Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster

Re:Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster by kadoban on Thursday August 07, 2025 @03:59PM (#44829610)

Threadripper very rarely seems to make any sense. The only times it seems like you want it are for huge memory support/bandwidth and/or a huge number of pcie slots. But it's not cheap or supported enough compared to epyc to really make sense to me any time I've been specing out a system along those lines.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster by StrangeDoctor on Thursday August 07, 2025 @04:40PM (#44830050)

I bought a threadripper pro system out of desperation, trying to get secondhand PCIe 80G A100s to run locally. The huge rebar allocations confused/crashed every Intel/AMD system I had access to.

I think the Xeon systems should have worked and that it was actually a motherboard bios issue, but I had seen a photo of it running in a threadripper and prayed I wasn’t digging an even deeper hole.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster by kadoban on Thursday August 07, 2025 @09:42PM (#44832512)

Yeah, that makes sense if you just have ~proof that some configuration works and want to just be done with it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster by jeffbee on Thursday August 07, 2025 @09:55PM (#44832594)

This is why a business like Puget Systems, or a line like HP Z Workstations, persist. You know in advance that your rig will work.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster by sliken on Saturday August 09, 2025 @01:22AM (#44844205)

I've been tempted, but had a hard time finding a case where I needed more than the 9950x but less than a single socket epyc. Especially since the epyc motherboards are cheaper, CPUs are cheaper, and the Epycs have 3x the memory bandwidth of the thread ripper and 1.5x the memory bandwidth of the Threadripper pro.

[ Parent | on HN ]