|
[Sponsors] |
CFD workstation configuration calling for help 2 |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
July 5, 2020, 03:38 |
CFD workstation configuration calling for help 2
|
#1 |
New Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 18
Rep Power: 12 |
Hi,
I post a thread previously here: CFD workstation configuration calling for help After reading Alex's constructive suggests, and making a survey in the past few days, I think my main goals is more clear: to achive over all performance and good scalability for CFD-related job, i.e.,
For both jobs, there will be a lot of running of parallel code to solve large-scale linear equations, and I don't want the limitation hardware to get in the way) Therefore, I am wondering if it possible to reach my key goals with a well-scaling 64-core, 256-GB-RAM machine (or machines). If so, I don't need to spend much budget for expensive and uneconomical hardware mentioned in the previous thread ($15000~$20000, costs much but of no much use). So, I thinks its rational to pursue good parallelism (scalability). Given that Per-Socket Theotetical Memory Bandwidth (204.8 GB/s for EPYC Rome) serving as the memory wall, it seems that the Cores Per RAM Channeal is the key to achieve this scalability for CFD. According to other people's test (Benchmarking Epyc, Ryzen, and Xeon: Tyranny of Memory) , one should not put more than 2~3 cores per channel in his machine(s). scalability test.png Bearing this in mind, a good hardware configuration should include as many memory channels as possible for given budget for CFD usage. Thus, let one CPU on one socket as a basic computing unit, the above test suggests, take EPYC ROME CPUs as an example, to squeeze their the potentials before breaking the 204.8 GB/s memory wall, ideal cores number for each of this unit are: 8 channelx(2~3) cores/channel = 16~24 cores If so, computing unit with > 24 core count CPUs are not ideal for the desired scalability, but have to pay much more for useless extra cores (e.g., the 32-core EPYC 7452). On the other hand, computing unit with < 16 core count CPUs (e.g., 8-core EPYC 7262) can also be avoided because of its low-density (only 8 cores occupying a socket on the motherboard). Besides, if choosing low core counts CPUs, the extra benefits is their are cheaper (both price and price/core), e.g., for each dual-socket node, prices for key components in my country are: -CPU:
-Motherboard: Supermicro H11DSi Rev2.0: ~$560 There are several options to built a ≥64-core machine or machines:
Questions: - What configuration can achive best scalability, if putting aside the cost? - In view of the rule of thumb that favors no more than 2~3 cores/channel in a machine/machines, should I stick to option 3, 4 and even 5? Again, slow node-to-node interconnection and its potentially being cumbersome hardware/hardware setup is my concern. - Although option 1, 2 are not good for scalability, its advantage seems obvious:
Last edited by Freewill1; July 10, 2020 at 03:44. |
|
July 5, 2020, 16:04 |
|
#2 | ||
Super Moderator
Alex
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,427
Rep Power: 49 |
I feel like you went into this with the wrong optimization goal.
Scaling is nice and all to highlight the importance of machine balance. But what you probably want is maximum absolute performance. Quote:
This means that you can safely ignore any Epyc CPU with less than 24 cores. The cost of a compute node is not only CPU+board+RAM. Once you factor in the rest of the components, a large number of low core count CPUs becomes less cost-efficient. BTW: Epyc 1st gen is a no-go with your budget and requirements. Especially the 7371 (16 cores, not 32), which features quite an inflated retail price. It's either the 7352 (24C) or 7452 (32C). The former if you want to save budget in order to afford more than one machine. The latter if you want to max out the performance of a single machine. Lower core counts are for people with very strict budget limits, or with very high per-core license costs. Quote:
Hardware and software setup is something you will have to decide for yourself, based on your level of expertise and willingness to spend time on the compute setup, instead of doing something productive. There is no value in having twice the compute performance, if you have to spend most of your time learning how to set it up, instead of working on your code or actually doing simulations. |
|||
July 7, 2020, 05:29 |
|
#3 |
New Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 18
Rep Power: 12 |
Thanks, Alex.
I was more clear about what I need: looing for a 64-core machine/machines with good scalability for CFD usages. Taking overall performance, CPU-memory balance, and cost-efficiency into consideration, perhaps a dual-socket machine is the one for me. This is my hardware list with queried prices:
|
|
July 7, 2020, 06:16 |
|
#4 |
Super Moderator
Alex
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,427
Rep Power: 49 |
The Epyc 7532 is definitely the fastest 32-core CPU you can get for your application. I usually don't recommend it, because AMDs 1k unit price is 3350$, and barely any retail availability. That's just too much of a premium for a slight performance increase over the cheapest 32-core Rome CPU.
If you can get one for only 1550$, it is a no-brainer. Edit: as always, make sure to get a revision 2 board. Getting these CPUs to run on rev. 1 would require some hacks. I only read from other people how it could be done, never went there myself. Edit2: Probably many people, but definitely myself, would be very interested to know where you found these CPUs for such a low price. Please share Last edited by flotus1; July 7, 2020 at 08:45. |
|
July 8, 2020, 00:07 |
|
#5 | |
New Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 18
Rep Power: 12 |
Quote:
NOTE: what on the URLs are not for the actual prices, I inquired the prices via customer service, who said they can provide the CPU if needed, at least in China. |
||
July 8, 2020, 04:59 |
|
#6 |
Super Moderator
Alex
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,427
Rep Power: 49 |
Something seems fishy about these.
The first one for example has an image of AMDs spec sheet that shows the specifications of a different CPU. And they claim these CPUs are new. Now I have seen plenty of retail/OEM Epyc Rome CPUs way below their initial price already. But those were used CPUs. If it's too good to be true, it probably is. Why would they sell AMDs most expensive 32-core CPU, at a lower price than AMDs chapest 32-core CPU. Not saying you should not do it, it's your money and your decision whether you want to trust these sellers. But I certainly would not buy that. |
|
July 8, 2020, 22:17 |
|
#7 |
New Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 18
Rep Power: 12 |
Yes, I will be careful about these sources of supply. Their usually put irrelevant pictures on their online stores.
Last edited by Freewill1; July 10, 2020 at 03:47. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Workstation fot research position in CFD | Laerte | Hardware | 9 | June 21, 2020 16:17 |
Home workstation for large memory demand CFD | yutsumi | Hardware | 17 | May 5, 2020 10:13 |
Buying refurbished workstation for CFD | fbelga | Hardware | 10 | November 10, 2019 15:12 |
Alienware Area 51 R5 as a CFD workstation | fusij | Hardware | 1 | June 13, 2019 11:15 |
CFD Online Celebrates 20 Years Online | jola | Site News & Announcements | 22 | January 31, 2015 01:30 |