> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 17:16:11 -0700, TheQuickBrownFox
> <thequickbrown...@overthelazydog.org> wrote:
> >On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 20:04:18 -0400, Phil Hobbs
> ><pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
> >>TheQuickBrownFox wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 16:09:14 -0400, Phil Hobbs
> >>> <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
> >>> >How much heavy duty floating point do you do in a day? Have you done
> >>> >any actual benchmarks for floating point performance between Intel and
> >>> >AMD?
> >>> >Cheers
> >>> >Phil Hobbs
> >>> My video card does better performance than either.
> >>> As CPUs go, the winner in that race would be, even after being four
> >>> years old, the Cell CPU.
> >>> I am sorry, but a 20 ms spice sim calculation and a 17 ms calc of the
> >>> same sim is not enough to make me decide for the latter.
> >>> I have a feeling that modern Intel CPUs beat AMD.
> >>> THEN there is the chipset, and supporting Hdw thing too.
> >>Your video card can't address 32 GB of memory. What's its maximum
> >>sustained bandwidth to main memory? FDTD cycles through all of memory
> >>twice per time step.
> >>Cheers
> >>Phil Hobbs
> > I'm sorry, but you do not now, nor will you ever have in the future, a
> >sim circuit where the array requires a 32 GB RAM space to be ran in.
> > What a ridiculous claim.
> And as far as bandwidth goes, the PCIe bus makes for fast, HUGE data
> transfers between video and main RAM as fast as it gets.
> They use video cards cores for protein modeling, and seti comm data
> parsing. I think they can handle a petty OR a complex circuit sim.
"As fast as it gets" isn't a number.
The bottleneck in FDTD is main memory bandwidth, because you're cycling
through all allocated memory many many times, so you get a lot of cache
misses. Good caching will help with the main memory latency, because
most accesses are to contiguous memory if you've coded it right.
Did you look up FDTD? What do you think about it?
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
-- Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058
>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 00:18:50 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk...@arcor.de>
>> wrote:
>> >Am 07.10.2012 21:06, schrieb TheQuickBrownFox:
>> >> EVGA makes MODERN dual CPU motherboards. Supermicro is like Dell. It
>> >> is two year old technology the moment you buy it. With this, even more
>> >> than 2 years.
>> >I'm writing this in a hotel room in Delphi, Greece, on a 17 month old
>> >Dell Precision M6600 17" laptop. Nobody else had 6 GBit/s SATA, USB-3,
>> >16 or 32 GB RAM, Core I7 vpro and such a display at that time.
>> >I have replaced the iron disk first with a OCZ Vortex3 SSD and now both
>> >drives are 512 GB Samsung 830 SSDs. Plugged them in and they worked.
>> >Both the OCZ and the Samsungs give about 500 MBytes/s transfer rate
>> >in the laptop, about the same as a customer's CAD server monster RAID.
>> >LT spice performance is somewhat better than twice that of the server.
>> >I have not yet tried the two SSDs as a RAID-0.
>> >Plus, I'll be able to run CUDA code on the graphics card for
>> >software defined radio.
>> >So, please don't tell us that Dell is >2 years back.
>> >regards, Gerhard
>> What operating system, Win7 ?
>> How do you like it? I fear biting that bullet :-(
>Works well for me, except that I have a few DOS programs that I still
>use, which it won't run. (Freelance 4.0 is the biggest problem.) I
>have an XP virtual machine on my Supermicro box to handle that sort of
>stuff.
>Win7 also has an 'XP mode' feature, but it won't run on my standard
>laptops.
On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 09:16:33 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Jim Thompson wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 07:29:30 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>> Jamie wrote:
>>>> If I create a sub circuit in LTspice, will that circuit's content be
>>>> exported with the main file or do I need to include that along with the
>>>> file?
>>>> I read the help file but it some what does not give me a fuzzy feeling..
>>> If you place the whole subcircuit text into your schematic as a SPICE
>>> directive then it is included. That's how I always do it. Typically to
>>> the left or below so clients have a choice of printing it out along with
>>> the schematic or not.
>>> Much better than needing two files or having to load library parts.
