I am interested in building a multi-cpu machine. I would like to do a little research (just a hobby kind of thing) on scalable search in game playing programs, like chess or checkers, and see how much faster programs get on two or four cpus. The only problem is, I don't have a machine with more than one cpu. So my need is not for a top of the line machine, but just one that has multiprocessor support. So a few questions...
I don't know much about building a multi-cpu machine. Are there any significant differences, other than the need for a mobo that supports it (and multiple cpus)?
Would I be able to get slower multi-cpu machines cheaper than I would if I wanted to build dual 2GHz machines or quad (whatever the latest quad cpus run at) MHz? Or is the difference only marginal? What I mean is, I'm only testing scalability (how much faster it runs on dual cpus compared to single cpu, or quad cpus compared to duals, etc.) so if it's a dual 100 MHz machine that'll work just fine. Of course, if it's only marginally more expensive to get something faster, then I might as well go ahead and get the newer stuff so I can actually use it for more than casual experimentation. Can I save money here or would the savings not be worth the trouble?
Lastly, I'd like to know what my options are between dual and quad systems. I'd like to have a quad so I could test scalability more, but it seems like the only quad machines I've ever seen use cpus that are significantly slower than the latest single cpu. Ex. we have a unix box at school that is a quad, but it has 450MHz cpus in it. The only thing is, that box is way more expensive than it would be for me to get a top of the line dual, so the slower cpus aren't any savings here. Is this example common? Do quad machines always use significantly slower cpus?
Anyway, I guess you can get the drift of what I'm trying to find out. If you could help guide me in the right direction I would appreciate it very much. Thanks.
Russell
I don't know much about building a multi-cpu machine. Are there any significant differences, other than the need for a mobo that supports it (and multiple cpus)?
Would I be able to get slower multi-cpu machines cheaper than I would if I wanted to build dual 2GHz machines or quad (whatever the latest quad cpus run at) MHz? Or is the difference only marginal? What I mean is, I'm only testing scalability (how much faster it runs on dual cpus compared to single cpu, or quad cpus compared to duals, etc.) so if it's a dual 100 MHz machine that'll work just fine. Of course, if it's only marginally more expensive to get something faster, then I might as well go ahead and get the newer stuff so I can actually use it for more than casual experimentation. Can I save money here or would the savings not be worth the trouble?
Lastly, I'd like to know what my options are between dual and quad systems. I'd like to have a quad so I could test scalability more, but it seems like the only quad machines I've ever seen use cpus that are significantly slower than the latest single cpu. Ex. we have a unix box at school that is a quad, but it has 450MHz cpus in it. The only thing is, that box is way more expensive than it would be for me to get a top of the line dual, so the slower cpus aren't any savings here. Is this example common? Do quad machines always use significantly slower cpus?
Anyway, I guess you can get the drift of what I'm trying to find out. If you could help guide me in the right direction I would appreciate it very much. Thanks.
Russell