Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › Intel Core i7-3930K vs Xeon E5-2630 For Long-duration Financial Calculations
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Intel Core i7-3930K vs Xeon E5-2630 For Long-duration Financial Calculations - Page 5

post #41 of 100
I have a E5 2011 8 core / 16 thread Xeon running with my x79 board, and I find it rather run to play around with for a workstation box. My particular Xeon is an ES chip, runs @ 2.4ghz on all 8 cores, folds like a champ in Linux (equivalent to a 2600k @ 4.8-4.9ghz). Right now I have it setup with Win8 folding on half the cores, and running four VMs off the other 8 threads.

The best part about the CPU is that it runs so cool, under 42C w/ a h50, and sips power.
post #42 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by dima777 View Post

thank you for your reply.....yes I could run multiple instances of excel at the same time...and I will surely do - but that is a process of a single loop - I mean it is necessary to run 3 instances of excel at the same time to analyse each of the 4 time frames...if I analyse them all in parallel - that would mean having 12 instance of excel open in one machine at the same time....could mess all up easily...that is the reason I think splitting this all up in 4 separate LIGHT-SIZE XP VMs can speed this all up) I am aiming for the most raw computing power as I am thinking of adding more and more complex analysis after that - doing more post-analysis so to speak..higher-level market -wide analysis so I have not yet given up the i7 3930k variant)) do you think XEON E3 1275V2 based machine can be comparably strong?

It's easier to manage 12 instances in one OS then 3 instances in 4 OSes.... Once you build the functionality to scale past 1, you just have to duplicate that n times to scale.

No matter what... more VMs take up more resources. A reason to use VMs is if the processes cannot be seperated (which I don't think it is an issue here).... i.e. Some vender software is hardcoded to access a file at a specific location... this would block multiple instances working on the same file.
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
post #43 of 100

The Xeon E3 won't be as strong as the 3930K, especially not if you drop a mild overclock of 4-4.2GHz on the chip.

 

Absolutely don't go the VM route...why incur the overhead of running 4+ operating systems just to run 4+ instances of a program?

2P Workstation
(13 items)
 
  
CPUCPUMotherboardGraphics
Xeon E5 2699 v3 Xeon E5 2699 v3 ASUS Z10PE-D16 EVGA TITAN X 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveCooling
128GB Crucial DDR4 @ 2133MHz Intel 750 Series 1.2TB 4 x 4TB Constellation RAID5 2 x XSPC Raystorms 
CoolingCoolingMonitorMonitor
RS480 MCP655 Dell U3011 Dell U3011 
Case
Silverstone TJ07 
  hide details  
Reply
2P Workstation
(13 items)
 
  
CPUCPUMotherboardGraphics
Xeon E5 2699 v3 Xeon E5 2699 v3 ASUS Z10PE-D16 EVGA TITAN X 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveCooling
128GB Crucial DDR4 @ 2133MHz Intel 750 Series 1.2TB 4 x 4TB Constellation RAID5 2 x XSPC Raystorms 
CoolingCoolingMonitorMonitor
RS480 MCP655 Dell U3011 Dell U3011 
Case
Silverstone TJ07 
  hide details  
Reply
post #44 of 100
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kweechy View Post

The Xeon E3 won't be as strong as the 3930K, especially not if you drop a mild overclock of 4-4.2GHz on the chip.

Absolutely don't go the VM route...why incur the overhead of running 4+ operating systems just to run 4+ instances of a program?

Thank you for your continued interest))) great forum and people here) I was thinking to paralelize the whole calculation itno 4 concurrent streams using the 4 separate vms - I was thinking this woudl speed the whole process up as I am not totally sure I can make full use of all calculating ability of i7 3930k performing all the calculations only in one host OS...in fact each VM would run not only excel but matlab as well and an automation software that will perform cross software automation - directing multiple instances excel and matlab in sequence--- I could do all of this at my host pc for sure...that would require me to run the automation process in 4 steps for each subset of data....in VMs each subset could be analysed concurrently with the others....
post #45 of 100
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post

It's easier to manage 12 instances in one OS then 3 instances in 4 OSes.... Once you build the functionality to scale past 1, you just have to duplicate that n times to scale.
No matter what... more VMs take up more resources. A reason to use VMs is if the processes cannot be seperated (which I don't think it is an issue here).... i.e. Some vender software is hardcoded to access a file at a specific location... this would block multiple instances working on the same file.