>> What Joerg suggests is the equivalent of .INCLUDE in other Spice's.
>> Slows down the loading of the input file. .LIB is faster and more
>> efficient.
>What I meant is .SUBCKT in the input file. I've never had any speed
>issues, they load in a second or two. What does take forever is sims
>with gapped transformers in there, leakage inductance and all that. And
>then the office temp start to rise and rise and rise.
>I've got an Intel 1.6GHz dual core in there. Rumors have it that the
>Intel i7 could be almost twice as fast. Have you heard and confirmations
>in that direction?
Tell you what, let me get my racehorse running (3.6 GHz hex core, 16 GiB
RAM, SSD) and we can do some timing tests. Not nearly as powerful as
P.Hobbs fast box but should be plenty ok.
>> >> >>> Jamie wrote:
>> >> >>>> If I create a sub circuit in LTspice, will that circuit's content be
>> >> >>>> exported with the main file or do I need to include that along with the
>> >> >>>> file?
>> >> >>>> I read the help file but it some what does not give me a fuzzy feeling..
>> >> >>> If you place the whole subcircuit text into your schematic as a SPICE
>> >> >>> directive then it is included. That's how I always do it. Typically to
>> >> >>> the left or below so clients have a choice of printing it out along with
>> >> >>> the schematic or not.
>> >> >>> Much better than needing two files or having to load library parts.
>> >> >> What Joerg suggests is the equivalent of .INCLUDE in other Spice's.
>> >> >> Slows down the loading of the input file. .LIB is faster and more
>> >> >> efficient.
>> >> >What I meant is .SUBCKT in the input file.
>> >> OK. I misread your intent. That's equivalent to a .LIB call... only
>> >> what you need is loaded.
>> >> >I've never had any speed
>> >> >issues, they load in a second or two. What does take forever is sims
>> >> >with gapped transformers in there, leakage inductance and all that. And
>> >> >then the office temp start to rise and rise and rise.
>> >> Heats my office in winter ;-)
>> >> >I've got an Intel 1.6GHz dual core in there.
>> >> That's what I have in my notebook (Thinkpad X61s): 1.60 GHz Intel
>> >> Core2 Duo. It runs slower than my old Win2K machine (Analog3) with a
>> >> 2.20GHz AMD Athlon 64 and only 1G of RAM :-)
>> >> >Rumors have it that the
>> >> >Intel i7 could be almost twice as fast. Have you heard and confirmations
>> >> >in that direction?
>> >> Since Analog1 (also 2.20GHz AMD Athlon 64, but WinXP Pro) crashed and
>> >> burned, I'm pondering what to replace it with. Mark/qrk is the
>> >> resident expert on benchmarking. There's so much Intel malarkey out
>> >> there, it's difficult to know what would be best for a simulation
>> >> machine.
>> >My main office machine is a nice Supermicro dual 8-core AMD Magny Cours
>> >with 32G of RAM and a nice RAID5 disc array. I bought it about a year
>> >ago for a bit under $4k. It runs CentOS 6.2 Linux, with kvm/qemu
>> >virtual machines for XP/32 and Win7/64.
>> >LTspice flies.
>> >Cheers
>> >Phil Hobbs
>> It isn't "nice" if it doesn't have USB 3. also needs SATA 3, cause RAID
>> 5 on the old interface spec is no gain.
>> $4k??? Supermicro saw you coming. Or the guy you got to build it for
>> you.
>> I'd go with an EVGA dual XEOM MOBO and fill it with 6 or 12 way (core
>> pairs). Put all my money into the CPUs and MOBO. AMD mobos are all
>> taking a hit these days, mainly because the idiots embraced and bought
>> ATI.
>> Supermicro makes dual CPU mobos. Oh boy. They have always been hugely
>> overpriced and underfunctioned.
>> EVGA makes MODERN dual CPU motherboards. Supermicro is like Dell. It
>> is two year old technology the moment you buy it. With this, even more
>> than 2 years.
>> And the price difference is small enough that I stopped buying AMD 8
>> years ago. Intel Mobos and CPUs scream.
>How much heavy duty floating point do you do in a day? Have you done
>any actual benchmarks for floating point performance between Intel and
>AMD?
