Dear Simon, Steven and Dan,
 
Thank you very much for your replies. I will look for an 'old' 8-core so I'll have some memory left for a memory expansion (it's for work and there is only $4000 CAD in the budget at the moment), or if I can't find an old one I'll get a new 8-core with as much memory as I can afford right now and expand later. 
 
Cheers,
Marije

________________________________

Van: Simon Urbanek [mailto:simon.urbanek@r-project.org]
Verzonden: di 24-3-2009 21:01
Aan: Booman, M
CC: R-SIG-Mac
Onderwerp: Re: [R-SIG-Mac] Is R more heavy on memory or processor?




On Mar 24, 2009, at 14:55 , Booman, M wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I am going to purchase a Power Mac (a new one, with Nehalem 
> processor) for my R-based microarray analyses. I use mainly 
> Bioconductor packages, and a typical dataset would consist of 50 
> microarrays with 40,000 datapoints each. To make the right choice of 
> processor and memory, I have a few questions:
>

I don't use BioC [you may want to ask on the BioC list instead (or 
hopefully some BioC users will chip in)], so my recommendations may be 
based on slightly different problems.


> - would the current version of R benefit from the 8 cores in the new 
> Intel Xeon Nehalem 8-core Mac Pro? So would an 8-core 2.26GHz 
> machine be better than a 4-core 2.93GHz?

Unfortunately I cannot comment on Nehalems, but in general with Xeons 
you do feel quite a difference in the clock speed, so I wouldn't trade 
2.93GHz for 2.26GHz regardless of the CPU generation. It is true that 
pre-Nehalem Mac Pros cannot feed 8 cores, so you want go for the new 
Mac Pros, but I wouldn't even think about the 2.26GHz option. Some 
benchmarks suggest that the 2.26 Nehalem can still compete favorably 
if a lot of memory/io is involved, but it was not very convincing and 
I cannot tell first hand.


> Or can R only use one core (in which case the 4-core 2.93GHZ machine 
> would be better)?
>

R can use multiple cores in many ways - through BLAS (default in R for 
Mac OS X), vector op parallelization (Luke's pnmath) or explicit 
parallelization such as forking (multicore) or parallel processes 
(snow). The amount of parallelization achievable depends heavily on 
your applications. I use routinely all cores, but then I'm usually 
modeling my problems that way.


> - If R does not benefot from multiple cores yet, is there anything 
> known about whether Snow Leopard might make a difference in this?
>

I cannot comment on ongoing work details due to DNA associated with 
Snow Leopard, but technically from the Apple announcements you can 
deduce that the only possible improvements directly related to R can 
be achieved in the implicit parallelization which is essentially the 
pnmath path. There is not much more you can do in R save for a re-
write of the methods you want to deal with.

In fact, the hope is rather that the packages for R start using 
parallelization more effectively, but that's not something Snow 
Leopard alone can change.


> - To determine if my first priority should be processor speed or 
> RAM, on which does R rely more heavily?
>

In my line of work (which is not bioinf, though) RAM turned to be more 
important, because the drop off when you run out of memory is sudden 
and devastatingly huge. With CPUs you'll have to wait a bit longer, 
but the difference is directly proportional to the CPU speed you get, 
so it is never as bad as running out of wired RAM. (BTW: in general 
you don't want to buy RAM from Apple - as much as I like Apple, there 
are compatible RAM sets at a fraction of the cost of what Apple 
charges, especially for Mac Pros - but there is always the 1st 
generation issue *).


> - The new chipset has 3 memory channels (forgive me if I word this 
> wrong, as you may have noticed I am no computer tech) so it can read 
> 6Gb RAM faster than it can read 8Gb of RAM; so for a program that 
> relies more on RAM speed than RAM quantity it is recommended to use 
> 6Gb instead of 8 for better performance (or any multiple of 3). 
> Which is more important for R, RAM speed or RAM quantity?
>

6GB is very little RAM, so I don't think that's an option ;) - but 
yes, you should care about the size first. The channels and timings 
only define how you populate the slots. Note that the 4-core Nehalem 
has only 4 slots, so it's not very expandable - I'd definitely get a 8-
core old one with 16GB RAM or more rather than something that can take 
only 8GB ...


> (I am not sure if it helps to know, but previously I used a Powermac 
> G5 quadcore (sadly I forgot which processor speed but it was the 
> standard G5 quadcore) with 4 Gb RAM for datasets of 30-40 
> microarrays of 18,000 datapoints each, and analysis was OK except 
> for some memory errors in a script that used permutation analysis; 
> but it wasn't very fast.)
>

I would keep an eye on the RAM expansibility - even if you buy less 
RAM now, a ceiling of 8GB is very low. It may turn out that larger 
DIMMs will become available, but 16GB for the future is not enough, 
either. As with all 1st generation products the prices will go down a 
lot over time, so you may plan to upgrade later. Another piece worth 
considering is that you can always update RAM easily, but CPU upgrade 
is much more difficult.

Cheers,
Simon






De inhoud van dit bericht is vertrouwelijk en alleen bestemd voor de geadresseerde(n). Anderen dan de geadresseerde(n) mogen geen gebruik maken van dit bericht, het niet openbaar maken of op enige wijze verspreiden of vermenigvuldigen. Het UMCG kan niet aansprakelijk gesteld worden voor een incomplete aankomst of vertraging van dit verzonden bericht.

The contents of this message are confidential and only intended for the eyes of the addressee(s). Others than the addressee(s) are not allowed to use this message, to make it public or to distribute or multiply this message in any way. The UMCG cannot be held responsible for incomplete reception or delay of this transferred message.

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