maybe I will refrain from virtualization if you think it can result in stability issues...I have a practical question about Virtual Machines....what if one crashes - it is usually not a problem to recover the results of the work that have been done prior to the crash right?
post #46 of 100
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by anubis1127 View Post

I have a E5 2011 8 core / 16 thread Xeon running with my x79 board, and I find it rather run to play around with for a workstation box. My particular Xeon is an ES chip, runs @ 2.4ghz on all 8 cores, folds like a champ in Linux (equivalent to a 2600k @ 4.8-4.9ghz). Right now I have it setup with Win8 folding on half the cores, and running four VMs off the other 8 threads.
The best part about the CPU is that it runs so cool, under 42C w/ a h50, and sips power.

interesting...how much GHZ do you usually allocate to a single VM? which type of VM you think is the most stable and erro-less?
post #47 of 100
The extra resource overhead with VMs is mainly memory so you would need plenty -- good thing it is so cheap right now. Remember that this is a type 1 hypervisor with paravirtual guests that I have recommended. The overhead is significantly lower than what most consumers are used to. If you can truly split the processes and all the sub-processes, registry settings and files associated with each instance of excel, there is less need for VMs. For something as critical as what you are going to do I would think that stability is paramount. To further stability, I would also suggest that your data be contained in an array that is separate from the virtual drive containing the virtual machines. It could even be done on the same array on a separate partition. This way, if a VM crashes your data remains and can be referenced for calculation. That would not be possible if your one and only windows instance crashes -- all data collection and processing would stop.

Some more on virtual machine performance:
With the recommended setup your performance will range in the high 90th percentile (~ 94-99%) of native. In my opinion, this would seem more beneficial to what you are trying to do. You would gain a lot of redundancy for a small performance hit. I guess I see running all of the instances in one windows install as a gamble when long periods of time are considered. ECC ram does wonders in reducing the risk, but virtualization does too. Virtual machines can be easily recovered from snapshots if things REALLY go wrong. In cases of hardware being stable and a good hypervisor being used, there is no reason any virtual machine would be less stable than running on the hardware itself.

Regarding a CPU choice:
The Xeon E3 series are essentially non-ep i3, i5 and i7 chips and will perform similarly. I would advise against using the 3930k or the other i7-EP chips because they lack support for ECC memory -- you want it whether you virtualize or don't. The problem is that motherboards for the Xeon E5 series are expensive. I really think 8 cores (16 hyperthreads) will be ideal. However you reach this is your own choice. That means two complete E3 setups or one E5 setup. From what it seems, you will be using 12 instances of excel so the extra cores would be nice. Hyper-v (paravirtual) virtual machines are better at running on partial cores. This means that you might be able to run more instances effectively on less cores. Of course it would be slower than having more, but it wouldn't bottleneck as much as running 12 instances on an 8 core machine. This is because of how paravirtual guests access the hypervisor and how the hypervisor schedules CPU time. Because a physical core isn't being assigned to any one VM, the hypervisor is able to distribute processing time more efficiently and seamlessly than hardware virtualized systems. You would have to do more research on this and how it works with windows server operating systems, but I know that paravirtualized linux systems work this way.
Test Chamber ITX
(14 items)
 
Dream Rig (AMD)
(11 items)
 
Dream Rig (Intel)
(11 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-2600 Gigabyte H77N-wifi Radeon HD 7750 16GB Corsair DDR3 1600 CL 10 (@1333 CL 8) 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSPower
Corsair Force 3 180gb Seagate Barracuda STBD2000101 2x in RAID1 Lubuntu / Win 8.1 / CentOS 6.4 -- Xen 4.3 FSP 80+ Micro-ATX 450w 
Case
Fractal Node 304 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
AMD FX-8350 ASRock Fatal1ty 990FX Professional Sapphire Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition 3GB AMD FirePro W5000 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveCooling
G.Skill Trident X Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR3-1866 Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM x2 RAID 1 Corsair Force Series GT 120GB x2 RAID 0 NZXT Kraken X60 
PowerCaseOther
SeaSonic Platinum 860W 80 PLUS Platinum Lian-Li PC-100 (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case RaspberryPi 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7-3930k ASrock X79 EXTREME4-M SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition 2GB  AMD FirePro W5000 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveCooling
G.Skill Ripjaws Z Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR3-1866 2x Corsair Force Series 3 180GB RAID 0 2x Western Digital Red 2TB RAID 1 Noctua NH-D14 SE2011 
PowerCaseOther
SeaSonic 660W 80 PLUS Platinum Silverstone TJ08B-E Integrated RaspberryPi 
  hide details  
Reply
Test Chamber ITX
(14 items)
 