>Cheers
>Phil Hobbs
For pretty much anyone here, that reduces to how much SPICE simulations do
you run. If it is a lot, AMD based machines may still have an advantage.
Otherwise not much difference, most anything since a 1.4 GHz P4 is
overkill unless wasted away by the OS and Desktop.
>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 17:16:11 -0700, TheQuickBrownFox
>> <thequickbrown...@overthelazydog.org> wrote:
>> >On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 20:04:18 -0400, Phil Hobbs
>> ><pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>> >>TheQuickBrownFox wrote:
>> >>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 16:09:14 -0400, Phil Hobbs
>> >>> <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>> >>> >How much heavy duty floating point do you do in a day? Have you done
>> >>> >any actual benchmarks for floating point performance between Intel and
>> >>> >AMD?
>> >>> >Cheers
>> >>> >Phil Hobbs
>> >>> My video card does better performance than either.
>> >>> As CPUs go, the winner in that race would be, even after being four
>> >>> years old, the Cell CPU.
>> >>> I am sorry, but a 20 ms spice sim calculation and a 17 ms calc of the
>> >>> same sim is not enough to make me decide for the latter.
>> >>> I have a feeling that modern Intel CPUs beat AMD.
>> >>> THEN there is the chipset, and supporting Hdw thing too.
>> >>Your video card can't address 32 GB of memory. What's its maximum
>> >>sustained bandwidth to main memory? FDTD cycles through all of memory
>> >>twice per time step.
>> >>Cheers
>> >>Phil Hobbs
>> > I'm sorry, but you do not now, nor will you ever have in the future, a
>> >sim circuit where the array requires a 32 GB RAM space to be ran in.
>> > What a ridiculous claim.
>> And as far as bandwidth goes, the PCIe bus makes for fast, HUGE data
>> transfers between video and main RAM as fast as it gets.
>> They use video cards cores for protein modeling, and seti comm data
>> parsing. I think they can handle a petty OR a complex circuit sim.
>"As fast as it gets" isn't a number.
>The bottleneck in FDTD is main memory bandwidth, because you're cycling
>through all allocated memory many many times, so you get a lot of cache
>misses. Good caching will help with the main memory latency, because
>most accesses are to contiguous memory if you've coded it right.
>Did you look up FDTD? What do you think about it?
>Cheers
>Phil Hobbs
I presume you are aware you are talking to AlwaysWrong.
>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 00:18:50 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk...@arcor.de>
>> wrote:
>> >Am 07.10.2012 21:06, schrieb TheQuickBrownFox:
>> >> EVGA makes MODERN dual CPU motherboards. Supermicro is like Dell. It
>> >> is two year old technology the moment you buy it. With this, even more
>> >> than 2 years.
>> >I'm writing this in a hotel room in Delphi, Greece, on a 17 month old
>> >Dell Precision M6600 17" laptop. Nobody else had 6 GBit/s SATA, USB-3,
>> >16 or 32 GB RAM, Core I7 vpro and such a display at that time.
>> >I have replaced the iron disk first with a OCZ Vortex3 SSD and now both
>> >drives are 512 GB Samsung 830 SSDs. Plugged them in and they worked.
>> >Both the OCZ and the Samsungs give about 500 MBytes/s transfer rate
>> >in the laptop, about the same as a customer's CAD server monster RAID.
>> >LT spice performance is somewhat better than twice that of the server.
>> >I have not yet tried the two SSDs as a RAID-0.
>> >Plus, I'll be able to run CUDA code on the graphics card for
>> >software defined radio.
>> >So, please don't tell us that Dell is >2 years back.
>> >regards, Gerhard
>> What operating system, Win7 ?
>> How do you like it? I fear biting that bullet :-(
>Works well for me, except that I have a few DOS programs that I still
>use, which it won't run. (Freelance 4.0 is the biggest problem.) I
>have an XP virtual machine on my Supermicro box to handle that sort of
>stuff.
>Win7 also has an 'XP mode' feature, but it won't run on my standard
>laptops.
I am presuming you installed the VM subsystem as required.
