|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Dave
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 8:57 pm Post subject: Performance of Blase 2000 CPUs |
 |
|
I'm thinking of buying a used blade 2000 for a general purpose home
computer, to replace my quad processor Ultra 80. The faster CPUs seem to
attract a real premium on the used market, making a single 1.2 GHz
machine quite a bit more expensive than a dual 900 MHz one.
What is likely to be the best performance wise for a single user desktop
system - single 1.2 GHz or dual 900 MHz? I find with my Ultra 80 it
spends a lot of its time with one CPU maxed out and the other 3 idle,
since most of my applications are not making very good use of the
multiple CPUs. That might suggest I'd be better with a single 1.2 Gz
unit, but a pair of 900's are cheaper and perhaps a better solution.
Any thoughts - mainly I'm interested in the exoeriences of those that
have used both of these sort of setups. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fix your Windows Problems - FAST.
FREE Safe Scan Registry Check. Locate & Fix Errors in Minutes!
|
|
KJ
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 10:02 pm Post subject: Re: Performance of Blase 2000 CPUs |
|
|
On May 7, 11:57 am, Dave <somepl...@nowhere-nice.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I'm thinking of buying a used blade 2000 for a general purpose home
computer, to replace my quad processor Ultra 80. The faster CPUs seem to
attract a real premium on the used market, making a single 1.2 GHz
machine quite a bit more expensive than a dual 900 MHz one.
What is likely to be the best performance wise for a single user desktop
system - single 1.2 GHz or dual 900 MHz? I find with my Ultra 80 it
spends a lot of its time with one CPU maxed out and the other 3 idle,
since most of my applications are not making very good use of the
multiple CPUs. That might suggest I'd be better with a single 1.2 Gz
unit, but a pair of 900's are cheaper and perhaps a better solution.
Any thoughts - mainly I'm interested in the exoeriences of those that
have used both of these sort of setups.
|
I'm sure this depends greatly on your specific workload, but you might
consider a used Opteron system as well. Besides, you can likely find
one of these great x86 processors for about the same price as a Blade
2000 with a 2.4GHz or better Opteron.
I'd suggest looking for a used Sun W1100z or Ultra 20. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thegman
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 10:26 pm Post subject: Re: Performance of Blase 2000 CPUs |
|
|
On May 7, 4:57 pm, Dave <somepl...@nowhere-nice.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I'm thinking of buying a used blade 2000 for a general purpose home
computer, to replace my quad processor Ultra 80. The faster CPUs seem to
attract a real premium on the used market, making a single 1.2 GHz
machine quite a bit more expensive than a dual 900 MHz one.
What is likely to be the best performance wise for a single user desktop
system - single 1.2 GHz or dual 900 MHz? I find with my Ultra 80 it
spends a lot of its time with one CPU maxed out and the other 3 idle,
since most of my applications are not making very good use of the
multiple CPUs. That might suggest I'd be better with a single 1.2 Gz
unit, but a pair of 900's are cheaper and perhaps a better solution.
Any thoughts - mainly I'm interested in the exoeriences of those that
have used both of these sort of setups.
|
Personally, I'd go with the dual 900MHz over the 1.2 GHz, although my
workloads tend to favour multiple CPUs. You could examine the types of
apps you are using, see if there are alternatives that make better use
of multiple CPUs. Even little things like rather than have multiple
windows of a web browser open, have multiple copies of the browser
open, that way you let Solaris share the processes over the CPUs
rather depend on multi-threading in the apps, Solaris is always going
to be better at that.
I used to have a 4x450MHz Ultra 80, and on my sort of loads, it
generally felt a bit more perky than my AMD 3000+ PC. Of course on a
lot of tasks the AMD wiped the floor with the U80, but when wrote
scripts with multiple CPUs in mind, the U80 got to be somewhat better,
I'm sure the 10k RPM disks versus crappy IDE made a big difference too
though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greg Menke
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 12:39 am Post subject: Re: Performance of Blase 2000 CPUs |
|
|
Dave <someplace@nowhere-nice.com> writes:
| Quote: | I'm thinking of buying a used blade 2000 for a general purpose home
computer, to replace my quad processor Ultra 80. The faster CPUs seem to
attract a real premium on the used market, making a single 1.2 GHz
machine quite a bit more expensive than a dual 900 MHz one.
