50-core Intel Xeon Phi of no use to us?

[crazyates]

To give a comparison to show the validity of the math, I have an Intel Core i7 3930K @ 4.4GHz.  That's:

Code:

6 (cores) * 4,400 (Million operations/s) / 3375 (ops/hash) = 7.82 MHash/s

Compare this to the 8.7 that I actually see. 

What miner are you using? With the Ufasoft miner I remember seeing something like of 25 mhash/s on a 6-core Xeon clocked less than your i7.

Maybe thats on one core? https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison#Intel

Shows the 3930k as getting 66MH/s at 4.6GHz at 180Watts.

[1715221984]

1715221984

[1715221984]

1715221984

[AzN1337c0d3r]

To give a comparison to show the validity of the math, I have an Intel Core i7 3930K @ 4.4GHz.  That's:

Code:

6 (cores) * 4,400 (Million operations/s) / 3375 (ops/hash) = 7.82 MHash/s

Compare this to the 8.7 that I actually see. 

What miner are you using? With the Ufasoft miner I remember seeing something like of 25 mhash/s on a 6-core Xeon clocked less than your i7.

Maybe thats on one core? https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison#Intel

Shows the 3930k as getting 66MH/s at 4.6GHz at 180Watts.

The problem with the equation that Koooooj posted is that:

1) Those ops are for an OpenCL kernel written for a GPU (most likely HD5xxx VLIW), not the x86-derived RISC operations in the 3930K.
2) Modern day processors are superscalar, retiring much more than 1 instruction per clock cycle.

[Koooooj]

To give a comparison to show the validity of the math, I have an Intel Core i7 3930K @ 4.4GHz.  That's:

Code:

6 (cores) * 4,400 (Million operations/s) / 3375 (ops/hash) = 7.82 MHash/s

Compare this to the 8.7 that I actually see. 

What miner are you using? With the Ufasoft miner I remember seeing something like of 25 mhash/s on a 6-core Xeon clocked less than your i7.

That was on an OpenCL miner.  I figured it would be closer to the max potential than that.  Right now I use my cpu for litecoin anyway, but at those numbers I may switch; probably not worth it even at 66 MH/s, though.

Also, sorry for the bad math.  I've edited the original post where I put it.  Thanks for the insight.