>Cheers
>Phil Hobbs
It is starting to sound like it is time for VirtualBox w/ qemu or whatever
else is needed.
> On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 08:46:14 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk...@arcor.de>
>> It came with Win7, I now run Win7 / xubuntu 12.04 dual boot.
--------------------------
>> Win7 is mostly ignored.
> Yeah, as shitty as the last two Ubuntu releases have been, I am sure you
> are spending most of your time learning their 'new' 100% pathetic,
> "Unity" 'desktop'.
> Biggest mistake they ever made. Good luck with that.
> XUBUNTU is far better.
-----------------------
reading problems??
> My machine has about 4TB of HD space, under about 15 partitions.
So what. My laptop has 1 TB of SSD. I win.
And as much USB3-attached storage as I might want.
And 2 external sata-3 ports.
>> The machine has a drawback: it is quite heavy and can generate
>> some heat if one asks for it.
> On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 10:30:57 -0400, Phil Hobbs
> <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>> TheQuickBrownFox wrote:
>>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 17:16:11 -0700, TheQuickBrownFox
>>> <thequickbrown...@overthelazydog.org> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 20:04:18 -0400, Phil Hobbs
>>>> <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>>>> TheQuickBrownFox wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 16:09:14 -0400, Phil Hobbs
>>>>>> <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> How much heavy duty floating point do you do in a day? Have you done
>>>>>>> any actual benchmarks for floating point performance between Intel and
>>>>>>> AMD?
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>> Phil Hobbs
>>>>>> My video card does better performance than either.
>>>>>> As CPUs go, the winner in that race would be, even after being four
>>>>>> years old, the Cell CPU.
>>>>>> I am sorry, but a 20 ms spice sim calculation and a 17 ms calc of the
>>>>>> same sim is not enough to make me decide for the latter.
>>>>>> I have a feeling that modern Intel CPUs beat AMD.
>>>>>> THEN there is the chipset, and supporting Hdw thing too.
>>>>> Your video card can't address 32 GB of memory. What's its maximum
>>>>> sustained bandwidth to main memory? FDTD cycles through all of memory
>>>>> twice per time step.
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Phil Hobbs
>>>> I'm sorry, but you do not now, nor will you ever have in the future, a
>>>> sim circuit where the array requires a 32 GB RAM space to be ran in.
>>>> What a ridiculous claim.
>>> And as far as bandwidth goes, the PCIe bus makes for fast, HUGE data
>>> transfers between video and main RAM as fast as it gets.
>>> They use video cards cores for protein modeling, and seti comm data
>>> parsing. I think they can handle a petty OR a complex circuit sim.
>> "As fast as it gets" isn't a number.
>> The bottleneck in FDTD is main memory bandwidth, because you're cycling
>> through all allocated memory many many times, so you get a lot of cache
>> misses. Good caching will help with the main memory latency, because
>> most accesses are to contiguous memory if you've coded it right.
>> Did you look up FDTD? What do you think about it?
>> Cheers
>> Phil Hobbs
> I presume you are aware you are talking to AlwaysWrong.
> ?-)
Mr many-nyms? Sure. However, I don't like to give up on people, and I like technical discussion.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
-- Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 16:09:14 -0400, Phil Hobbs
> <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>> TheQuickBrownFox wrote:
>>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 13:26:48 -0400, Phil Hobbs
>>> <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 09:16:33 -0700, Joerg<inva...@invalid.invalid>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 07:29:30 -0700, Joerg<inva...@invalid.invalid>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Jamie wrote:
>>>>>>>>> If I create a sub circuit in LTspice, will that circuit's content be
>>>>>>>>> exported with the main file or do I need to include that along with the
>>>>>>>>> file?
>>>>>>>>> I read the help file but it some what does not give me a fuzzy feeling..
>>>>>>>> If you place the whole subcircuit text into your schematic as a SPICE
>>>>>>>> directive then it is included. That's how I always do it. Typically to
>>>>>>>> the left or below so clients have a choice of printing it out along with
>>>>>>>> the schematic or not.
>>>>>>>> Much better than needing two files or having to load library parts.
>>>>>>> What Joerg suggests is the equivalent of .INCLUDE in other Spice's.
