In final prep of finalising my new super duper folding only machine. After looking at task manager on this machine I see folding is using just ovr 100mb of RAM.So, if I'm using a machine for folding only, is any more than 256mb needed? Think I'll just get a single 512mb chip, but had to ask if 256mb would be "enough"

As an aside one final thing undecided is which processor to get. Looking IRO

256 would be fine.. 512 would be better.

or see if you can strech to the cheapest intel dual core cpu... twice the folding power!

And which core might this be? being a numpty I'm not sure. As I have a spare 30gbb HDD I whipped out my Athlon 750, and a CD/RW I shall use as my CD-ROM, I can afford to lay a little aside for other bits. What sort of motherboard is needed for a dual CPU?

The core that's used is determined by available RAM to some extent, a bunch of command line flags and whatever the assignment server(s) send you.

If you have a LOT of memory you can get the bigger WUs that are worth tons of points if completed. 256MB is about the lowest reasonable minimum, you definitely want to avoid swapping to disc as it kills performance. Many of my rigs have 256MB on XP Pro and they're fine, 512 is nicer though

Wouldn't mind someone linking to Ebuyer's best value motherboard and Athlon dual CPU as well. I can't honestly tell one from another.

This seems to be the cheapest dual core processor. Still £350 though for CPU alone. :eek:

http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?rb=14396809611&action=c2hvd19wcm9kdWN0X292ZXJ2aWV3&product_uid=91327

This seems to be the cheapest dual core processor. Still

Note that 2 single core cpu's can be faster than a single dual core. Also combined costs can be less.

Look here for some data.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/07/single/index.html

Q is is the Ghz speed the only thing really relevant to folding? For example, for £52 I could get a 2.66ghz intel celeron processor - A AMD dual 64 thing says it was £350 for 2 x 2.2ghz... So me getting two towers with 2 celeron 2.66s is quicker? :confused:

Is cache and all the other bits really important when it will only be doing ONE thing? :confused: (still)

Edited to emphasise this machine/s will NOT be multi tasking in the slightest. It'll be a core setup, XP pro shoved on, and folding downloaded and ran. thats it. (maybe AVG put on to keep it sweet)

Is cache and all the other bits really important when it will only be doing ONE thing? :confused: (still)

When that one thing is folding' date=' the answer is, umm,

yes

Q is is the Ghz speed the only thing really relevant to folding? For example, for

Edited to emphasise this machine/s will NOT be multi tasking in the slightest. It'll be a core setup, XP pro shoved on, and folding downloaded and ran. thats it. (maybe AVG put on to keep it sweet)

Why not use this task as in introduction to Linux? It'll save you cost of the license for Windows at the very least.

For a "first timer" I'd recommend Ubuntu which is very easy to install and I've fun the folding client on it before.

cost of the license for Windows.

:confused:

Know what you mean though. So, in reality a celeron 2.66 might be dramatically worse than a P4 3.2 due to the lacking cache and stuff then? I.e a 3.2 will not be merely 20% ish quicker? - It'll be much more quicker?

:confused:

Know what you mean though. So' date=' in reality a celeron 2.66 might be dramatically worse than a P4 3.2 due to the lacking cache and stuff then? I.e a 3.2 will not be merely 20% ish quicker? - It'll be much more quicker?[/quote']

correct. The celerons and semprons are budget processors and therefore arent much cop for things like this.

Linux would be a good call for this to be honest too. should be pretty simple to get it up and running and once it is you wont have to look at it again.

Oh dear. :( Looks like I'm back to aiming at one big folding machine then. :(

Oh, and is a cooler machine a quicker machine? i.e if I stick in 3 or 4 80mm fans to get some airflow, it will work a bit better / more reliably?

Cooler microprocessors work more reliably and for longer.

They won't work faster (excluding ECC errors prevented etc etc) unless you take advantage of this new safety window to run your processor's clock at a higher speed than it is rated at. Having said that, I think FAH is particularly sensitive to processor errors, so I wouldn't recommend overclocking.

So the best £150 all in processor from here might be?

http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?rb=14416415351&action=UFNQcm9kdWN0U2VhcmNoUmVzdWx0cw==&cat_uid=22&order=DESC&order_col=sell_price&show=stock&offset=50

So the best