Go Back > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Hardware

Thread Tools
Old 2019-09-30, 00:29   #1
carpetpool's Avatar
Nov 2016

23·41 Posts
Post PFGW benchmarking

I've been using PFGW 4.0.0 to find new random PRPs (and primes) of large sizes. Of the two machines I use to test numbers, one is an Intel Core i5-3230M CPU (Windows 10) and the other is an AMD FX-4300 CPU (Ubuntu).

Just now I was running one of my 160K digit PRP canditiates when I got times:

(757.9948s+3.4911s) with i5-3230M machine
(1079.1039s+10.0399s) with AMD FX-4300 CPU

What is strange about this is the i5 machine has a clock speed of 2.60 GHz and the AMD machine has a clock speed of 3.80 GHz. Not to mention the i5 only has 2 physical cores compared to the AMD with 4 physical cores.

So my question would be why the running time would be shorter for the Windows 10 machine compared to the Linux Machine? I think it has something to do with the CPU brand performance but I'm not sure.

Secondly, I'm assuming PFGW is NOT multithreaded. Weather it is or not, would there be time difference on two machines with the same operating system, processor type, and clock speed, but one machine has significantly more cores than the other (For example, a 3.5 Ghz @ 4 cores v.s. 3.5 Ghz @ 8 cores)?

Please let me know if you have any information that might be helpful. Thanks.
carpetpool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-09-30, 04:34   #2
kuratkull's Avatar
Mar 2007

149 Posts

PFGW isn't multithreaded and Intel has AVX special instructions. At least that is what seems to decide a large chunk of the performance for me.
kuratkull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-09-30, 06:19   #3
Happy5214's Avatar
Nov 2008
The Alamo City

23×97 Posts

According to Wikipedia, AMD FX-4300 doesn't have AVX2 support, but it does support AVX and FMA3.
Happy5214 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-09-30, 08:02   #4
mackerel's Avatar
Feb 2016

23·5·11 Posts

Per-core/per-clock the Intel CPUs of that era is a LOT faster than AMD CPUs. Having instruction support isn't enough, there has to be adequate hardware implemented to back it up, which is lacking in the AMD CPU. I'm not too familiar with that era, is that the ones where there was one FPU shared between two cores?

At 160k FFT it would probably have poor scaling even if you were to run multi-threaded, compared to running one task per core. I don't recall if PFGW now has support for multithead, but it was talked about in the past. Also give LLR a try (which I know has multi-thread support via -t option). Sometimes one or the other might be faster.

If you start running multiple tasks on a CPU, be aware you might hit bottlenecks in ram bandwidth, and also check thermals especially on mobile devices if that's what the Intel CPU is in.
mackerel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-09-30, 20:06   #5
kuratkull's Avatar
Mar 2007

149 Posts

My mistake. It seems at least the newest(v4) PFGW supports threads with the -T switch.
kuratkull is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Looking for benchmarking help with a Phenom or PhenomII X6 mrolle Software 25 2012-03-14 14:15
GMP 5.0.1 vs GMP 4.1.4 benchmarking unconnected GMP-ECM 5 2011-04-03 16:16
PFGW 3.3.6 or PFGW 3.4.2 Please update now! Joe O Sierpinski/Riesel Base 5 5 2010-09-30 14:07
Benchmarking suite discussion Mystwalker GMP-ECM 7 2006-06-11 10:08
Benchmarking challenge! Xyzzy Software 17 2003-08-26 15:43

All times are UTC. The time now is 13:47.

Thu Dec 9 13:47:10 UTC 2021 up 139 days, 8:16, 0 users, load averages: 1.67, 1.54, 1.45

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.