>>>>>>> Slows down the loading of the input file. .LIB is faster and more
>>>>>>> efficient.
>>>>>> What I meant is .SUBCKT in the input file.
>>>>> OK. I misread your intent. That's equivalent to a .LIB call... only
>>>>> what you need is loaded.
>>>>>> I've never had any speed
>>>>>> issues, they load in a second or two. What does take forever is sims
>>>>>> with gapped transformers in there, leakage inductance and all that. And
>>>>>> then the office temp start to rise and rise and rise.
>>>>> Heats my office in winter ;-)
>>>>>> I've got an Intel 1.6GHz dual core in there.
>>>>> That's what I have in my notebook (Thinkpad X61s): 1.60 GHz Intel
>>>>> Core2 Duo. It runs slower than my old Win2K machine (Analog3) with a
>>>>> 2.20GHz AMD Athlon 64 and only 1G of RAM :-)
>>>>>> Rumors have it that the
>>>>>> Intel i7 could be almost twice as fast. Have you heard and confirmations
>>>>>> in that direction?
>>>>> Since Analog1 (also 2.20GHz AMD Athlon 64, but WinXP Pro) crashed and
>>>>> burned, I'm pondering what to replace it with. Mark/qrk is the
>>>>> resident expert on benchmarking. There's so much Intel malarkey out
>>>>> there, it's difficult to know what would be best for a simulation
>>>>> machine.
>>>> My main office machine is a nice Supermicro dual 8-core AMD Magny Cours
>>>> with 32G of RAM and a nice RAID5 disc array. I bought it about a year
>>>> ago for a bit under $4k. It runs CentOS 6.2 Linux, with kvm/qemu
>>>> virtual machines for XP/32 and Win7/64.
>>>> LTspice flies.
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Phil Hobbs
>>> It isn't "nice" if it doesn't have USB 3. also needs SATA 3, cause RAID
>>> 5 on the old interface spec is no gain.
>>> $4k??? Supermicro saw you coming. Or the guy you got to build it for
>>> you.
>>> I'd go with an EVGA dual XEOM MOBO and fill it with 6 or 12 way (core
>>> pairs). Put all my money into the CPUs and MOBO. AMD mobos are all
>>> taking a hit these days, mainly because the idiots embraced and bought
>>> ATI.
>>> Supermicro makes dual CPU mobos. Oh boy. They have always been hugely
>>> overpriced and underfunctioned.
>>> EVGA makes MODERN dual CPU motherboards. Supermicro is like Dell. It
>>> is two year old technology the moment you buy it. With this, even more
>>> than 2 years.
>>> And the price difference is small enough that I stopped buying AMD 8
>>> years ago. Intel Mobos and CPUs scream.
>> How much heavy duty floating point do you do in a day? Have you done
>> any actual benchmarks for floating point performance between Intel and
>> AMD?
>> Cheers
>> Phil Hobbs
> For pretty much anyone here, that reduces to how much SPICE simulations do
> you run. If it is a lot, AMD based machines may still have an advantage.
> Otherwise not much difference, most anything since a 1.4 GHz P4 is
> overkill unless wasted away by the OS and Desktop.
> ?-)
Well, horses for courses. LTspice can use multiple threads, so you can run stuff faster on multicore CPUs, unless there's something horribly broken about it. That really only matters if you're doing dense multidimensional sweeps, or looking at crystal oscillator startup transients.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
-- Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 18:56:37 -0400, Phil Hobbs
> <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 00:18:50 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann<dk...@arcor.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Am 07.10.2012 21:06, schrieb TheQuickBrownFox:
>>>>> EVGA makes MODERN dual CPU motherboards. Supermicro is like Dell. It
>>>>> is two year old technology the moment you buy it. With this, even more
>>>>> than 2 years.
>>>> I'm writing this in a hotel room in Delphi, Greece, on a 17 month old
>>>> Dell Precision M6600 17" laptop. Nobody else had 6 GBit/s SATA, USB-3,
>>>> 16 or 32 GB RAM, Core I7 vpro and such a display at that time.
