CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > General Forums > Hardware

Computer suggestion with the most processors possible

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By wyldckat

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   July 17, 2014, 03:09
Default Computer suggestion with the most processors possible
  #1
New Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9
Rep Power: 16
tjtx is on a distinguished road
I plan to run STAR-CCM+ on a 4-CPU 32-core workstation. It seems Dell and HP only have 2-CPU 24-core. Your suggestions will be appreciated. Thanks!
tjtx is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 17, 2014, 09:38
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Charles
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 185
Rep Power: 18
CapSizer is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjtx View Post
I plan to run STAR-CCM+ on a 4-CPU 32-core workstation. It seems Dell and HP only have 2-CPU 24-core. Your suggestions will be appreciated. Thanks!
Intel 4-core machines are very expensive, and require a special (very expensive) version of the Xeon (e7) processor. Either go for two networked 16-core machines, or if you really insist on so many cores in one box, 4-socket AMD. The 4-socket AMD systems use the same processors as the 2-socket ones, and have 4 memory channels per socket, just like the Xeon e5 systems. In CFD the memory speed counts for a great deal (this has been discussed to death on this forum), most often more than the raw CPU performance.
CapSizer is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 18, 2014, 18:55
Default
  #3
New Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9
Rep Power: 16
tjtx is on a distinguished road
Thanks for your answer. I think I should go with an AMD machine. Do you have any suggestions regarding brand name vs non-brand name?

I am looking at Puget Systems which has competitive pricing compared to Dell and HP. I am not sure about the quality of product and reliability of their service.

p.s., Somebody told me that certain AMD processor models had heat issues before. Do you have any idea about this?
tjtx is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 19, 2014, 01:34
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
Charles
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 185
Rep Power: 18
CapSizer is on a distinguished road
There's always a bit of a risk with a non name brand, but I've had good success with white box systems before. AFAIK, the AMD heat issues were about 12 years ago! What is true these days is that they seem to be less interested (or less able to?) in trying to compete head-on with Intel for outright performance.
CapSizer is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 20, 2014, 01:55
Default
  #5
New Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9
Rep Power: 16
tjtx is on a distinguished road
Thanks for your information. I have narrowed down to the following two systems with similar price.

Intel Computer:
Motherboard Supermicro X9QRI-F+
CPU 4 x Intel Xeon E5-4610 V2 2.3GHz Eight Core 16MB 95W
Ram Kingston 64GB DDR3-1600 REG ECC (16x4GB)
Video Card NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti 3GB

AMD Computer:
Motherboard Supermicro H8QGi-F
CPU 4 x AMD Opteron (G34) 6380 16-Core 2.5GHz 115W
Ram Kingston 64GB DDR3-1600 REG ECC (16x4GB)
Video Card NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti 3GB

Since Star-CCM+ has flat HPC license, I will be able to use all available cores. I understand the performance gain v.s. number of cores is not linear. However, the second system has 64 cores, compared to 32 cores on the Intel system. Which one will be faster?
tjtx is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 20, 2014, 16:54
Default
  #6
Retired Super Moderator
 
Bruno Santos
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Posts: 10,974
Blog Entries: 45
Rep Power: 128
wyldckat is a name known to allwyldckat is a name known to allwyldckat is a name known to allwyldckat is a name known to allwyldckat is a name known to allwyldckat is a name known to all
Greetings to all!

@tjtx: Thanks for providing the specs of each machine, it makes it a lot easier to do some math on this.

From a GHz only point of view and taking into account the lithography each processor uses, here's what I get:
  • E5-4610 V2 is done with a lithography of 22nm and runs at 2.3 base clock, 2.7 with turbo. This usually equates to the average of 2.5 GHz when using all cores, therefore it's 8 cores at 2.5GHz = 20 GHz of cumulative pure power.
  • AMD Opteron 6380 is done with a lithography of 32 nm runs at 2.5 GHz, but a bit of searching indicates that it can run at 2.8 GHz with all cores. This equates to 16 cores at 2.8 GHz = 44.8 GHz of cumulative power.
Now factoring in the lithography of each CPU and using 32nm as the reference:
  • E5-4610 V2: 32/22 = 1.45(45) scale up factor, which means that 20GHz times 1.45(45) equates to 29.09(09) GHz.
  • AMD Opteron 6380: 32/32 = 1, i.e. it's still 44.8 GHz.
Therefore, theoretically, the machine using the AMD Opteron 6380 CPUs is roughly 4/3 more powerful than the Intel E5-4610 V2 CPUs.


