OK,it's time to flex your nerd muscle - Core 2 Duo

48.89 Athlon 2400 M overclocked to 2.4Ghz.

oh - btw, i'm running a Core 2 Extreme @ 2.95GHz

Got 41.429 in safe mode

A64 3500+ (stock settings)

Originally posted by Toadster:
so many of you think AMD is still in the game...

The core 2 duo is certainly putting the ball in Intel's court. Too bad that many people jumped ship to AMD long ago when it became apparent that like the American auto industry they were selling overpriced underperforming products and had been doing so for years. For the longest time any gamers or power users have looked only to AMD for their procs.

I have no plans to switch back to Intel (in a desktop anyway) in the near future and I know many other "power users" (the people that buy the high margin products when they first come out) that feel the same way. Only time will tell if Intel can come back or not.

36.969 on a Core Duo 1.8

It's no secret Intel continually dominates AMD in the floating point arena. AMD will still walk all over an Intel box when it comes down to I/O performance and memory handling.

Just because it can do REALLY REALLY fast FP math, doesn't mean that will translate to better performance for the apps that I run.

/me shrugs...

--JamesT

Originally posted by Toadster:
oh - btw, i'm running a Core 2 Extreme @ 2.95GHz

Give me one

Originally posted by chemguru:
It's no secret Intel continually dominates AMD in the floating point arena. AMD will still walk all over an Intel box when it comes down to I/O performance and memory handling.

Just because it can do REALLY REALLY fast FP math, doesn't mean that will translate to better performance for the apps that I run.

/me shrugs...

--JamesT

what apps do you run? i can show more benchmarks

Running a P4 3.4 with 2 gig of ram.

"super_pi_mod.exe has encountered a problem and needs to close...."

Re-ran the program & came up with: 51.248s

I'll check my AMD machine tonight when I get home.

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...?

Originally posted by Toadster:

what apps do you run? i can show more benchmarks

Hmm... Evolution, Opera, gaim, xmms, mplayer, postfix, and about 20 aterms.

41.547 Seconds

Specs:
AMD 64 3400+
1Gb Ram

Originally posted by Guitarman19853:
41.547 Seconds

Specs:
AMD 64 3400+
1Gb Ram

Equivalent to my Intel processor at work with 1/2 the ram & still 10 seconds faster than my P4 3.4 Ghz machine.

Frankly, I like both AMD & Intel chips. I'd have no reservations with Intel if they were more price competative. For now, the most computing power for my money is AMD based systems. That's all I run at home - because AMD based systems are far cheaper for comparable performance. Intel are the only systems that our IS department will run at work for compatability reasons, supposedly.

That program keeps crashing on this P4 2.8GHz w/ 512mb ram. The best I can do is a 16k every once in a while.

Originally posted by hotdimmes:
That program keeps crashing on this P4 2.8GHz w/ 512mb ram. The best I can do is a 16k every once in a while.

Sounds like maybe you've got bad RAMmies.

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...?

If it is a prescott P4, they run hot and even with a clock of 3.54Ghz, processors with sigificantly less power will out preform it. You can read about it on wiki.

Originally posted by chemguru:

Originally posted by Toadster:

what apps do you run? i can show more benchmarks

Hmm... Evolution, Opera, gaim, xmms, mplayer, postfix, and about 20 aterms.

hmm - pick a slide

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795

40.781s
P4 Prescott 2.8Ghz @ 3.6Ghz
1.0GB DDR PC3200 Ram

44.5s
P4 Prescott 2.8Ghz @ 3.36Ghz
1.0GB DDR PC3200 Ram

51.4s
2.8Ghz @ 2.8ghz
(same computer, differnt OC settings)

PS, ran slower in safemode!

Originally posted by NO 4 EVR:
If it is a prescott P4,...

I don't even know, but it likely is. Our IS dpt sucks butt. They buy Gateway or Dell Intel machines only. HP printers & scanners only. MS software only. They also seem to take any/all suggestions from salesmen as far as what the Town "really needs".

It's disgusting from my point of view, but if I was a salesman, I'd have a field day with these drones.