>>>> I have replaced the iron disk first with a OCZ Vortex3 SSD and now both
>>>> drives are 512 GB Samsung 830 SSDs. Plugged them in and they worked.
>>>> Both the OCZ and the Samsungs give about 500 MBytes/s transfer rate
>>>> in the laptop, about the same as a customer's CAD server monster RAID.
>>>> LT spice performance is somewhat better than twice that of the server.
>>>> I have not yet tried the two SSDs as a RAID-0.
>>>> Plus, I'll be able to run CUDA code on the graphics card for
>>>> software defined radio.
>>>> So, please don't tell us that Dell is>2 years back.
>>>> regards, Gerhard
>>> What operating system, Win7 ?
>>> How do you like it? I fear biting that bullet :-(
>> Works well for me, except that I have a few DOS programs that I still
>> use, which it won't run. (Freelance 4.0 is the biggest problem.) I
>> have an XP virtual machine on my Supermicro box to handle that sort of
>> stuff.
>> Win7 also has an 'XP mode' feature, but it won't run on my standard
>> laptops.
> I am presuming you installed the VM subsystem as required.
I very much prefer the 4:3 screen shape--I don't watch movies, so I resent losing that 2 inches off the top of my laptop screen. They don't make those anymore, so I standardized on Thinkpad T42p-T43s. (Sort of like Pease and his '68 VWs.) The T4x machines don't have the hardware support for virtualization that you need for XP mode.
> It is starting to sound like it is time for VirtualBox w/ qemu or whatever
> else is needed.
Google Qemu/KVM. It's a more capable virtualization system than VirtualBox, except that it doesn't run OS/2, which I'd still like to have.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
-- Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
<pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>On 10/10/2012 01:07 AM, josephkk wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 18:56:37 -0400, Phil Hobbs
>> <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 00:18:50 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann<dk...@arcor.de>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Am 07.10.2012 21:06, schrieb TheQuickBrownFox:
>>>>>> EVGA makes MODERN dual CPU motherboards. Supermicro is like Dell. It
>>>>>> is two year old technology the moment you buy it. With this, even more
>>>>>> than 2 years.
>>>>> I'm writing this in a hotel room in Delphi, Greece, on a 17 month old
>>>>> Dell Precision M6600 17" laptop. Nobody else had 6 GBit/s SATA, USB-3,
>>>>> 16 or 32 GB RAM, Core I7 vpro and such a display at that time.
>>>>> I have replaced the iron disk first with a OCZ Vortex3 SSD and now both
>>>>> drives are 512 GB Samsung 830 SSDs. Plugged them in and they worked.
>>>>> Both the OCZ and the Samsungs give about 500 MBytes/s transfer rate
>>>>> in the laptop, about the same as a customer's CAD server monster RAID.
>>>>> LT spice performance is somewhat better than twice that of the server.
>>>>> I have not yet tried the two SSDs as a RAID-0.
>>>>> Plus, I'll be able to run CUDA code on the graphics card for
>>>>> software defined radio.
>>>>> So, please don't tell us that Dell is>2 years back.
>>>>> regards, Gerhard
>>>> What operating system, Win7 ?
>>>> How do you like it? I fear biting that bullet :-(
>>> Works well for me, except that I have a few DOS programs that I still
>>> use, which it won't run. (Freelance 4.0 is the biggest problem.) I
>>> have an XP virtual machine on my Supermicro box to handle that sort of
>>> stuff.
>>> Win7 also has an 'XP mode' feature, but it won't run on my standard
>>> laptops.
>> I am presuming you installed the VM subsystem as required.
>I very much prefer the 4:3 screen shape--I don't watch movies, so I >resent losing that 2 inches off the top of my laptop screen. They don't >make those anymore, so I standardized on Thinkpad T42p-T43s. (Sort of >like Pease and his '68 VWs.) The T4x machines don't have the hardware >support for virtualization that you need for XP mode.
I'm not a big fan of 16:9, either. In fact it's the worst of the
possibilities. At least you *can* still get 16:10 monitors, though they're
pricey. I'm considering going the other direction; to a 12.6" convertible
laptop/tablet. I generally use an external monitor when I'm doing anything
for any period of time and the tablet feature seems to be a good option when
I'm mobile. The size certainly makes it more mobile.
