I'm thinking of buying a used blade 2000 for a general purpose home
computer, to replace my quad processor Ultra 80. The faster CPUs seem to
attract a real premium on the used market, making a single 1.2 GHz
machine quite a bit more expensive than a dual 900 MHz one.

What is likely to be the best performance wise for a single user desktop
system - single 1.2 GHz or dual 900 MHz? I find with my Ultra 80 it
spends a lot of its time with one CPU maxed out and the other 3 idle,
since most of my applications are not making very good use of the
multiple CPUs. That might suggest I'd be better with a single 1.2 Gz
unit, but a pair of 900's are cheaper and perhaps a better solution.

Any thoughts - mainly I'm interested in the exoeriences of those that
have used both of these sort of setups.

On May 7, 11:57 am, Dave <somepl...@nowhere-nice.com> wrote:
> I'm thinking of buying a used blade 2000 for a general purpose home
> computer, to replace my quad processor Ultra 80. The faster CPUs seem to
> attract a real premium on the used market, making a single 1.2 GHz
> machine quite a bit more expensive than a dual 900 MHz one.
>
> What is likely to be the best performance wise for a single user desktop
> system - single 1.2 GHz or dual 900 MHz? I find with my Ultra 80 it
> spends a lot of its time with one CPU maxed out and the other 3 idle,
> since most of my applications are not making very good use of the
> multiple CPUs. That might suggest I'd be better with a single 1.2 Gz
> unit, but a pair of 900's are cheaper and perhaps a better solution.
>
> Any thoughts - mainly I'm interested in the exoeriences of those that
> have used both of these sort of setups.

I'm sure this depends greatly on your specific workload, but you might
consider a used Opteron system as well. Besides, you can likely find
one of these great x86 processors for about the same price as a Blade
2000 with a 2.4GHz or better Opteron.

I'd suggest looking for a used Sun W1100z or Ultra 20.

On May 7, 4:57 pm, Dave <somepl...@nowhere-nice.com> wrote:
> I'm thinking of buying a used blade 2000 for a general purpose home
> computer, to replace my quad processor Ultra 80. The faster CPUs seem to
> attract a real premium on the used market, making a single 1.2 GHz
> machine quite a bit more expensive than a dual 900 MHz one.
>
> What is likely to be the best performance wise for a single user desktop
> system - single 1.2 GHz or dual 900 MHz? I find with my Ultra 80 it
> spends a lot of its time with one CPU maxed out and the other 3 idle,
> since most of my applications are not making very good use of the
> multiple CPUs. That might suggest I'd be better with a single 1.2 Gz
> unit, but a pair of 900's are cheaper and perhaps a better solution.
>
> Any thoughts - mainly I'm interested in the exoeriences of those that
> have used both of these sort of setups.

Personally, I'd go with the dual 900MHz over the 1.2 GHz, although my
workloads tend to favour multiple CPUs. You could examine the types of
apps you are using, see if there are alternatives that make better use
of multiple CPUs. Even little things like rather than have multiple
windows of a web browser open, have multiple copies of the browser
open, that way you let Solaris share the processes over the CPUs
rather depend on multi-threading in the apps, Solaris is always going
to be better at that.

I used to have a 4x450MHz Ultra 80, and on my sort of loads, it
generally felt a bit more perky than my AMD 3000+ PC. Of course on a
lot of tasks the AMD wiped the floor with the U80, but when wrote
scripts with multiple CPUs in mind, the U80 got to be somewhat better,
I'm sure the 10k RPM disks versus crappy IDE made a big difference too
though.

Dave <someplace@nowhere-nice.com> writes:
> I'm thinking of buying a used blade 2000 for a general purpose home
> computer, to replace my quad processor Ultra 80. The faster CPUs seem to
> attract a real premium on the used market, making a single 1.2 GHz
> machine quite a bit more expensive than a dual 900 MHz one.
>
> What is likely to be the best performance wise for a single user desktop
> system - single 1.2 GHz or dual 900 MHz? I find with my Ultra 80 it
> spends a lot of its time with one CPU maxed out and the other 3 idle,
> since most of my applications are not making very good use of the
> multiple CPUs. That might suggest I'd be better with a single 1.2 Gz
> unit, but a pair of 900's are cheaper and perhaps a better solution.
>
> Any thoughts - mainly I'm interested in the exoeriences of those that
> have used both of these sort of setups.


I upgraded to dual 750s in a Blade 2000 box, which I guess makes it a
Blade 1000, but my old machine was a dual 450 U60 so is a nice upgrade.
Would love to get 900mhz processors, but the 2k & cpus only cost me $50
so there is that...

The disk throughput & foreground impact of I/O is lots better than the
U60, though its a drag that you'll have to get FC/AL drives instead of
transplanting at least one from the U80.

