mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Hardware

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2007-07-18, 17:45   #1
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
 
petrw1's Avatar
 
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

32·7·71 Posts
Default My throughput does not compute...

I currently have 2 Pentium 4 PC's factoring in the 43M range.

An IBM 2.8Ghz with 512 Mb RAM takes 605 seconds to do 1% of 68 bits when Task Manager shows Prime95 using 99%.
An AVRO 2.4Ghz with 512 Mb RAM takes 570 seconds to do 1% of 68 bits when Task Manager shows Prime95 using 99%.

Purely based on processor speed and RAM I would have expected the relative speeds to be reversed.

I suppose the obvious answer is that there is a lot more to raw number crunching than Mhz and RAM?
petrw1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-07-18, 17:51   #2
Mini-Geek
Account Deleted
 
Mini-Geek's Avatar
 
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA

102538 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by petrw1 View Post
I suppose the obvious answer is that there is a lot more to raw number crunching than Mhz and RAM?
Yes. I don't really know what it is, but there's more to it.
Mini-Geek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-07-18, 20:29   #3
jasong
 
jasong's Avatar
 
"Jason Goatcher"
Mar 2005

1101101100012 Posts
Default

Silly question time: Clock for clock, which does more? An Athlon processor or a Core 2 Duo?
jasong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-07-18, 20:50   #4
rgiltrap
 
rgiltrap's Avatar
 
Apr 2006
Down Under

8910 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasong View Post
Silly question time: which does more?
You're right it is a silly question as the answer is "it depends".

However for 'most' performance tests a Core 2 duo will outperform an Athlon X2 at the same clock speed. As is the way in technology once Phenom comes out the tables may well be turned again.

Check out Tom's for a detailed comparison.
rgiltrap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-07-18, 20:56   #5
rx7350
 
rx7350's Avatar
 
Feb 2006
AR, US

24·32 Posts
Default

I would say the Core 2 Duo, and I can see this by comparing my X2 4400+ with an E6400. Iteration times for the E6400 are over 50% less than 4400+ (with similar clock speeds).

Also, the Core 2 Duo executes 4 instructions per clock cycle as opposed to the Pentium cpus based on the NetBurst architecture which execute 2 instructions per clock cycle.
rx7350 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-07-18, 21:50   #6
sdbardwick
 
sdbardwick's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
North San Diego County

23×5×17 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by petrw1 View Post
I currently have 2 Pentium 4 PC's factoring in the 43M range.

An IBM 2.8Ghz with 512 Mb RAM takes 605 seconds to do 1% of 68 bits when Task Manager shows Prime95 using 99%.
An AVRO 2.4Ghz with 512 Mb RAM takes 570 seconds to do 1% of 68 bits when Task Manager shows Prime95 using 99%.

Purely based on processor speed and RAM I would have expected the relative speeds to be reversed.

I suppose the obvious answer is that there is a lot more to raw number crunching than Mhz and RAM?
Are both processors the same variety? That looks about right for a Celeron vs P4 Northwood, but a bit too much of a delta for Northwood vs Prescott.

Might try running both instances in safe mode to see if there are odd processes stealing cycles.

Last fiddled with by sdbardwick on 2007-07-18 at 21:53
sdbardwick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-07-19, 03:49   #7
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
 
petrw1's Avatar
 
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

105718 Posts
Default

They are both Intel (not Athlon). I don't know how to tell if they are Northwood or Prescott.

A couple other things:

1. The 2.4Mhz is running XP Home the 2.8Mhz is running XP Professional

2. When I bring up task manager the 2.4 never shows more than 49% going to Prime95 (I asked last year and was told this was normal --- that I still was getting the entire CPU ... but if I run another CPU intensive program I still show 49% Prime95 and up to 49% for the other). The 2.8 does show 99% going to Prime95.
petrw1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-07-19, 12:40   #8
fivemack
(loop (#_fork))
 
fivemack's Avatar
 
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England

23·797 Posts
Default

OK, the 2.4GHz machine is hyperthreaded (it pretends to have two processors, one running in the idle cycles of the other, and prime95 uses all of one of them, efficiently enough that there are few idle cycles), and the 2.8GHz machine isn't.

This means that the 2.4GHz machine is a late-model Northwood on an 800MHz front-side bus (because only those had hyperthreading), and the 2.8GHz machine is a Prescott-based Celeron on a 533MHz bus; so it accesses memory more slowly.
fivemack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-07-19, 16:12   #9
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
 
petrw1's Avatar
 
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

32×7×71 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fivemack View Post
OK, the 2.4GHz machine is hyperthreaded (it pretends to have two processors, one running in the idle cycles of the other, and prime95 uses all of one of them, efficiently enough that there are few idle cycles), and the 2.8GHz machine isn't.

This means that the 2.4GHz machine is a late-model Northwood on an 800MHz front-side bus (because only those had hyperthreading), and the 2.8GHz machine is a Prescott-based Celeron on a 533MHz bus; so it accesses memory more slowly.
Cool!!!

Knowing this, should I be doing anything different or changing any settings?

And now that you know so many of my deepest secrets I'm going to end up losing my CIA Level 7 certification .
petrw1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-08-13, 14:38   #10
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
 
petrw1's Avatar
 
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

32×7×71 Posts
Default Factoring slower ... LL Test faster???

Quote:
Originally Posted by petrw1 View Post
I currently have 2 Pentium 4 PC's factoring in the 43M range.

An IBM 2.8Ghz with 512 Mb RAM takes 605 seconds to do 1% of 68 bits when Task Manager shows Prime95 using 99%.
An AVRO 2.4Ghz with 512 Mb RAM takes 570 seconds to do 1% of 68 bits when Task Manager shows Prime95 using 99%.

Purely based on processor speed and RAM I would have expected the relative speeds to be reversed
So now I changed both of these PC's to do 10 Million digit LL tests and the results are reversed.

The IBM 2.8Ghz is processing an exponent in the 39M range and taking .077 seconds per iteration.
The AVRO 2.4Ghz is processing an exponent in the 35M range and taking .081 seconds per iteration.

This is closer to what I would have expected based purely on Processor speed and RAM

Comments??

Fivemack??
petrw1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Budget PC Throughput Rodrigo Hardware 14 2011-09-26 10:16
PrimeNet throughput over the years Brain PrimeNet 5 2010-12-08 00:53
how is the throughput calculated? ixfd64 PrimeNet 5 2008-05-21 13:39
increasing P-1 throughput with hyperthreading? hhh Software 17 2005-06-09 02:56
Fake throughput drop Lumly Lounge 12 2002-09-05 20:00

All times are UTC. The time now is 20:27.

Fri Dec 4 20:27:28 UTC 2020 up 1 day, 16:38, 0 users, load averages: 1.85, 1.69, 1.61

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.