Contribute
Register

128GB RAM and 16 cores / 32 threads X9DAI

Status
Not open for further replies.
celstark said:
BTW, I think I've honed in on why my GB scores aren't hitting where they should be on OS X. How to fix it is another matter.

Using SMC Monitor, I can see the CPU speed throttling down, but it's never engaging the Turbo Boost to get it above the stock 2.6 clock speed. So, under OS X, it runs as a 2.6 GHz machine and under Linux (my guess -- need to verify), it'll Turbo Boost up considerably.

Makes sense. I wonder if there is a windows app similar to that so I can see how it's throttling on windows. Let me know if you find one. I can see where it bursts on my tests.

BTW, I'm so sick of this board, even with windows, it's just full of bugs. USB 3 drivers are useless, certain apps don't load properly, etc. However, with Adobe Premiere CS6, it SMOKES 5K files like it's nothing. Just shocking how fast rendering power is. Just wished it would do the same with MacOS.
 
I downloaded an app called RealTemp 3.70. It shows one number, and not each core, however, during the GB test, the average number goes up to 3400MHz. At idle it's sitting at 2500-3200.

I know the E5-2690 bursts to 3.8GHz, but I think it's only one core.
 
with an adobe premiere CS6 encode, it sits at 3300.06 for the entire render.

So I guess it bursts all the cores to 3.3GHz max.

Not even up or down by .01 MHz.
 
This makes me happy in my pants. I came here searching for someone working on an EVGA SR-X based build.
 
maxawesome said:
This makes me happy in my pants. I came here searching for someone working on an EVGA SR-X based build.

I have a feeling the SR-X will work better than this X9DAi. But since all these test results are fast in Windows, I'm guessing it's just a MacOS kernel issue.
 
So I just ran the Linux test, CentOS 6.0 latest kernel 2.6.32-220.13.1.el6.x86_64

Result was 31,000. http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/647881

Geekbench User Hydra35 got

35,000 with a 48 core Opteron. (linux 64-bit)
45,000 with a 40 core Intel. (linux 64-bit)

So my result seems to be accurate in comparison, actually pretty high.

More information. There is an app in linux called "CPU Frequency Scaling Monitor 2.28.0". During the geekbench, it doesn't go above 2900 Mhz. So that tells me the turbo boost isn't working whatsoever, even though it's all enabled in the BIOS.
 
Yup - ran that yesterday or so and saw stuck at 2.6 GHz in Linux too. So, no TurboBoost in either OS but Linux still out-performing OS X by a bit. Since my slower processor gets darn near what you're getting, I think our BIOS must be setup a bit different. I'm getting 30k out of Linux.

So, the lower results in Linux vs. Windows will come down to TurboBoost. I've noticed that when hammering all cores hard, the machine is performing more as expected (I can tie up all cores for hours on end routinely). We've still got a hit for OS X vs. Linux and we'll have to see if kernel updates will fix this.
 
thanks to celstark, I got the 30,000 GB on OS X. I switched motherboards. But he has the same board. I'll put the same drive in the old board and see if it drops back to 13,000.

celstark, do you get the same GB result with EIST enabled and disabled? Or 27K without and 30K with?

edit: all those GB scores from the beginning, showing 13000 were with a bad board.
 
lightninhopkins said:
thanks to celstark, I got the 30,000 GB on OS X. I switched motherboards. But he has the same board. I'll put the same drive in the old board and see if it drops back to 13,000.

celstark, do you get the same GB result with EIST enabled and disabled? Or 27K without and 30K with?

Just curious, did you have the EVGA SR-X or the Supermicro 9? Wasn't sure which it was... If you had to build this over again, which chip would you get?

Thanks,
Chris
 
emergent, I've been testing X9DAi, but recently found out the board had to be replaced and had a backup X9DRi board. Things run smoothly on that one, but it's far from a desktop board. No audio and really wide board. Supermicro builds really reliable boards, so this was rare. I don't know if I'd try the SR-X, because the E5-2600 series CPU's aren't overclock-able.

I'm glad I got the E5-2690 chips (2.9GHz boosting up to 3.8GHz) because they are lower wattage, 135W, and can sustain a turbo boost for a longer period of time than the 150W which is 3.1GHz, as they get hotter quickly and have to slow back down. They're probably similar, but for long video renders, it can sustain higher turbo speeds I assume.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top