Which processor would you recommended for index generation in CVDATA?

[seriousplayer]

It seem to take a long time for index generation when selecting all indices to be generate using CVDATA. I am researching which CPU would make the index computation faster. I looked at the Intel Core i7 Processor in general and it seem like core i7 are good for general computing and everyday use. But it will not be as good for computations. However, the Intel Xeon Processor seem to be really good for calculations.

My intention is to make the index generation in CVDATA faster. For example, make it one day instead of four days.

[Norm]

First, there is no reason to ever select all indices for index generation. The ridiculous indices take longer than the useful ones. Much longer. Splitting tens against a ten has no index -- but it will try very hard to find one.

Having said that, the best chip is the I7-4790K

[21forme]

I saw a guy split 5s against a T recently. What's the index for that?

[Norm]

alephnull.png

[stopgambling]

No? not even for fun,it may draw heat?

[Norm]

Does look like "No". It's Aleph-null. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number.

[stopgambling]

I knew you would not make it easy .Knowledge is good for me.

[seriousplayer]

First, there is no reason to ever select all indices for index generation. The ridiculous indices take longer than the useful ones. Much longer. Splitting tens against a ten has no index -- but it will try very hard to find one.

Having said that, the best chip is the I7-4790K

Thank You for the reply. Ok, I getting the idea now. So we need a processor that has a high clock frequency for index generation. The Core i7-4790K is a very good CPU. The good part about that CPU is it has a base frequency of 4.0ghz and turbo boost of 4.40ghz. However, that CPU only has four physical cores.
Another processor that perform close to the Intel Core i7 4790K is the AMD FX-8350 Processor. Base frequency of 4.0ghz and turbo boost of 4.20ghz. But much cheaper price with 8 cores.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i...vs-AMD-FX-8350

[Norm]

CVData/CVCX are multi-threaded, with the exception of index generation. Index generation does not multi-thread well. So, multi-cores doesn’t help.

As for simulation, multi-cores helps enormously. However, both processors support eight threads, due to hyper-threading in the I7. Hyper-threading does not give you an entire additional set of cores. In fact, the original hyper-threading wasn’t that good. But, the last three generations have shown enormous improvement in HT. OTOH, the AMD chip isn’t really eight full cores either. It’s four pairs of cores with each pair sharing functionality.

On overclocking, the 4790K does not overclock well. Above 4.4Ghz, you must increase CPU voltage at a ridiculously high rate to keep it stable. I’m only eking out another 3%, instead of the 20% I got with the I7-2700K.

Then there is the chip architecture. Haswell added additional load/store and integer units. This is great for simulation. The CPU speed increases for the last three generations have all benefitted simulation more than then normal benchmarks would suggest.

You really can’t compare Ghz between two entirely different sets of architecture. The old Pentium got up to 3.8Ghz, and was a fraction of the speed of new CPUs. The complexity of these tiny chips is incredible. 1.4 billion transistors in the 4790.

Having said all that, I haven’t tested the AMD chip. (And, I wouldn’t until the building air conditioning is turned on.)

[seriousplayer]

CVData/CVCX are multi-threaded, with the exception of index generation. Index generation does not multi-thread well. So, multi-cores doesn’t help.

As for simulation, multi-cores helps enormously. However, both processors support eight threads, due to hyper-threading in the I7. Hyper-threading does not give you an entire additional set of cores. In fact, the original hyper-threading wasn’t that good. But, the last three generations have shown enormous improvement in HT. OTOH, the AMD chip isn’t really eight full cores either. It’s four pairs of cores with each pair sharing functionality.

On overclocking, the 4790K does not overclock well. Above 4.4Ghz, you must increase CPU voltage at a ridiculously high rate to keep it stable. I’m only eking out another 3%, instead of the 20% I got with the I7-2700K.

Then there is the chip architecture. Haswell added additional load/store and integer units. This is great for simulation. The CPU speed increases for the last three generations have all benefitted simulation more than then normal benchmarks would suggest.

You really can’t compare Ghz between two entirely different sets of architecture. The old Pentium got up to 3.8Ghz, and was a fraction of the speed of new CPUs. The complexity of these tiny chips is incredible. 1.4 billion transistors in the 4790.

Having said all that, I haven’t tested the AMD chip. (And, I wouldn’t until the building air conditioning is turned on.)

In terms of cores I couldn't find any processors that have more cores than the Intel Xeon Processor. At the current time the Intel Core i7 has a maximum of 8 physical cores and 16 threads. But Intel Xeon Processor has like 16 cores. Intel Xeon E5-2687w v3 has 10-cores and 20 threads. But there is no Intel Xeon Processor with 4.0ghz base frequency.