I found the 2k generally more reponsive than the U60, window manager is
Gnome 2.whatever, Solaris 9. I'd go for the dual cpu myself, Solaris
seems to like that sort of arrangement. I can imagine apps not taking a
lot of advantage of a quad processor system, OTOH just the desktop and a
couple apps would tend to nicely occupy a dual cpu machine.

I think the big performance upgrade is the step up from 450mhz and an
apparently faster bus/disk subsystem. If you have an angle on
eventually getting a 2nd 1.2ghz cpu for cheap then maybe the single
processor box would be a good choice, otherwise I tend to like the dual
900's.

Gregm

Greg Menke wrote:
> Dave <someplace@nowhere-nice.com> writes:
>> I'm thinking of buying a used blade 2000 for a general purpose home
>> computer, to replace my quad processor Ultra 80. The faster CPUs seem to
>> attract a real premium on the used market, making a single 1.2 GHz
>> machine quite a bit more expensive than a dual 900 MHz one.
>>
>> What is likely to be the best performance wise for a single user desktop
>> system - single 1.2 GHz or dual 900 MHz? I find with my Ultra 80 it
>> spends a lot of its time with one CPU maxed out and the other 3 idle,
>> since most of my applications are not making very good use of the
>> multiple CPUs. That might suggest I'd be better with a single 1.2 Gz
>> unit, but a pair of 900's are cheaper and perhaps a better solution.
>>
>> Any thoughts - mainly I'm interested in the exoeriences of those that
>> have used both of these sort of setups.
>
>
> I upgraded to dual 750s in a Blade 2000 box, which I guess makes it a
> Blade 1000, but my old machine was a dual 450 U60 so is a nice upgrade.
> Would love to get 900mhz processors, but the 2k & cpus only cost me $50
> so there is that...
>
> The disk throughput & foreground impact of I/O is lots better than the
> U60, though its a drag that you'll have to get FC/AL drives instead of
> transplanting at least one from the U80.
>
> I found the 2k generally more reponsive than the U60, window manager is
> Gnome 2.whatever, Solaris 9. I'd go for the dual cpu myself, Solaris
> seems to like that sort of arrangement. I can imagine apps not taking a
> lot of advantage of a quad processor system, OTOH just the desktop and a
> couple apps would tend to nicely occupy a dual cpu machine.
>
> I think the big performance upgrade is the step up from 450mhz and an
> apparently faster bus/disk subsystem. If you have an angle on
> eventually getting a 2nd 1.2ghz cpu for cheap then maybe the single
> processor box would be a good choice, otherwise I tend to like the dual
> 900's.
>
> Gregm
>
Thak you for your comments. I think I'll look at 2x900MHz and upgrade to
2x1.2 GHz as prices fall, which I am sure they will very dramatically.

Dave <someplace@nowhere-nice.com> writes:
> >
> Thak you for your comments. I think I'll look at 2x900MHz and upgrade to
> 2x1.2 GHz as prices fall, which I am sure they will very dramatically.

You're welcome! But price drops may take a while. The Sun ecycler I
buy from gets a premium from the 900mhz and faster cpus. He gets better
money pulling the processors and selling them than selling entire
computers. I got the 700's for cheap because those processors aren't in
demand. In fact, my box used to have 900's, he sold them quickly. When
I came by & we made the deal, he pulled the 700's from a pile of
rackmount systems bound for scrap.

But I'm very happy with the dual 700. The drives are a bit noisy, or
perhaps the acoustic shelding isn't as good as the U60. But the fans
are maybe quieter. I bought a snazzy USB mouse, I imagine most any USB
keyboard will also work but you'll only get Stop-A & friends if you get
a Sun kbd. Probably will put Solaris 10 on at some point, but I had a
legal Sol9 so used that instead.

