AMD 8 Core CPU

I'm in the process of designing a new rig specifically for IsBoxing Eve Online.

What I am looking at right now is using the new AMD 8 Core CPU on the Asus Sabertooth 990FX motherboard.

Going to run 16 or 32gb of ram with and use intel sata III SSD drives for my OS set in a RAID 0 pair (they either fail right away or work forever as the MTBF is longer than my life span).

I plan on using nvidia based video cards based on past experience, personal preference and comfort level. I have been rocking MSI lately and I was/am pleasantly surprised with their performance and reliability.

I am wondering if there are any reasons to stay away from the AMD 8 core chip with regards to ISBoxer. I know people have their preference over Intel and AMD, I've been at this for almost 20 years now so I know that benchmarks can be set to show whatever the people running them want to show, so I don't care about all that rabblerabble.

So, any experiences with using ISBoxer in conjunction with the new AMD processor? Is it viable or is it something to be avoided? As this machine is going to be built specifically for this single task, personal mfg preferences are secondary to me.

My intention is to build 4 of these systems and run them in conjunction with one another, spreading the load between them at 8 accounts per computer system. I'm running 9+ on my current system without must of a degradation in performance so I am confident these machines can handle 8 per without breaking a sweat. If I am deficit in my planning on this aside from the overall craziness of the plan please let me know.

Also, as an aside, can you run repeater commands across multiple machines? Can I drive one character while having it broadcast to multiple characters across multiple machines?

Thanks in advance for your help.

[Alge]

Also, as an aside, can you run repeater commands across multiple machines? Can I drive one character while having it broadcast to multiple characters across multiple machines?

See Paragraph 3 of the Overview section of http://isboxer.com/index.php/component/content/article/3-general/22-using-multiple-computers.

[MiRai]

I'm curious as to why you feel you need 4 separate computers to run 32 EVE accounts? As you should know, there are endless benchmarks (whether you want to actually read them or not) strewn across the internet in multiple configurations which show that the AMD FX 8150 is a dog and cannot keep up with Intel's offerings. Do you honestly believe that with AMD's recent (and silent) price cuts, that their $200 8-core processor is expected to perform anywhere near a $300 Intel CPU?

When numerous review sites and benchmarks show the same thing, it's hard to believe it's all "rabblerabble".

I'm curious as to why you feel you need 4 separate computers to run 32 EVE accounts? As you should know, there are endless benchmarks (whether you want to actually read them or not) strewn across the internet in multiple configurations which show that the AMD FX 8150 is a dog and cannot keep up with Intel's offerings. Do you honestly believe that with AMD's recent (and silent) price cuts, that their $200 8-core processor is expected to perform anywhere near a $300 Intel CPU?

When numerous review sites and benchmarks show the same thing, it's hard to believe it's all "rabblerabble".

First, define “need”

I don’t need 4 computers anymore than I need 1 computer built specifically for multiboxing. The two I am currently using are adequate and work fine for what I am using them for.

What I want is a completely different subject. What I want are 4 identical computers over built to the point where I do not have to worry about performing any upgrades for several years. I call it my “5 year computer” doctrine and my current 5 year computer, which is on year 6 and still easily handling whatever I throw at it with only a video card update in the last year.

I intend to limit the instances of Eve they are running per machine because I’m not building them so I can go out and participate in something benign like mining or even gate camping. I am limiting their load in anticipation of the day when I am engaged across all 4 machines in large fleet battles and have neither the time nor inclination to deal with clients crashing.

With regard to the issue of benchmarking.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20073556-64/amd-quits-benchmark-group-implying-intel-bias/

The above is a link referencing an article regarding AMD walking away from its association with a benchmarking group citing that the tests are biased to show favorable results for Intel processors. Before you start getting frothy and claim that AMD is just mad because they cannot compete, Nvidia walked out at the same time. They have no specific reason to do this to show support for AMD, since AMD is currently producing the Nvidia gpu rival chipsets. So, this lends legitimacy to the complaint.

With regard to internet claims and articles regarding the performance AMD chip in comparison to Intel chips. These are not produced by some omnipotent intelligence with complete impartiality on the subject.

Unfortunately, anyone can post whatever they want to post on the internet, its presence however does not make this rambling accurate. Since I can find just as many articles, benchmarks and reviews that are favorable towards AMD as you can find that are negative, it is at the end of the day, rabblerabble, and I’ll raise you a hogwash.

The more money that is involved the more muddled the truth becomes.

In my experience the detriment of the multiple core AMD cpu is that product engineers are not coding to utilize all the cores. Intel adapted to this, AMD did not, has not (that I’m aware of). However, ISBoxer resolves this issue for me and I have been so happy to see my other previously idle cores pulling their weight since I have started using the product. In light of that, when building machines specifically for ISBoxer, I’d rather have 8 physical cores in my chip then 4 real cores and 4 pretend cores.

In the end the noticeable difference in performance between the two isn’t something my human senses can even detect. For me it becomes an issue of principles and who I would rather give my money to. I remember the days of run-away processor prices and AMD being the only ones to stand toe to toe with Intel and not only offer an alternative but force Intel to alter their prices to compete. In light of that it really becomes an easy decision.