But then there is a problem that is hard to account for:
  • In the AMD CPUs, there are 16 cores per socket accessing the same 4 banks of RAM at the same time.
  • In the Intel CPUs, there are only 8 cores per socket accessing the same 4 banks of RAM at the same time.
And since both are using 1600MHz RAM modules, it means that the Intel processors more likely have a more orderly access to the RAM than the AMD processors. And as CapSizer indicated, memory accesses are extremely important for CFD, therefore there is a risk that in a worst case scenario, having twice the core count might reduce to half the performance of the AMD processors, which would (in an equivalent way) bring them down from 44.8 to 22.4 GHz of cumulative power.

On the heating point of view, both solutions will likely have very good cooling solutions (it's a professional workstation after all). Nonetheless, these AMD processors are indexed as using 115W each and the Intel ones 95W each... so, yeah, the AMD ones are a bit hotter


Although I am a fan of AMD processors (and personally I've never owned a machine with an Intel CPU), I have to say that the Intel solution is the one that seems more likely to perform better, since it has a smaller core count for each RAM group and has a higher (when scaled) CPU frequency per core, which might pay off is situations where a simulation case might not be as parallelizable.
On the other hand, if the machine will also run other kinds of software that take better advantage of a higher core count (and less memory accesses), then the AMD solution seems definitely the way to go.


I would suggest that if you plan on buying the machine(s) as an HPC solution, you might want to ask your vendor if they can perform a benchmark on each set-up, to ensure which one is the best purchase.

Best regards,
Bruno
Blanco likes this.
wyldckat is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 21, 2014, 01:07
Default
  #7
Senior Member
 
Charles
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 185
Rep Power: 18
CapSizer is on a distinguished road
Yes, got to agree with Bruno there. At the same time, you should be aware that a "fat" workstation like this is seldom these days regarded as the most cost effective way of getting a lot of computing power. A small cluster may be a better option, especially given the type of licence that you have available. But then you will need fast networking as well. The 4-socket machine will be less hassle.
CapSizer is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 22, 2014, 07:04
Default
  #8
New Member
 
Jan Willem Krijger
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8
Rep Power: 15
Sideshore is on a distinguished road
We tried Star-CCM on:

HP BL660c Gen8
4x Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-4620 0 @ 2.20GHz, 8/8 cores; 16 threads
8x 8 GB DDR3 memory 1333 Mhz
4x 10 GB Ethernet
2x 146 GB 15 Krpm


With windows as operating system (I know, I also prefer Linux).

It did not perform at all!! It was at least 5 times slower than a cluster setup we were using (same number of cores).

Most probable cause was that this machine is not designed as HPC machine and therefore the CPU were not efficient in accessing the memory. We didn't do a lot of testing and the people from HP eventually said it was not meant for HPC, althought they recommended it at first.

I think a 4x AMD will work better because the communication between the CPU's is different.

Sorry I do not have more information.
Just be sure to do some benchmarking before you buy!
Sideshore is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 22, 2014, 08:32
Default
  #9
New Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9
Rep Power: 16
tjtx is on a distinguished road
Wow, that's a lot of valuable information. Thanks so much for all the answers. I now have learned what to look at before purchasing a computing workhorse. I will request the seller do some benchmark testing.
tjtx is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 29, 2014, 04:32
Default
  #10
New Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9
Rep Power: 16
tjtx is on a distinguished road
One more question, how much does hard drive speed affect CFD performance? For example SSD vs 7200rpm.
tjtx is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 29, 2014, 18:14
Default
  #11
Senior Member
 
Erik
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Earth (Land portion)
Posts: 1,166
Rep Power: 23
evcelica is on a distinguished road
It won't help CFD solver performance at all, as it solves in core (RAM) and doesn't access the hard drive. It would make loading results files and opening meshes or other hard drive operations much faster though.

If you are doing transient simulations and writing a lot of time steps it may help as well, but usually we only write a very small fraction of the actual iterations.
evcelica is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Parallel fluent not using all processors specified Paul FLUENT 18 October 26, 2023 04:54
[Other] How to create uneven load for the processors using decomposePar utility. shinde.gopal OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion 1 May 24, 2014 09:49
How do I choose de number of processors with paraFoam? CSN OpenFOAM Post-Processing 0 April 17, 2012 05:44
Parallel Computing on Multi-Core Processors Upgrading Hardware CFX 6 June 7, 2007 16:54
64-bit processors for home computing Ananda Himansu Main CFD Forum 2 March 16, 2004 13:48


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:04.