Just to clarify:
There is only small to medium improvement in using a plex chip versus
x8/x8/x8/x8 ?
On 22 June 2013 21:31, Scott Le Grand <varelse2005.gmail.com> wrote:
> For a fat node, the plex chip may be enough to drive GPUDirect/P2P. I've
> more or less given up on MPI 2.0 so that's the only step forward from
> here. Currently verifying this with nvidia though before proceeding
> On Jun 22, 2013 1:27 PM, "ET" <sketchfoot.gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for that Ross, I hadn't consider that.Some more food for thought.
> >
> >
> > On 22 June 2013 21:12, Ross Walker <rosscwalker.gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > You need to be looking at DUAL socket motherboards if you want 4-way
> x16
> > > support. A single CPU does not have enough bandwidth (pins) to support
> > true
> > > 4 by x16 - they cheat using pxii switches.
> > >
> > > All the Exxact machines on the Amber website are dual socket by quad
> slot
> > > x16. Of course this makes them more expensive than the budget single
> > socket
> > > systems you can build for sub $1000 (exc GPU cost).
> > >
> > > All the best
> > > Ross
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Jun 22, 2013, at 12:45, ET <sketchfoot.gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Looks like the Asus P9X79-E WS is for you then Scott! :) Haven't
> seen
> > > many
> > > > (if any!) boards with that anount of bandwidth so far.
> > > >
> > > > br,
> > > > g
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 22 June 2013 19:31, Scott Le Grand <varelse2005.gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> It may be overkill now but I'm planning to revisit the Multi GPU
> code
> > in
> > > >> the near future and that's why I need a motherboard that can really
> > take
> > > >> advantage of it.
> > > >> On Jun 22, 2013 10:12 AM, "ET" <sketchfoot.gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hi,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks v much for you specs Divi. :) I've been debating with myself
> > as
> > > my
> > > >>> board as it looks good and has a very nice spec. From what I've
> read,
> > > the
> > > >>> only problems with it is the higher than average power draw.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> .Scott. I believe the board runs in x8/x8/x8/x8 for a 4 GPU config
> -
> > so
> > > >>> effectively PCI2 2.0 x16 rate. Would this present any problems, if
> > you
> > > >>> were running the serial GPU code, From what I read on the AMBER GPU
> > > >>> hardware page, this is more important for the parallel GPU code?
> > > Though,
> > > >> I
> > > >>> imagine having 4x serial ruins going simultaneously would also tax
> > the
> > > >> GPU
> > > >>> to CPU interface, though how much I'm not sure.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Apparently, if you are going intel, you can only acheive PCIe 3.0
> > using
> > > >> at
> > > >>> least a Sandy Bridge-E or ivy bridge CPU in a socket 155. Please
> > > correct
> > > >> me
> > > >>> if I have understood this incorrectly though.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> http://www.enthusiastpc.net/articles/00003/3.aspx
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> A socket 2011 proposition would be the Asus P9X79-E WES which has
> 2x
> > > PLX
> > > >>> PEX 8747 chips so can run at x16/x16/x16/x16 with four GPUs
> > > >>>
> > > >>> https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/P9X79E_WS/#specifications
> > > >>>
> > > >>> However, I'm unsure whether this is overkill for running 4xGPUs
> doing
> > > >> AMBER
> > > >>> serial code.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> What do you guys think?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> br,
> > > >>> g
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 22 June 2013 16:15, Scott Le Grand <varelse2005.gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Does this MB support full p2p at 16x PCIE Gen 3 speeds between
> all 4
> > > >>> GPUs?
> > > >>>> On Jun 21, 2013 4:09 PM, "Divi/GMAIL" <dvenkatlu.gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> ET:
> > > >>>>> I am using GA-Z77X-UP7 that has PLX chipset and supports 3rd
> Gen
> > > >>>> LGA1155
> > > >>>>> socket. Bought together with 2 TITANS sometime in March.
> > > >>>>> It has been running pretty stable 24/7 since then. I thought of
> > > >>> buying
> > > >>>>> two more titans later to fill all four slots. With so much mess
> > > >> going
> > > >>> on
> > > >>>>> with TITANS, I put off that plan until the dust settles. You
> might
> > > >>> want
> > > >>>> to
> > > >>>>> check new 4th GEN cpus and supporting motherboards as the
> Hardware
> > > >> keep
> > > >>>>> changing pretty rapidly these days.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I have i5-processor with 16 GB ram and 256 GB SSD. All four
> > PCI-E
> > > >>>> lanes
> > > >>>>> are X-16. It also has native X-16 link directly "hardwired" to
> > > >>> CPU-lanes
> > > >>>>> that will bypass PLX chipset, in case if you run single GPU. This
> > > >> might
> > > >>>>> reduce a bit of latency but not much. I get 35ns/day on FIX/NVE
> > > >>> benchmark
> > > >>>>> bypassing PLX chipset, but get about 34ns/day using PLX chipset
> (on
> > > >>> TITAN
> > > >>>>> of
> > > >>>>> course!!). Not a deal breaker..
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Link below:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=4334#ov
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> HTH
> > > >>>>> Divi
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > > >>>>> From: ET
> > > >>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 8:18 PM
> > > >>>>> To: AMBER Mailing List
> > > >>>>> Subject: [AMBER] Anyone running machines with Quad GPU setups
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Hi all,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I was looking at getting a new mobo to run a quad GPU system. I
> was
> > > >>>>> wondering if anyone has done this. If you could post the model &
> > make
> > > >>> of:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> 1) motherboard
> > > >>>>> 2) CPU
> > > >>>>> 3) RAM
> > > >>>>> 4) Case
> > > >>>>> 5) The aggregate estimate of ns in simulation you have run on
> your
> > > >>> setup
> > > >>>>> without issue,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I would be much obliged! :)
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> br,
> > > >>>>> g
> > > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>>>> AMBER mailing list
> > > >>>>> AMBER.ambermd.org
> > > >>>>> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>>>> AMBER mailing list
> > > >>>>> AMBER.ambermd.org
> > > >>>>> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>>> AMBER mailing list
> > > >>>> AMBER.ambermd.org
> > > >>>> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>> AMBER mailing list
> > > >>> AMBER.ambermd.org
> > > >>> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
> > > >>>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> AMBER mailing list
> > > >> AMBER.ambermd.org
> > > >> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
> > > >>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > AMBER mailing list
> > > > AMBER.ambermd.org
> > > > http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > AMBER mailing list
> > > AMBER.ambermd.org
> > > http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AMBER mailing list
> > AMBER.ambermd.org
> > http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
> >
> _______________________________________________
> AMBER mailing list
> AMBER.ambermd.org
> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
>
_______________________________________________
AMBER mailing list
AMBER.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber
Received on Sat Jun 22 2013 - 23:00:02 PDT