What is likely to be the best performance wise for a single user desktop
system - single 1.2 GHz or dual 900 MHz? I find with my Ultra 80 it
spends a lot of its time with one CPU maxed out and the other 3 idle,
since most of my applications are not making very good use of the
multiple CPUs. That might suggest I'd be better with a single 1.2 Gz
unit, but a pair of 900's are cheaper and perhaps a better solution.
Any thoughts - mainly I'm interested in the exoeriences of those that
have used both of these sort of setups.
|
I upgraded to dual 750s in a Blade 2000 box, which I guess makes it a
Blade 1000, but my old machine was a dual 450 U60 so is a nice upgrade.
Would love to get 900mhz processors, but the 2k & cpus only cost me $50
so there is that...
The disk throughput & foreground impact of I/O is lots better than the
U60, though its a drag that you'll have to get FC/AL drives instead of
transplanting at least one from the U80.
I found the 2k generally more reponsive than the U60, window manager is
Gnome 2.whatever, Solaris 9. I'd go for the dual cpu myself, Solaris
seems to like that sort of arrangement. I can imagine apps not taking a
lot of advantage of a quad processor system, OTOH just the desktop and a
couple apps would tend to nicely occupy a dual cpu machine.
I think the big performance upgrade is the step up from 450mhz and an
apparently faster bus/disk subsystem. If you have an angle on
eventually getting a 2nd 1.2ghz cpu for cheap then maybe the single
processor box would be a good choice, otherwise I tend to like the dual
900's.
Gregm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greg Menke
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 3:18 pm Post subject: Re: Performance of Blase 2000 CPUs |
|
|
Dave <someplace@nowhere-nice.com> writes:
| Quote: |
Thak you for your comments. I think I'll look at 2x900MHz and upgrade to
2x1.2 GHz as prices fall, which I am sure they will very dramatically.
|
You're welcome! But price drops may take a while. The Sun ecycler I
buy from gets a premium from the 900mhz and faster cpus. He gets better
money pulling the processors and selling them than selling entire
computers. I got the 700's for cheap because those processors aren't in
demand. In fact, my box used to have 900's, he sold them quickly. When
I came by & we made the deal, he pulled the 700's from a pile of
rackmount systems bound for scrap.
But I'm very happy with the dual 700. The drives are a bit noisy, or
perhaps the acoustic shelding isn't as good as the U60. But the fans
are maybe quieter. I bought a snazzy USB mouse, I imagine most any USB
keyboard will also work but you'll only get Stop-A & friends if you get
a Sun kbd. Probably will put Solaris 10 on at some point, but I had a
legal Sol9 so used that instead.
Gregm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Dave
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 3:18 pm Post subject: Re: Performance of Blase 2000 CPUs |
|
|
Greg Menke wrote:
| Quote: | Dave <someplace@nowhere-nice.com> writes:
I'm thinking of buying a used blade 2000 for a general purpose home
computer, to replace my quad processor Ultra 80. The faster CPUs seem to
attract a real premium on the used market, making a single 1.2 GHz
machine quite a bit more expensive than a dual 900 MHz one.
What is likely to be the best performance wise for a single user desktop
system - single 1.2 GHz or dual 900 MHz? I find with my Ultra 80 it
spends a lot of its time with one CPU maxed out and the other 3 idle,
since most of my applications are not making very good use of the
multiple CPUs. That might suggest I'd be better with a single 1.2 Gz
unit, but a pair of 900's are cheaper and perhaps a better solution.
Any thoughts - mainly I'm interested in the exoeriences of those that
have used both of these sort of setups.
I upgraded to dual 750s in a Blade 2000 box, which I guess makes it a
Blade 1000, but my old machine was a dual 450 U60 so is a nice upgrade.
Would love to get 900mhz processors, but the 2k & cpus only cost me $50
so there is that...
The disk throughput & foreground impact of I/O is lots better than the
U60, though its a drag that you'll have to get FC/AL drives instead of
transplanting at least one from the U80.