I am at the same time listing out intel based machines, but other issues have interested me in the platform, not the processor itself. Practicality (as far as its applicable to the impractical) trumps brand loyalty for me. Specifically, I am looking into the Asus Rampage IV Extreme board with 8 dimm slots which will handle 64gb of RAM, and supports PCIe 3.0 video cards. As previously stated I prefer to build computers on a 5 year plan to not need/want to upgrade them for that period of time. If PCIe 3.0 video cards are going to start dominating and no AMD boards can provide support for them, then that along with the memory would make me consider using an Intel based platform.

Which ever platform I decide to go with ultimately it will not be decided on something as smiple as AMD vs Intel preferences. Financially I won't be in a position to begin the builds for the atleast the next 3 months, which I may extend out even further depending on releases scheduled for third or fourth quarter. For instance I will be buying a lot of large monitors for this project as well and I if I can keep my impatience under control I will save a lot of money waiting for the holiday season price drops.

If I end up going with the Intel system I would still use 2 SSD drives, raid 0, for my OS set. Install 64gb of ram, splitting its use. Leave 32gb as physical memory for use by the machine and have a 32gb ramdisk set up to handle caching. I’m not worried about the overall lack of redundancy on the computers, I plan to use a server and have it image the os on a scheduled basis.

[MiRai]

With regard to the issue of benchmarking.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20073556-64/amd-quits-benchmark-group-implying-intel-bias/

The above is a link referencing an article regarding AMD walking away from its association with a benchmarking group citing that the tests are biased to show favorable results for Intel processors. Before you start getting frothy and claim that AMD is just mad because they cannot compete, Nvidia walked out at the same time. They have no specific reason to do this to show support for AMD, since AMD is currently producing the Nvidia gpu rival chipsets. So, this lends legitimacy to the complaint.

Assuming you read your own link, that pertains to one single synthetic benchmark -- SYSMark. I would never base any CPU recommendation off of one single synthetic benchmark -- Anyone that does, is an idiot. So, now that we've removed SYSMark from the list of shitty benchmarks, what about all of the other real world benchmarks out there?

With regard to internet claims and articles regarding the performance AMD chip in comparison to Intel chips. These are not produced by some omnipotent intelligence with complete impartiality on the subject.

Nor will any benchmark ever be. Would you rather believe the numerous review sites out on the internet which all show the same thing or the back of the box that came straight from the manufacturer?

Unfortunately, anyone can post whatever they want to post on the internet, its presence however does not make this rambling accurate. Since I can find just as many articles, benchmarks and reviews that are favorable towards AMD as you can find that are negative, it is at the end of the day, rabblerabble, and I’ll raise you a hogwash.

The more money that is involved the more muddled the truth becomes.

In your 20 years of expertise have you not found the internet review sites to generally speak the truth? Or are they all lying all the time?

Now, I know that the 8-core AMD FX 8150 is being sold to at a price to compete with Intel's 4-core 2500. Isn't it odd that the 4-core 2500 can easily keep up with, and win, many of the benchmarks that are shown across the internet? Are you telling me that every review site is biased towards Intel?

Think if you compared the Intel 2600 that has 4 real cores and "4 imaginary cores" to the FX 8150, it would blow the AMD CPU out of the water (and it does!).

In my experience the detriment of the multiple core AMD cpu is that product engineers are not coding to utilize all the cores. Intel adapted to this, AMD did not, has not (that I’m aware of). However, ISBoxer resolves this issue for me and I have been so happy to see my other previously idle cores pulling their weight since I have started using the product. In light of that, when building machines specifically for ISBoxer, I’d rather have 8 physical cores in my chip then 4 real cores and 4 pretend cores.

What if those AMD cores can't do as much work in the same amount of time compared to the Intel cores? You should know that a core in one CPU is not the same as a core in another CPU and they should never be expected to -- More cores does not always equal better.

In the end the noticeable difference in performance between the two isn’t something my human senses can even detect. For me it becomes an issue of principles and who I would rather give my money to. I remember the days of run-away processor prices and AMD being the only ones to stand toe to toe with Intel and not only offer an alternative but force Intel to alter their prices to compete. In light of that it really becomes an easy decision.

Here's a fun story from just over six years ago...

There once was an AMD processor named the FX-60 which competed with the Intel Pentium 955 Extreme Edition. The Intel 955 EE carried a price tag that we've seen for all (almost all?) Intel EE processors... $1000. Take a wild guess what the AMD processor was priced at?

Availability and Pricing
The AMD Athlon 64 FX-60 dual-core processor is available immediately worldwide. The AMD Athlon 64 FX-60 processor is priced at $1,031 in 1,000-unit PIB quantities.

One Thousand Dollars!

So, you're telling me that, some time in the last six years, AMD has had a change of heart and they decided they would release their top-of-the-line processor with the attractive price tag of $245 to show how evil Intel is and how low processors should be priced? And then because that didn't work, AMD decided that they would drop the price down 20% to $200 in hopes that people will now recognize how evil Intel is.

Yeah, right. If AMD had a worthy CPU that could perform anywhere near Intel's 2600 and up, they'd price it accordingly in a heartbeat. For the record, I'm not an Intel fan boy as I had owned an AMD FX-60 back in the day and was very happy with it.

I will not argue this any further and you can build whatever you would like. While I am kind of being a dick in this post, don't let my bad attitude reflect upon the others of this site as they're usually much nicer than than I am being right now.