Dream Rig (AMD)
(11 items)
 
Dream Rig (Intel)
(11 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-2600 Gigabyte H77N-wifi Radeon HD 7750 16GB Corsair DDR3 1600 CL 10 (@1333 CL 8) 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSPower
Corsair Force 3 180gb Seagate Barracuda STBD2000101 2x in RAID1 Lubuntu / Win 8.1 / CentOS 6.4 -- Xen 4.3 FSP 80+ Micro-ATX 450w 
Case
Fractal Node 304 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
AMD FX-8350 ASRock Fatal1ty 990FX Professional Sapphire Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition 3GB AMD FirePro W5000 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveCooling
G.Skill Trident X Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR3-1866 Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM x2 RAID 1 Corsair Force Series GT 120GB x2 RAID 0 NZXT Kraken X60 
PowerCaseOther
SeaSonic Platinum 860W 80 PLUS Platinum Lian-Li PC-100 (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case RaspberryPi 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7-3930k ASrock X79 EXTREME4-M SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition 2GB  AMD FirePro W5000 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveCooling
G.Skill Ripjaws Z Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR3-1866 2x Corsair Force Series 3 180GB RAID 0 2x Western Digital Red 2TB RAID 1 Noctua NH-D14 SE2011 
PowerCaseOther
SeaSonic 660W 80 PLUS Platinum Silverstone TJ08B-E Integrated RaspberryPi 
  hide details  
Reply
post #48 of 100
Note: The Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise license allows for 4 VM on a single machine. However, the $1500 price tag alone would blow your budget.

In addition, I believe you would require 4 copies of Excel.... and possible 4 copies of MATLAB.
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
post #49 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post

Note: The Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise license allows for 4 VM on a single machine. However, the $1500 price tag alone would blow your budget.
In addition, I believe you would require 4 copies of Excel.... and possible 4 copies of MATLAB.

oh yeah licensing fees... ugh. Just do everything to make it as stable as possible then. Definitely use at least RAID5 and a Xeon or opteron with ECC memory. thumb.gif
Test Chamber ITX
(14 items)
 
Dream Rig (AMD)
(11 items)
 
Dream Rig (Intel)
(11 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-2600 Gigabyte H77N-wifi Radeon HD 7750 16GB Corsair DDR3 1600 CL 10 (@1333 CL 8) 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSPower
Corsair Force 3 180gb Seagate Barracuda STBD2000101 2x in RAID1 Lubuntu / Win 8.1 / CentOS 6.4 -- Xen 4.3 FSP 80+ Micro-ATX 450w 
Case
Fractal Node 304 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
AMD FX-8350 ASRock Fatal1ty 990FX Professional Sapphire Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition 3GB AMD FirePro W5000 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveCooling
G.Skill Trident X Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR3-1866 Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM x2 RAID 1 Corsair Force Series GT 120GB x2 RAID 0 NZXT Kraken X60 
PowerCaseOther
SeaSonic Platinum 860W 80 PLUS Platinum Lian-Li PC-100 (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case RaspberryPi 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7-3930k ASrock X79 EXTREME4-M SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition 2GB  AMD FirePro W5000 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveCooling
G.Skill Ripjaws Z Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR3-1866 2x Corsair Force Series 3 180GB RAID 0 2x Western Digital Red 2TB RAID 1 Noctua NH-D14 SE2011 
PowerCaseOther
SeaSonic 660W 80 PLUS Platinum Silverstone TJ08B-E Integrated RaspberryPi 
  hide details  
Reply
Test Chamber ITX
(14 items)
 
Dream Rig (AMD)
(11 items)
 