I found the 2k generally more reponsive than the U60, window manager is
Gnome 2.whatever, Solaris 9. I'd go for the dual cpu myself, Solaris
seems to like that sort of arrangement. I can imagine apps not taking a
lot of advantage of a quad processor system, OTOH just the desktop and a
couple apps would tend to nicely occupy a dual cpu machine.
I think the big performance upgrade is the step up from 450mhz and an
apparently faster bus/disk subsystem. If you have an angle on
eventually getting a 2nd 1.2ghz cpu for cheap then maybe the single
processor box would be a good choice, otherwise I tend to like the dual
900's.
Gregm
Thak you for your comments. I think I'll look at 2x900MHz and upgrade to |
2x1.2 GHz as prices fall, which I am sure they will very dramatically. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gerryt
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 8:36 pm Post subject: Re: Performance of Blase 2000 CPUs |
|
|
On May 8, 3:28 am, Dave <somepl...@nowhere-nice.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Greg Menke wrote:
Dave <somepl...@nowhere-nice.com> writes:
I'm thinking of buying a used blade 2000 for a general purpose home
computer, to replace my quad processor Ultra 80. The faster CPUs seem to
attract a real premium on the used market, making a single 1.2 GHz
machine quite a bit more expensive than a dual 900 MHz one.
What is likely to be the best performance wise for a single user desktop
system - single 1.2 GHz or dual 900 MHz? I find with my Ultra 80 it
spends a lot of its time with one CPU maxed out and the other 3 idle,
since most of my applications are not making very good use of the
multiple CPUs. That might suggest I'd be better with a single 1.2 Gz
unit, but a pair of 900's are cheaper and perhaps a better solution.
Any thoughts - mainly I'm interested in the exoeriences of those that
have used both of these sort of setups.
I upgraded to dual 750s in a Blade 2000 box, which I guess makes it a
Blade 1000, but my old machine was a dual 450 U60 so is a nice upgrade.
Would love to get 900mhz processors, but the 2k & cpus only cost me $50
so there is that...
The disk throughput & foreground impact of I/O is lots better than the
U60, though its a drag that you'll have to get FC/AL drives instead of
transplanting at least one from the U80.
I found the 2k generally more reponsive than the U60, window manager is
Gnome 2.whatever, Solaris 9. I'd go for the dual cpu myself, Solaris
seems to like that sort of arrangement. I can imagine apps not taking a
lot of advantage of a quad processor system, OTOH just the desktop and a
couple apps would tend to nicely occupy a dual cpu machine.
I think the big performance upgrade is the step up from 450mhz and an
apparently faster bus/disk subsystem. If you have an angle on
eventually getting a 2nd 1.2ghz cpu for cheap then maybe the single
processor box would be a good choice, otherwise I tend to like the dual
900's.
Thak you for your comments. I think I'll look at 2x900MHz and upgrade to
2x1.2 GHz as prices fall, which I am sure they will very dramatically.
|
I wouldnt count on that. Anyway I have a Blade 1000 w. 1x750MHz.
It was my previous workstation.
Now I use for posting to Usenet (:>) my Blade 2000 w. 2x1200MHz
ultra3cu's.
The newer Blade seemed faster by about the same as the increase in
MHz. Having dual CPUs over 1 isnt all that noticeable.
I havent benched self compiled apps other than openssl but with
Studio 11 set to -fast -xtarget=ultra3cu I saw some increase in
performance
over a generic compile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave (from the UK)
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 7:35 pm Post subject: Re: Performance of Blase 2000 CPUs |
|
|
Greg Menke wrote:
| Quote: | Dave <someplace@nowhere-nice.com> writes:
Thak you for your comments. I think I'll look at 2x900MHz and upgrade to
2x1.2 GHz as prices fall, which I am sure they will very dramatically.
You're welcome! But price drops may take a while. The Sun ecycler I
buy from gets a premium from the 900mhz and faster cpus.
|
The 900 MHz one seems pretty cheap now. Less than a third of the price
of the 1.2 GHz ones, so there is a lot more MHz/$ !!
He gets better
| Quote: | money pulling the processors and selling them than selling entire
computers.
|
You don't surprise me there. Also a lot cheaper to store.
