[RC5] Performance on P-IV

Jack Beglinger jackb_guppy at yahoo.com
Thu May 10 12:44:45 EDT 2001

A few weeks ago Slashdot had an article about P4 speed


The main issue was a was a thermal one.  When the P4
ran for long period and temp crossed about 58 watts of
heat to disapate... the cpu would shift to half speed
to cool down.  Now this option was to turned by the
motherboard maker.  

So 1,4G chip ran at about 720 under continuos load.
DNET is a continous load. 

Note: I do not have one... just noting this.


--- Ryan Malayter <rmalayter at bai.org> wrote:
> A P4 is slower, clock-for-clock, that both the
> Pentium III and Athalon.
> However, the P4 was designed with deeper instruction
> pipelines, so that it
> could be run at a higher clock speed than Athalon or
> P3 on the same type of
> silicon.
> This is a design/marketing decision made by Intel,
> as a higher clock speed
> makes for better marketing to lay people who don't
> know jack about
> computers.
> That said, a P4 can be very fast when code is
> optimized for it. And RC5
> cracking is a very specialized use of a processor -
> it is in no way
> indicative of the processor's general performance
> potential. All of the
> cores in the current "official" dnet client are
> specifically hand-assembled
> for the P3 or Athalon architectures. Similarly
> hand-optimized P4 cores might
> make it a faster dnet machine than anything else out
> there.
>     -ryan-
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferry van Steen [mailto:td at salesint.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 4:31 AM
> To: rc5 at lists.distributed.net
> Subject: [RC5] Performance on P-IV
> Hey I've got some sad sad sad statistics. I hope
> there is an explanation for
> this because else I have to advise everybody NOT to
> buy Pentium-IV's because
> this is sad.....
> Ok.. the distributed net does NOT recognize P-IV's
> yet so it does a micro
> bench and selects Core #2 RG Class 6 which is the
> same core running on
> P-II's. Knowing this you would suspect a performance
> increase on a P-IV 1400
> compared to P-II 400 of 1400/400 = 3.5 which would
> mean 350% performance
> increase in MHz so the pure calculative power should
> increase 350% also...
> Ding WRONG.
> My P-II 400 on Core #2 RG Class 6 Win2K with some
> services runs 1,128,585,13
> according to dnetc -benchmark rc5
> The P-IV 1400 (1.4GHz) running -benchmark rc5 Core
> #2 RG  Class 6 only makes
> a LOUSY 1,824,190,86 on a freshly installed WinME
> without any services.
> This is only a lousy 161.64%
> (182419086/112858513*100) increase over a 350%
> increase of MHz's
> To give another example
> (This runs on linux btw, and the tests I've done the
> rc5 clients run faster
> on linux in any case (using the exact same hardware
> RC5 goes faster under
> linux than under win)
> My AMD Athlon 1000 (1 GHz) scores a friggin'
> absolutely awesome 3,538,971.00
> Hahaha a 1GHz Athlon is almost TWICE as fast as a
> stinking P-IV 1400 which
> has 400MHz more under ít's belt. This is scary
> shit... Hehe Guess I
> shouldn't buy intel... Atleast not until everything
> is optimized because
> this is really sad.
> Hope somebody can explain this....

To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest

More information about the rc5 mailing list