Gregm

On May 8, 3:28 am, Dave <somepl...@nowhere-nice.com> wrote:
> Greg Menke wrote:
> > Dave <somepl...@nowhere-nice.com> writes:
> >> I'm thinking of buying a used blade 2000 for a general purpose home
> >> computer, to replace my quad processor Ultra 80. The faster CPUs seem to
> >> attract a real premium on the used market, making a single 1.2 GHz
> >> machine quite a bit more expensive than a dual 900 MHz one.
> >> What is likely to be the best performance wise for a single user desktop
> >> system - single 1.2 GHz or dual 900 MHz? I find with my Ultra 80 it
> >> spends a lot of its time with one CPU maxed out and the other 3 idle,
> >> since most of my applications are not making very good use of the
> >> multiple CPUs. That might suggest I'd be better with a single 1.2 Gz
> >> unit, but a pair of 900's are cheaper and perhaps a better solution.
> >> Any thoughts - mainly I'm interested in the exoeriences of those that
> >> have used both of these sort of setups.
> > I upgraded to dual 750s in a Blade 2000 box, which I guess makes it a
> > Blade 1000, but my old machine was a dual 450 U60 so is a nice upgrade.
> > Would love to get 900mhz processors, but the 2k & cpus only cost me $50
> > so there is that...
> > The disk throughput & foreground impact of I/O is lots better than the
> > U60, though its a drag that you'll have to get FC/AL drives instead of
> > transplanting at least one from the U80.
> > I found the 2k generally more reponsive than the U60, window manager is
> > Gnome 2.whatever, Solaris 9. I'd go for the dual cpu myself, Solaris
> > seems to like that sort of arrangement. I can imagine apps not taking a
> > lot of advantage of a quad processor system, OTOH just the desktop and a
> > couple apps would tend to nicely occupy a dual cpu machine.
> > I think the big performance upgrade is the step up from 450mhz and an
> > apparently faster bus/disk subsystem. If you have an angle on
> > eventually getting a 2nd 1.2ghz cpu for cheap then maybe the single
> > processor box would be a good choice, otherwise I tend to like the dual
> > 900's.
> Thak you for your comments. I think I'll look at 2x900MHz and upgrade to
> 2x1.2 GHz as prices fall, which I am sure they will very dramatically.

I wouldnt count on that. Anyway I have a Blade 1000 w. 1x750MHz.
It was my previous workstation.
Now I use for posting to Usenet (:>) my Blade 2000 w. 2x1200MHz
ultra3cu's.
The newer Blade seemed faster by about the same as the increase in
MHz. Having dual CPUs over 1 isnt all that noticeable.
I havent benched self compiled apps other than openssl but with
Studio 11 set to -fast -xtarget=ultra3cu I saw some increase in
performance
over a generic compile.

Greg Menke wrote:
> Dave <someplace@nowhere-nice.com> writes:
>
>>Thak you for your comments. I think I'll look at 2x900MHz and upgrade to
>>2x1.2 GHz as prices fall, which I am sure they will very dramatically.
>
>
> You're welcome! But price drops may take a while. The Sun ecycler I
> buy from gets a premium from the 900mhz and faster cpus.

The 900 MHz one seems pretty cheap now. Less than a third of the price
of the 1.2 GHz ones, so there is a lot more MHz/$ !!

He gets better
> money pulling the processors and selling them than selling entire
> computers.

You don't surprise me there. Also a lot cheaper to store.

After a few beers one night I did some calculation of the resale value
of used X1195A CPUs over time. My model has broken down now, but was
good for well over two years. I've seen the price of them fall from
$1600 per CPU to $25 per CPU in a few years.

> I got the 700's for cheap because those processors aren't in
> demand. In fact, my box used to have 900's, he sold them quickly. When
> I came by & we made the deal, he pulled the 700's from a pile of
> rackmount systems bound for scrap.
>
> But I'm very happy with the dual 700. The drives are a bit noisy, or
> perhaps the acoustic shelding isn't as good as the U60. But the fans
> are maybe quieter. I bought a snazzy USB mouse, I imagine most any USB
> keyboard will also work but you'll only get Stop-A & friends if you get
> a Sun kbd. Probably will put Solaris 10 on at some point, but I had a
> legal Sol9 so used that instead.
>
> Gregm


--
Dave (from the UK)

Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: month-year@althorne.org
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.

http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/ - a Free open-source Chess Database

Greg Menke <gdmnews@toadmail.com> writes:

>But I'm very happy with the dual 700. The drives are a bit noisy, or
>perhaps the acoustic shelding isn't as good as the U60. But the fans
>are maybe quieter. I bought a snazzy USB mouse, I imagine most any USB
>keyboard will also work but you'll only get Stop-A & friends if you get
>a Sun kbd. Probably will put Solaris 10 on at some point, but I had a
>legal Sol9 so used that instead.

Of course, a legal copy of S10 is free so it's very easy to upgrade to it.

(Or Solaris Nevada, especially the developer release which comes with
all the compilers & tools)

Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.

Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@Sun.COM> writes:

> Greg Menke <gdmnews@toadmail.com> writes:
>
> >But I'm very happy with the dual 700. The drives are a bit noisy, or
> >perhaps the acoustic shelding isn't as good as the U60. But the fans
> >are maybe quieter. I bought a snazzy USB mouse, I imagine most any USB
> >keyboard will also work but you'll only get Stop-A & friends if you get
> >a Sun kbd. Probably will put Solaris 10 on at some point, but I had a
> >legal Sol9 so used that instead.
>
> Of course, a legal copy of S10 is free so it's very easy to upgrade to it.
>
> (Or Solaris Nevada, especially the developer release which comes with
> all the compilers & tools)
>

True. I just don't have a support contract in place for myself at home
and I do want the patches. I don't have the time and inclination to
mess with Solaris beyond buying & installing & using- its a fantastic OS
to install and put to use without incurring drama. I get my fill of
drama with Linux.

Gregm