chip with two cores takes half the space as two separate CPU chips. Eliminating the other signal-management support chips from a multiple-CPU computer also saves space. If a multi-core chip costs 50 percent more than a single-core chip, a multi-core single-CPU computer will cost less than one with two CPUs.

Speed:
The cores on a multi-core CPU share the same cache memory and other resources, so they possess a performance advantage over multiple-CPU designs. The electrical signals between components travel shorter distances on a multi-core CPU. Shorter distances for the signals mean they can run at a higher clock speed without degrading. A higher clock speed means the multi-core CPU runs programs faster than single-core CPUs.

Source

Originally Posted by Aroy

There are dual CPU boards for AMD but I doubt their availability or support in India. Any way 2 x 8 core CPU are less than half the price of a 16 core. I doubt that at around USD 4,000/- the cost of 64 core CPU will appeal to non institutional user.

AnandB already responded to you with the correct price of the Ryzen 9 3950X. You can see that the CPU is much cheaper here. What is your source for saying that 2x8 core (brand new) is less than half the price please?

Cheers

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by Joxster

...........
AnandB already responded to you with the correct price of the Ryzen 9 3950X. You can see that the CPU is much cheaper here. What is your source for saying that 2x8 core (brand new) is less than half the price please?

Cheers

Thanks for the update.

I used Amazon for price reference, but will buy from Nehru Place for support. Anyway in the site referred by you the 8 cores vary from 19k to 32k, 16 core is 65K and 24K is 132.

In my experience with Intel CPU, the XEON had always much better throughput compared to similarly specked I7. I have no idea of AMD CPU. Anyway dual CPU works out to be less than or equal to single CPU core count being same.

In fact there are plenty of articles on implementing four or more CPU of lower cost to achieve throughput of a faster larger core number CPU. All depends on software. If the compiler licenses are based on number of cores then it is better to have faster CPU. If licenses are based per machine then multi-core is better. If license is based per developer then cluster is better.

It all depends on both the problem and compiler used. I have written and used FORTRAN and C++ for multi thread programs, for programs that can be broken down to thousands of parallel operations, and the best I could get is a factor of 0.5 speed up over single core. For large scale computation a cluster of inexpensive machines is the cheapest solution.

[Thad E Ginathom]

I am just browsing this thread for general interest. I'm not itching to upgrade; my machine does everything I need, but I wonder by what order of power my AMD Phenom II X4 955 (4) @ 3.200GHz is now out of date? The machine must be nearly a decade old.

[Joxster]

Originally Posted by Aroy

Anyway in the site referred by you the 8 cores vary from 19k to 32k, 16 core is 65K and 24K is 132.

You're providing the price of regular 8 core desktop CPUs. Are you not aware that regular desktop CPUs cannot be put into a multi-CPU configuration on one motherboard? If not, you know now. Only server CPUs can be put into a multi-CPU configuration, so the prices you are providing are not correct.
Please provide the price of two brand-new 8 core Xeon CPUs. Then we can compare if it will be cheaper than the 16 core Ryzen 9 3950X that we're recommending.

Originally Posted by Aroy

In my experience with Intel CPU, the XEON had always much better throughput compared to similarly specked I7. I have no idea of AMD CPU.

I've made the part of your statement that matters the most in Bold. You're talking about the past. We're talking about the present. You're also comparing a server CPU to a regular desktop CPU, which honestly doesn't make sense, because they have different purposes.

Originally Posted by Aroy

Anyway dual CPU works out to be less than or equal to single CPU core count being same.

No, it does not. As clarified above, you cannot put two i7s or Ryzen 7s on one motherboard. Only server CPUs can be used for multi-CPU builds on the same motherboard, and they are way more costly than their regular desktop counterparts.

Originally Posted by Aroy

In fact there are plenty of articles on implementing four or more CPU of lower cost to achieve throughput of a faster larger core number CPU. All depends on software. If the compiler licenses are based on number of cores then it is better to have faster CPU. If licenses are based per machine then multi-core is better. If license is based per developer then cluster is better.

It all depends on both the problem and compiler used. I have written and used FORTRAN and C++ for multi thread programs, for programs that can be broken down to thousands of parallel operations, and the best I could get is a factor of 0.5 speed up over single core. For large scale computation a cluster of inexpensive machines is the cheapest solution.

I mean no disrespect to you or your experience. However, you are using very outdated CPUs, and the CPU architecture has changed a lot since then. I'm sure that the articles you could quote to support what you're saying are outdated as well. And more importantly, I also agreed that multi-CPU is needed for some use-cases, but even then, the choice would be AMD, not Intel.

Have doubts about what I'm saying? Look at the graph below:



Source

The facts are that AMD has overtaken Intel in every aspect today, and Intel themselves have acknowledged that they need sometime to catch up with AMD - read about it here. When the company themselves have admitted this fact, I don't think we need to debate any further about what someone should spend their hard-earned money on today.