Originally posted by Pete D:

Originally posted by Toadster:
so many of you think AMD is still in the game...

The core 2 duo is certainly putting the ball in Intel's court. Too bad that many people jumped ship to AMD long ago when it became apparent that like the American auto industry they were selling overpriced underperforming products and had been doing so for years. For the longest time any gamers or power users have looked only to AMD for their procs.

I have no plans to switch back to Intel (in a desktop anyway) in the near future and I know many other "power users" (the people that buy the high margin products when they first come out) that feel the same way. Only time will tell if Intel can come back or not.

Or in my case, by the time I buy again, the performance holy grail will be back in the hands of AMD.

AMD has proven that they are a worthy competitor to Intel and frankly, AMD is the only thing keeping Intel honest.

Originally posted by Beowulf:
Or in my case, by the time I buy again, the performance holy grail will be back in the hands of AMD.

AMD has proven that they are a worthy competitor to Intel and frankly, AMD is the only thing keeping Intel honest.

Who builds the fastest processor of the moment has little to do with my buying choices as the shopping price range is typically near the bottom of the scale. I don't ever recally purchasing a machine or MB/CPU combo with the latest & greatest from either manufacturer. When it comes to older processors, AMD generally wholesales their stock at a much lower price point than Intel for comparable performance.

I love AMD for keeping in the game, for no other reason than they are helping to drive progress & innovation in the technology. Also gives poor bastids like myself opportunities to pick up a powerful machine for a relatively low dollar investment. I just wish somebody would give MS a realistic run for their money. So far Linux has been a dissappointment.

1 minute 31.

Is this the 32M you're calculating?

I really expected more from my comp.

36m 56.157s

P4 641 Prescot @ 3.2 ghz w/ 1 gig DDR2 mem.

SuperPI says only 268 meg mem is allocated though. Might try running it again later on a fresh reboot. I had multiple windows open and was still browsing and working while it ran.

Originally posted by IRingTwyce:
Is this the 32M you're calculating?

I really expected more from my comp.

36m 56.157s

P4 641 Prescot @ 3.2 ghz w/ 1 gig DDR2 mem.

SuperPI says only 268 meg mem is allocated though. Might try running it again later on a fresh reboot. I had multiple windows open and was still browsing and working while it ran.

32M? nope - just run the 1M test, that's usually quick (well, most folks here are around a minute) - 17 seconds is pretty darned fast

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!

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

Originally posted by Toadster:

Originally posted by IRingTwyce:
Is this the 32M you're calculating?

I really expected more from my comp.

36m 56.157s

P4 641 Prescot @ 3.2 ghz w/ 1 gig DDR2 mem.

SuperPI says only 268 meg mem is allocated though. Might try running it again later on a fresh reboot. I had multiple windows open and was still browsing and working while it ran.

32M? nope - just run the 1M test, that's usually quick (well, most folks here are around a minute) - 17 seconds is pretty darned fast

I missed where you said that in the original post. In that case, I get 42.250s.

I feel MUCH better now! I still think I can do better on a fresh boot.

**EDIT** Fresh reboot and killing off some background programs netted a tiny speed boost. Got me down to 41.781s Nothing close to your crazy 17 second run, but better than every AMD that's run it so far. Guitarman's AMD 64 3400 has been the closest.

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!

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.

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.

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

Originally posted by TBoomer:
36.969 on a Core Duo 1.8

I wounder why mine's 3 seconds faster with the same chip.

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.

48.906

P4 3.0GHz
1.0 GB Ram

btw - i ran mine without turning off any services

Originally posted by Toadster:
btw - i ran mine without turning off any services

19.109s w/ Kentsfield @ 2.66GHZ

Originally posted by SleeperZ:
19.109s w/ Kentsfield @ 2.66GHZ

ooooh ahhhh

Originally posted by SleeperZ:
19.109s w/ Kentsfield @ 2.66GHZ

How did you manage to get a hold of one of those???

Originally posted by NO 4 EVR:

Originally posted by SleeperZ:
19.109s w/ Kentsfield @ 2.66GHZ

How did you manage to get a hold of one of those???

Work at Intel.

Figured. You lucky dog...