>>>> EVGA makes MODERN dual CPU motherboards. Supermicro is like Dell. It
>>>> is two year old technology the moment you buy it. With this, even more
>>>> than 2 years.
>>>> And the price difference is small enough that I stopped buying AMD 8
>>>> years ago. Intel Mobos and CPUs scream.
>>> How much heavy duty floating point do you do in a day? Have you done
>>> any actual benchmarks for floating point performance between Intel and
>>> AMD?
>>> Cheers
>>> Phil Hobbs
>> For pretty much anyone here, that reduces to how much SPICE simulations do
>> you run. If it is a lot, AMD based machines may still have an advantage.
>> Otherwise not much difference, most anything since a 1.4 GHz P4 is
>> overkill unless wasted away by the OS and Desktop.
>> ?-)
>Well, horses for courses. LTspice can use multiple threads, so you can >run stuff faster on multicore CPUs, unless there's something horribly >broken about it. That really only matters if you're doing dense >multidimensional sweeps, or looking at crystal oscillator startup >transients.
>Cheers
>Phil Hobbs
Oh yeah, I nearly nuked a computer doing a multidimensional sweep a few
months ago, 14 hours run time and i then killed it. Wasn't nearly as big
a computer as your dual 8 core.
<pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>He and I get on fine, usually. It's amazing how much easier it is to
>get along with people when you aren't trying to put them down.
>Cheers
>Phil Hobbs
99.99999999% of them drive like idiots in this state too.
They claim to be so smart, so sophisticated, so civil. WRONG!
Yet the retarded, white line driving dumbshits can't
MOVE THE FUCK OVER when they go past someone in the bike lane they are
ENCROACHING on?
If a tractor trailer can drive down the center of the lane, and have two
feet between him and his left AND his right edge, NO CAR at all EVER
should be any closer to my lane than two feet. EVER!
It is pretty pathetic when some asswipe goes past me in a sports car
with three inches between him and me and 7 feet between him and the
goddamned lane divider to his left!
I call this pathetic behavior the perpetration of a crime! That crime
is WREKLESS OPERATION, and the goddamned, complacent, also committing the
same offenses piggery does NOTHING.
ALL OF THEM, from the idiots who sit right up next to the steering
wheel to the cell phone in the face asswipes to the cell phone in the
hand asswipes...
ALL of them need to be cited and jailed for reckless operation!
He is typical. I'll bet he drives like a goddamned retard too!
The affect of many of these dorks is easy to read. A lot of folks lost a
lot of character during the 'good years' this country had. Severe
character failings abound these days.
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 00:34:14 -0400, Phil Hobbs
><pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>He and I get on fine, usually. It's amazing how much easier it is to
>>get along with people when you aren't trying to put them down.
>>Cheers
>>Phil Hobbs
> 99.99999999% of them drive like idiots in this state too.
> They claim to be so smart, so sophisticated, so civil. WRONG!
> Yet the retarded, white line driving dumbshits can't
>MOVE THE FUCK OVER when they go past someone in the bike lane they are
>ENCROACHING on?
> If a tractor trailer can drive down the center of the lane, and have two
>feet between him and his left AND his right edge, NO CAR at all EVER
>should be any closer to my lane than two feet. EVER!
> It is pretty pathetic when some asswipe goes past me in a sports car
>with three inches between him and me and 7 feet between him and the
>goddamned lane divider to his left!
> I call this pathetic behavior the perpetration of a crime! That crime
>is WREKLESS OPERATION, and the goddamned, complacent, also committing the
>same offenses piggery does NOTHING.
> ALL OF THEM, from the idiots who sit right up next to the steering
>wheel to the cell phone in the face asswipes to the cell phone in the
>hand asswipes...
> ALL of them need to be cited and jailed for reckless operation!
> He is typical. I'll bet he drives like a goddamned retard too!
>The affect of many of these dorks is easy to read. A lot of folks lost a
>lot of character during the 'good years' this country had. Severe
>character failings abound these days.
Well. That one certainly came out of left field. Or hyperspace.