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

I am just browsing this thread for general interest. I'm not itching to upgrade; my machine does everything I need, but I wonder by what order of power my AMD Phenom II X4 955 (4) @ 3.200GHz is now out of date? The machine must be nearly a decade old.

By modern day benchmarks, your CPU is # 1276 out of 2855 currently.

You can find it in the list here.

Cheers

[Aroy]

For number crunching the more cores the better, whether the cores are in one processor or spread over 10+.

When I built my XEON system only server CPU could be used in multi CPU MB. In fact only 2 for Normal XEON, more than that required XEON MP.

I did scan the net recently for motherboards supporting multiple CPU and still most of them support only two. It is still server CPU for most.

In fact at that time dual XEON were also available for Workstation Class desktops, and if I am not mistaken even Apple had one such model.

When I update (build a new one) my desktop I will do a thorough survey of multiple CPU MB available in India and the cost of the associated processors. I can still do with as many cores as possible for dedicated number crunching. I will also evaluate clusters assembled with inexpensive dedicated MB basically with CPU and RAM.

For normal use a fast single multi core processor should suffice.

[Fillmore]

Query in context to Bangalore
Can anyone suggest a decent dealer from SP Road or the likes ?
I need to assemble a mid range desktop (even refurbished desktop/laptop will do).

The idea is to permanently connect it via HDMI to the TV, I have an old Xbox 360 controller. Plan to hook that up and run Steam games on it.

I am not a hardcore gamer, so do not need a "Gaming machine".
Thinking of min i5 , 8gb Ram, 256gb SSD.

[JMaruru]

Originally Posted by Fillmore

Can anyone suggest a decent dealer from SP Road or the likes ?

I have been to 'Ankith Computers' at 'SP Road', couple of times for my computing needs. Prices are negotiable and be prepared for the same.

[agambhandari]

Built a new Gaming PC as I was too bored stuck inside. Nothing too flashy. Just wanted solid VFM components.


Ryzen 5 3500 ₹ 10,500

MSI B450 Gaming Plus MAX ₹9500

Inno3D GTX 1060 6GB ₹13500

16 GB 3200 Mhz G.Skill Ripjaws₹ 7000

240GB WD SSD ₹ 2900

2TB HDD WD Blue₹4200

Corsair Carbide 175R ₹3000

Corsair VS450.₹ 2300

3x Antec RGB Fans ₹1750

connected it to my 4K HDR tv from TCL. Works well to play Forza in HDR. Can do 1440p at 50-60 fps. Using Logitech K830 living room keyboard and ANT esports game controller.

GPU and CPU choice. CPU: Going to be mostly gaming so wanted highest single core performance(Zen 2 has the best IPC) and 3500 was not much more than 1600 or i3 9100f

GPU: 4GB VRAM is going to be seriously limiting going forwards as it is already easy to cross it on some games with 1080p/1440p ultra. 1650 super is 10-15 pc faster in most games but 1060 has 6gb . I already see Forza at 4.5gb mark with 1440p ultra. Was looking at RX580 too but same performance, 8gb price was higher and the driver issues and power hunger etc. So went with a safer choice

[sandeepmohan]

Originally Posted by Aroy

I can still do with as many cores as possible for dedicated number crunching.

You have a lot of catching up to do my friend.

Intel Xeons are still in wide use for most server and workstation applications. That said, the game has changed now with the power, speed and efficiency of a single socket solution that can scale and perform better than a dual socket solution. Dual socket also suffers from latency issues between the chips and memory. They don't turbo or scale as high in terms of clock frequency too. In professional workstation scenarios, for simulation, computer graphics and the need for responsive interactive performance, a single socket solution performs much better. This is where the Zen 2 architecture from AMD shines. High clock speed, higher instructions per clock or IPC, the ability to thread like we have never seen before and a thermal power design not exceeding 280 watts for the Threadripper (Slightly lower for the Epyc). Do give these new chips a shot. You won't regret it.

This article is worth a read. Its more about the design of the processor. There are other articles for benchmarks.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14525...-and-epyc-rome

Originally Posted by Fillmore

Query in context to Bangalore Can anyone suggest a decent dealer from SP Road or the likes ?

Dinesh of Aashirwaad Computer. 990 095 6559

[Samfromindia]

Intel i9-10900K - The return of the king !

Intel 10th Gen Desktop chips are reviewed. They managed to beat their AMD counterparts in gaming while staying cool also For people like me who mostly uses computer for gaming, browsing & image processing using Photoshop + Lightroom, cores with higher clock speed matter more than number of cores. I really didn't expect Intel to take back the gaming crown, but they managed to do that.

https://youtu.be/ogsizXBMKj4

https://youtu.be/mLsoJkQb0Cs