After a few beers one night I did some calculation of the resale value
of used X1195A CPUs over time. My model has broken down now, but was
good for well over two years. I've seen the price of them fall from
$1600 per CPU to $25 per CPU in a few years.
| Quote: | I got the 700's for cheap because those processors aren't in
demand. In fact, my box used to have 900's, he sold them quickly. When
I came by & we made the deal, he pulled the 700's from a pile of
rackmount systems bound for scrap.
But I'm very happy with the dual 700. The drives are a bit noisy, or
perhaps the acoustic shelding isn't as good as the U60. But the fans
are maybe quieter. I bought a snazzy USB mouse, I imagine most any USB
keyboard will also work but you'll only get Stop-A & friends if you get
a Sun kbd. Probably will put Solaris 10 on at some point, but I had a
legal Sol9 so used that instead.
Gregm
|
--
Dave (from the UK)
Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: month-year@althorne.org
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.
http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/ - a Free open-source Chess Database |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Casper H.S. Dik
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 8:19 pm Post subject: Re: Performance of Blase 2000 CPUs |
|
|
Greg Menke <gdmnews@toadmail.com> writes:
| Quote: | But I'm very happy with the dual 700. The drives are a bit noisy, or
perhaps the acoustic shelding isn't as good as the U60. But the fans
are maybe quieter. I bought a snazzy USB mouse, I imagine most any USB
keyboard will also work but you'll only get Stop-A & friends if you get
a Sun kbd. Probably will put Solaris 10 on at some point, but I had a
legal Sol9 so used that instead.
|
Of course, a legal copy of S10 is free so it's very easy to upgrade to it.
(Or Solaris Nevada, especially the developer release which comes with
all the compilers & tools)
Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greg Menke
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 9:04 pm Post subject: Re: Performance of Blase 2000 CPUs |
|
|
Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@Sun.COM> writes:
| Quote: | Greg Menke <gdmnews@toadmail.com> writes:
But I'm very happy with the dual 700. The drives are a bit noisy, or
perhaps the acoustic shelding isn't as good as the U60. But the fans
are maybe quieter. I bought a snazzy USB mouse, I imagine most any USB
keyboard will also work but you'll only get Stop-A & friends if you get
a Sun kbd. Probably will put Solaris 10 on at some point, but I had a
legal Sol9 so used that instead.
Of course, a legal copy of S10 is free so it's very easy to upgrade to it.
(Or Solaris Nevada, especially the developer release which comes with
all the compilers & tools)
|
True. I just don't have a support contract in place for myself at home
and I do want the patches. I don't have the time and inclination to
mess with Solaris beyond buying & installing & using- its a fantastic OS
to install and put to use without incurring drama. I get my fill of
drama with Linux.
Gregm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fix your Windows Problems - FAST.
FREE Safe Scan Registry Check. Locate & Fix Errors in Minutes!
|
|
Greg Menke
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 9:18 pm Post subject: Re: Performance of Blase 2000 CPUs |
|
|
"Dave (from the UK)" <see-my-signature@southminster-branch-line.org.uk> writes:
| Quote: | Greg Menke wrote:
He gets better
money pulling the processors and selling them than selling entire
computers.
You don't surprise me there. Also a lot cheaper to store.
After a few beers one night I did some calculation of the resale value
of used X1195A CPUs over time. My model has broken down now, but was
good for well over two years. I've seen the price of them fall from
$1600 per CPU to $25 per CPU in a few years.
|
Last time I spoke w/ him and IIRC he got $100 each for the 900mhz
processors, he doesn't get many 1.2ghz processors in at the moment-
maybe in another year or so they'll start showing up. Basically he
strips the machines as they come in & scraps the box. When I got mine
he had 3 empty Blade 2k boxes left, had to pull memory and 750mhz
processors from the rackmount systems which were themselves going for
scrap.
His X1195A's are cheap as dirt- just have to pick them out of the pile
and test. He gets in quite a few U60's, doesn't sell many. Somewhat
paradoxally he sells U10's by the pallet, they're quite popular for some
reason- I suspect the IDE interface is preferred.