Dream Rig (Intel)
(11 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-2600 Gigabyte H77N-wifi Radeon HD 7750 16GB Corsair DDR3 1600 CL 10 (@1333 CL 8) 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSPower
Corsair Force 3 180gb Seagate Barracuda STBD2000101 2x in RAID1 Lubuntu / Win 8.1 / CentOS 6.4 -- Xen 4.3 FSP 80+ Micro-ATX 450w 
Case
Fractal Node 304 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
AMD FX-8350 ASRock Fatal1ty 990FX Professional Sapphire Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition 3GB AMD FirePro W5000 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveCooling
G.Skill Trident X Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR3-1866 Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM x2 RAID 1 Corsair Force Series GT 120GB x2 RAID 0 NZXT Kraken X60 
PowerCaseOther
SeaSonic Platinum 860W 80 PLUS Platinum Lian-Li PC-100 (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case RaspberryPi 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7-3930k ASrock X79 EXTREME4-M SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition 2GB  AMD FirePro W5000 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveCooling
G.Skill Ripjaws Z Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR3-1866 2x Corsair Force Series 3 180GB RAID 0 2x Western Digital Red 2TB RAID 1 Noctua NH-D14 SE2011 
PowerCaseOther
SeaSonic 660W 80 PLUS Platinum Silverstone TJ08B-E Integrated RaspberryPi 
  hide details  
Reply
post #50 of 100
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzy4 View Post

The extra resource overhead with VMs is mainly memory so you would need plenty -- good thing it is so cheap right now. Remember that this is a type 1 hypervisor with paravirtual guests that I have recommended. The overhead is significantly lower than what most consumers are used to. If you can truly split the processes and all the sub-processes, registry settings and files associated with each instance of excel, there is less need for VMs. For something as critical as what you are going to do I would think that stability is paramount. To further stability, I would also suggest that your data be contained in an array that is separate from the virtual drive containing the virtual machines. It could even be done on the same array on a separate partition. This way, if a VM crashes your data remains and can be referenced for calculation. That would not be possible if your one and only windows instance crashes -- all data collection and processing would stop.
Some more on virtual machine performance:
With the recommended setup your performance will range in the high 90th percentile (~ 94-99%) of native. In my opinion, this would seem more beneficial to what you are trying to do. You would gain a lot of redundancy for a small performance hit. I guess I see running all of the instances in one windows install as a gamble when long periods of time are considered. ECC ram does wonders in reducing the risk, but virtualization does too. Virtual machines can be easily recovered from snapshots if things REALLY go wrong. In cases of hardware being stable and a good hypervisor being used, there is no reason any virtual machine would be less stable than running on the hardware itself.
Regarding a CPU choice:
The Xeon E3 series are essentially non-ep i3, i5 and i7 chips and will perform similarly. I would advise against using the 3930k or the other i7-EP chips because they lack support for ECC memory -- you want it whether you virtualize or don't. The problem is that motherboards for the Xeon E5 series are expensive. I really think 8 cores (16 hyperthreads) will be ideal. However you reach this is your own choice. That means two complete E3 setups or one E5 setup. From what it seems, you will be using 12 instances of excel so the extra cores would be nice. Hyper-v (paravirtual) virtual machines are better at running on partial cores. This means that you might be able to run more instances effectively on less cores. Of course it would be slower than having more, but it wouldn't bottleneck as much as running 12 instances on an 8 core machine. This is because of how paravirtual guests access the hypervisor and how the hypervisor schedules CPU time. Because a physical core isn't being assigned to any one VM, the hypervisor is able to distribute processing time more efficiently and seamlessly than hardware virtualized systems. You would have to do more research on this and how it works with windows server operating systems, but I know that paravirtualized linux systems work this way.


thank you so much for this very detailed reply....I am thinking of using the e3 with ecc memory but I am getting the feelign that the desktop setup would be easier to manage on my own if anythign fails....I mean teh 3930k setup sounds more compute friendly to me rigth now especially after reading some of the reviews of the motehrboard recommended for e3 1275v2 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=13-131-849&SortField=0&SummaryType=0&Pagesize=10&PurchaseMark=&SelectedRating=-1&VideoOnlyMark=False&VendorMark=&IsFeedbackTab=true&Page=3#scrollFullInfo) I surely think the ecc support is neccesary - might instead go with the original E5 2630 cpu with more user-friendly 2011 socket based system...what do you think?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Intel CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › Intel Core i7-3930K vs Xeon E5-2630 For Long-duration Financial Calculations