|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,882
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,882 |
BrApple-its all in the way it is presented...but everythign on my resume is all me
TexasRealtor-I hope you spelling improves on your resume.
MxRacer-ladies and gentlemen, welcome to ironyville. population, texasrelator.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,889
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,889 |
Originally posted by TourDeForce: Originally posted by RT and his SE: 48.89 Athlon 2400 M overclocked to 2.4Ghz.
Faster than my P4 3.4 machine. Go figure...?
All of your P4's are belonging to us!
99 Contour Sport SE MTX
KKM filter, B&M shifter
No res, BAT kit
Green car silver hood (because silver is faster)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,882
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,882 |
Originally posted by RT and his SE: Originally posted by TourDeForce: Originally posted by RT and his SE: 48.89 Athlon 2400 M overclocked to 2.4Ghz.
Faster than my P4 3.4 machine. Go figure...?
All of your P4's are belonging to us!
Not mine!
TourDeForce - did you have a lot of applications and processes running when you tried? I still had 32 processes running, but no applications, and hit 41.781s. Mine is a P4 3.2, I'd think you could do better than a 49s+ time.
BrApple-its all in the way it is presented...but everythign on my resume is all me
TexasRealtor-I hope you spelling improves on your resume.
MxRacer-ladies and gentlemen, welcome to ironyville. population, texasrelator.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,816
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,816 |
Originally posted by Toadster: Originally posted by Big Daddy Kane: First of all, it is not fair to compare my two systems. The AMD was a mid-speed computer in 2000/2001, however, you can compare them to similar systems.
First up, my laptop with the following important specs: 1.6GHz Pentium M w/2MB L2 cache overclocked to 2.13GHz via pinmod 2,048MB (2GB) of PC4200 DDR2 RAM 533MHz FSB

Now my desktop: 1.4GHz Athlon Thunderbird (last of the non PR rated CPUs) 1,024MB (1GB) of PC3200 DDR RAM 266MHz FSB

You can compare the results of each to the following setups:
Laptop: Supposedly a ~2.0GHz Pentium M is faster than a 3.2GHz Pentium 4 with HT disabled. So you could compare this to an Athlon that is PR rated at "3200" I suppose.
Desktop: The first PR rated Athlons was the Athlon XP "1800" 1.5GHz. So I suppose you could compare my 1.4GHz T-bird to a 1.7GHz Pentium 4.
Oh, and I forgot to mention, supposedly Pentium Ms are horrible with floating point calculations, so I had better see some Athlon "3200"s beating my laptop!
no need to run the 32M test (unless you want to wait for it) - just try the 1M test, that's usually the standard size
you can also try PiFAST - it's much MUCH faster - i can calculate 1,000,000 iterations in 1.43seconds
Ach so!
With that information, I ran another test on each machine at 1M and changed the pictures.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 777
Veteran CEG\'er
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 777 |
The linux version... Code:
vector:/usr/local/src/superPi %./pi 20 Version 2.0 of the super_pi for Linux OS Fortran source program was translated into C program with version 19981204 of f2c, then generated C source program was optimized manually. pgcc 3.2-3 with compile option of "-fast -tp px -Mbuiltin -Minline=size:1000 -Mnoframe -Mnobounds -Mcache_align -Mdalign -Mnoreentrant" was used for the compilation. ------ Started super_pi run : Thu Aug 31 20:27:33 EDT 2006 Start of PI calculation up to 1048576 decimal digits End of initialization. Time= 0.750 Sec. I= 1 L= 0 Time= 2.260 Sec. I= 2 L= 0 Time= 2.630 Sec. I= 3 L= 1 Time= 2.650 Sec. I= 4 L= 2 Time= 2.600 Sec. I= 5 L= 5 Time= 2.600 Sec. I= 6 L= 10 Time= 2.590 Sec. I= 7 L= 21 Time= 2.610 Sec. I= 8 L= 43 Time= 2.610 Sec. I= 9 L= 87 Time= 2.620 Sec. I=10 L= 174 Time= 2.620 Sec. I=11 L= 349 Time= 2.600 Sec. I=12 L= 698 Time= 2.620 Sec. I=13 L= 1396 Time= 2.610 Sec. I=14 L= 2794 Time= 2.580 Sec. I=15 L= 5588 Time= 2.610 Sec. I=16 L= 11176 Time= 2.560 Sec. I=17 L= 22353 Time= 2.560 Sec. I=18 L= 44707 Time= 2.490 Sec. I=19 L= 89415 Time= 2.340 Sec. End of main loop End of calculation. Time= 51.640 Sec. End of data output. Time= 0.180 Sec. Total calculation(I/O) time= 51.820( 6.830) Sec
CPU: Code:
vector:/usr/local/src/superPi %cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : AuthenticAMD cpu family : 6 model : 10 model name : AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2800+ stepping : 0 cpu MHz : 2079.543 cache size : 512 KB fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug : no coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 1 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 mmx fxsr sse syscall mmxext 3dnowext 3dnow up ts bogomips : 4162.75
>--------------<
--Chemguru
99 CSVT
Frost /Mid. Blue
00 Suzuki SV650
Red, Naked
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,193
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,193 |
Originally posted by TBoomer: 36.969 on a Core Duo 1.8
I wounder why mine's 3 seconds faster with the same chip.
Brad "Diva": 2004 Mazda 6s 5-door, Volcanic Red
Rex: 1988 Mazda RX-7 Vert, Harbor Blue.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117 |
Originally posted by IRingTwyce: Originally posted by RT and his SE: Originally posted by TourDeForce: Originally posted by RT and his SE: 48.89 Athlon 2400 M overclocked to 2.4Ghz.
Faster than my P4 3.4 machine. Go figure...?
All of your P4's are belonging to us!
Not mine!
TourDeForce - did you have a lot of applications and processes running when you tried? I still had 32 processes running, but no applications, and hit 41.781s. Mine is a P4 3.2, I'd think you could do better than a 49s+ time.
Ya, I had the browser running and Outlook up as well. Same for my AMD machine at home which is also running fire wall, anti virus, game control software & a few others - I just ran:
AMD Athlon 64 3000+ with 2Meg of RAM
46.371s
I expected my AMD machine to be faster. It is always faster than my work computer when running the same software & manipulating the same drawing & GIS files.
The power of 64, I guess.
Must be that jumbly-wumbly thing happening again.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,882
Highly Medicated Member
|
Highly Medicated Member
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,882 |
48.906
P4 3.0GHz 1.0 GB Ram
Semper Fi
"They've got us surrounded. Poor bastards." -Chesty
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,228
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
OP
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,228 |
btw - i ran mine without turning off any services
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,882
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,882 |
Originally posted by Toadster: btw - i ran mine without turning off any services
BrApple-its all in the way it is presented...but everythign on my resume is all me
TexasRealtor-I hope you spelling improves on your resume.
MxRacer-ladies and gentlemen, welcome to ironyville. population, texasrelator.
|
|
|
|
|