Gregm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Josh McKee
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 12:58 am Post subject: Re: Performance of Blase 2000 CPUs |
|
|
In article <m3hcqm7zlp.fsf@venus.pienet>,
Greg Menke <gdmnews@toadmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@Sun.COM> writes:
Greg Menke <gdmnews@toadmail.com> writes:
But I'm very happy with the dual 700. The drives are a bit noisy, or
perhaps the acoustic shelding isn't as good as the U60. But the fans
are maybe quieter. I bought a snazzy USB mouse, I imagine most any USB
keyboard will also work but you'll only get Stop-A & friends if you get
a Sun kbd. Probably will put Solaris 10 on at some point, but I had a
legal Sol9 so used that instead.
Of course, a legal copy of S10 is free so it's very easy to upgrade to it.
(Or Solaris Nevada, especially the developer release which comes with
all the compilers & tools)
True. I just don't have a support contract in place for myself at home
and I do want the patches. I don't have the time and inclination to
mess with Solaris beyond buying & installing & using- its a fantastic OS
to install and put to use without incurring drama. I get my fill of
drama with Linux.
|
Sun doesn't require a support contract for Solaris 10 patches either.
You can obtain them using patch management tools like "smpatch" (which
is much easier than downloading a patch cluster).
Josh |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hank Zoeller
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 7:31 am Post subject: Re: Performance of Blase 2000 CPUs |
|
|
Dave (from the UK) wrote:
| Quote: | After a few beers one night I did some calculation of the resale value
of used X1195A CPUs over time. My model has broken down now, but was
good for well over two years. I've seen the price of them fall from
$1600 per CPU to $25 per CPU in a few years.
|
Well, my $13,000 SB1000 system (2x750, 1.5GB, 2x18GB, XVR-500,
SunPCI-IIPro) is worth maybe $300 after about five years.
BTW, I've shifted from using the SB1000 boxes to running a beige box x86
machine as a SunRay server (AMD @ 2.167 GHz, 1GB, 3x18GB SCSI U160,
1x120GB HW RAID mirror) and use SunRay1's everywhere. The UI is
actually a bit snappier than using the SB1000 directly and NO FAN NOISE!
--
HZ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greg Menke
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 8:09 am Post subject: Re: Performance of Blase 2000 CPUs |
|
|
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rm-bogus-ac.net> writes:
| Quote: | In article <m3hcqm7zlp.fsf@venus.pienet>,
Greg Menke <gdmnews@toadmail.com> wrote:
Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@Sun.COM> writes:
Greg Menke <gdmnews@toadmail.com> writes:
But I'm very happy with the dual 700. The drives are a bit noisy, or
perhaps the acoustic shelding isn't as good as the U60. But the fans
are maybe quieter. I bought a snazzy USB mouse, I imagine most any USB
keyboard will also work but you'll only get Stop-A & friends if you get
a Sun kbd. Probably will put Solaris 10 on at some point, but I had a
legal Sol9 so used that instead.
Of course, a legal copy of S10 is free so it's very easy to upgrade to it.
(Or Solaris Nevada, especially the developer release which comes with
all the compilers & tools)
True. I just don't have a support contract in place for myself at home
and I do want the patches. I don't have the time and inclination to
mess with Solaris beyond buying & installing & using- its a fantastic OS
to install and put to use without incurring drama. I get my fill of
drama with Linux.
Sun doesn't require a support contract for Solaris 10 patches either.
You can obtain them using patch management tools like "smpatch" (which
is much easier than downloading a patch cluster).
|
I was under the impression that to legally use Solaris 10 on anything
more than an experimental basis you had to buy a support contract for at
least a year- and that you needed one to get patches via pca (I entirely
abandoned smpatch last year on all my Solaris systems).
OTOH Sun has changed their policies so often over the last couple years
that I can't keep track anymore.
Gregm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ian Collins
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 9:05 am Post subject: Re: Performance of Blase 2000 CPUs |
|
|
Greg Menke wrote:
| Quote: |
I was under the impression that to legally use Solaris 10 on anything
more than an experimental basis you had to buy a support contract for at
least a year- and that you needed one to get patches via pca (I entirely
abandoned smpatch last year on all my Solaris systems).
From where? |
| Quote: | OTOH Sun has changed their policies so often over the last couple years
that I can't keep track anymore.
Not for Solaris 10, it has been free for any use from day one. |
--
Ian Collins. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Watched Topics
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Profile
Log in
Memberlist
Usergroups