The PC has always been a great platform for gamers. Since they’re flexible, PCs give consumers the chance to play the latest video games under optimal conditions without putting too big a hole in their pockets. At the same time, you also have the option of souping up your machine for maximum graphs capabilities. Do that, of course, and the bill goes up fast–and so high that it can reach prices that many netbook buyers couldn’t even fathom.
We’ve picked 10 machines introduced last year that are geared for the most difficult-to-please gamers… and the wealthiest. With such titles as Crysis Warhead, GTA IV, Far Cry 2, and even Red Alert 3 available, there are enough graphically intensive games out there to make one dream about owning one of the machines that we cover in the following pages.
In June/08 I talked to Joost Batenburg, one of the researchers who uses the FASTRA system (at the time they were looking into better cooling solutions and I had some suggestions).
The important point about this system is that it does not involve any communication between the GPUs, ie. SLI is irrelevant. Indeed, the gaming 3DMark06 score for the system is not that high, partly because it's only really using one card for the test (the mbd is a Crossfire board, chosen for other reasons).
Indeed, after it was first announced, some people asked why they didn't use 9800GTX cards instead of 9800GX2s. The GTX is faster for games, but not by much, whereas the tomography computations the researchers are doing can fully use both GPUs on a GX2 card, giving a virtually perfect linear scaling for multiple GPUs, ie. much better than a GTX card.
Oddly enough, there *is* a commercial system that can use up to 8 gfx cards (ie. 16 GPUs), namely SGI's top-end VS system (up 8 quad-core Opterons, 8 x PCIe cards, 256GB RAM), which is a rebadged version of the top-end system from BOXX. However, FASTRA is cheaper, and they don't need much in the way of main-CPU power anyway so a system supporting lots of normal CPUs would be a waste.
FASTRA is interesting because of how it is used, but a bit strange that toms would put it into the list since it's not a games machine.
Btw, the researchers' previous 'device', as toms puts it, was a cluster of 256 dual-core Opterons.
Wow in SA we hardly even hear about stuff like that, and why would they run a Phenom in there, a Core i7 SLAUGHTERS it in its dreams! I mean even the Phenom II is weak compared to the Core i7, even the 920 model outruns anything AMD have to offer which is extemely sad
Read the article and the references I mentioned. The processing the researchers are doing does not require a good main CPU (it's all done on the GPUs via CUDA). An i7 is totally unnecessary for their needs. Besides, they needed a mbd with four PCIe slots all with double-spacing - such an i7 board does not exist.
I wish people would read the full article and background info before commenting.
And btw, four GTX295s would not triple the performance. It would be double at best. Check toms' specs on the various dual-GPU boards - no way is a single speed-reduced GTX280 core 3X faster than a single 9800 core. If it's the number of SPs that matters most, then the speed increase would be a tad under 2X. However, heat is a problem for a build like this, as is driver/BIOS support to get all four cards recognised. The GTX295 is so new (even out yet?) I'd be surprised if any mbd could utilise four of them atm.
Joost told me they wanted to get the system up and running quickly. Wouldn't surprise if they bought the same cards again for any 2nd system since they know it will work ok.
I'm very surprised how they were able to get all the GPU's working but seeming as how it's a CUDA project, I'm pretty sure that they had some good help from NVIDIA.
wow where do they get the software to run 8 gpu's teheheh
multithreaded notepad
"multithreaded notepad"
haha made me laugh
This article should be entitled "Computers of the Rich and Famous".
and the first place is half the price of the 2nd place machine.
In June/08 I talked to Joost Batenburg, one of the researchers
who uses the FASTRA system (at the time they were looking
into better cooling solutions and I had some suggestions).
The important point about this system is that it does not
involve any communication between the GPUs, ie. SLI is
irrelevant. Indeed, the gaming 3DMark06 score for the system
is not that high, partly because it's only really using one
card for the test (the mbd is a Crossfire board, chosen for
other reasons).
Indeed, after it was first announced, some people asked why
they didn't use 9800GTX cards instead of 9800GX2s. The GTX
is faster for games, but not by much, whereas the tomography
computations the researchers are doing can fully use both
GPUs on a GX2 card, giving a virtually perfect linear scaling
for multiple GPUs, ie. much better than a GTX card.
Oddly enough, there *is* a commercial system that can use
up to 8 gfx cards (ie. 16 GPUs), namely SGI's top-end VS
system (up 8 quad-core Opterons, 8 x PCIe cards, 256GB RAM),
which is a rebadged version of the top-end system from BOXX.
However, FASTRA is cheaper, and they don't need much in the
way of main-CPU power anyway so a system supporting lots of
normal CPUs would be a waste.
FASTRA is interesting because of how it is used, but a bit
strange that toms would put it into the list since it's not
a games machine.
Btw, the researchers' previous 'device', as toms puts it,
was a cluster of 256 dual-core Opterons.
For full details of FASTRA, see:
http://fastra.ua.ac.be/en/faq.html
http://fastra.ua.ac.be/en/technicalfaq.html
Supporting lots of gfx 'pipes' is nothing new though; SGI's
been doing it for nearly 20 years.
Ian.
SGI Guru.
mapesdhs@yahoo.com
Upgrade the #1 machine with four GTX 295 and it would triple the performance.
Wow in SA we hardly even hear about stuff like that, and why would they run a Phenom in there, a Core i7 SLAUGHTERS it in its dreams! I mean even the Phenom II is weak compared to the Core i7, even the 920 model outruns anything AMD have to offer which is extemely sad
Read the article and the references I mentioned. The
processing the researchers are doing does not require a good
main CPU (it's all done on the GPUs via CUDA). An i7 is
totally unnecessary for their needs. Besides, they needed a
mbd with four PCIe slots all with double-spacing - such an i7
board does not exist.
I wish people would read the full article and background info
before commenting.
And btw, four GTX295s would not triple the performance. It
would be double at best. Check toms' specs on the various
dual-GPU boards - no way is a single speed-reduced GTX280
core 3X faster than a single 9800 core. If it's the number
of SPs that matters most, then the speed increase would be
a tad under 2X. However, heat is a problem for a build like
this, as is driver/BIOS support to get all four cards
recognised. The GTX295 is so new (even out yet?) I'd be
surprised if any mbd could utilise four of them atm.
Joost told me they wanted to get the system up and running
quickly. Wouldn't surprise if they bought the same cards
again for any 2nd system since they know it will work ok.
Ian.
Well, by the way the GTX 295 was out yesterday on Newegg, pretty well hidden. Here it is
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6814130439
I'm very surprised how they were able to get all the GPU's working but seeming as how it's a CUDA project, I'm pretty sure that they had some good help from NVIDIA.