4 ms·
I’m running the same PC since 2011, and doing done hefty EM simulations in it. I did expand it to 32 GB RAM recently just cause I was running out, and 32 is st
by madengr 7y ago
I’m running the same PC since 2011, and doing done hefty EM simulations in it. I did expand it to 32 GB RAM recently just cause I was running out, and 32 is still insufficient.
I’m holding out until the new i9-10 are out. Unfortunately those are still stuck with max 64 GB RAM.
- mastax 7y agoI'm assuming that EM simulations are massively parallel. Depending on your budget you should consider a threadripper or the new Intel HEDT for a budget option.
- mastax 7y agoThere's also regular ryzen with up to 16 cores and 128GB of RAM.
- madengr 7y agoSee my other reply. Ryzen is 30% slower due to Intel compiler optimizations, and I need higher clock speed rather than cores. The new i9 with 5.1 GHz boost should work best.
- madengr 7y agoThat’s the problem. They are not massively parallel. In fact, don’t use more than two cores efficiently. Therefore the i9 will perform better than Xeon due to higher clock speed with lower cores. Also, this software uses Intel MPI libraries. A new i7 runs it 30% faster than a new Ryzen 7 with same clock speed. So Intel is tweaking their compiler for their processors.
- numpad0 7y agoServer platforms always had more RAM channels and hence 128GB+ options though? Last time I seriously considered purchasing some bragging rights few years back, retired 192GB Xeon jet engines were like $350 on eBay. Also I wonder if 64GB limit is enforced or simply listed as max tested, there are 32GB non-ECC Unbuffered modules these days. That's 256GB populated on 8 slots.
- madengr 7y agoDon’t know. I just read that 10 series is 64 GB max. I do know that Ryzen supports ECC and > 64 GB. Intel must want you to buy Xeon, when that is a poor choice for my application. I need clock speed, not massive cores.