[RC5] Performance on P-IV

Enojon enojon at ATTGLOBAL.NET
Sat May 12 16:32:03 EDT 2001

Yes, but even the 64-bit cpu has poor performance -- as of 2 years ago.  HP/Intel had to go
back into the engineering shed.   Plus, I read that the merced(es) was not backward compatible.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ferry van Steen 
  To: rc5 at lists.distributed.net 
  Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 4:08 AM
  Subject: Re: [RC5] Performance on P-IV

  Well I just started this discussion to figure out the specifics. From the results I've seen so far the only advice I can give is that it ain't smart to buy a P-IV at this moment and that you can better wait until a year from now or something when programs will be optimized. By then it will probably be worth it for sure. Only thing is that intel's 64bit CPU should be out then.... Think that's why they are pushing the P-IV into the market like they are..

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Jonathan Smith 
    To: 'rc5 at lists.distributed.net' 
    Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 6:45 PM
    Subject: RE: [RC5] Performance on P-IV

    If the distributed.net client doesn't recognize the P4 yet, it certainly mean that their isn't a P4 optimized core available.  The PII core and the Athlon core have been reoptimized 5 or 6 times over 2 or 3 years to get the current performance.  It is unsurprising that the P4, which uses a radically different internal architecture and certainly has different bottlenecks that either the PII or the Athlon does poorly when running a core designed to squeeze the last little bit of performance out very different chip.  
    The cores are tuned to take advantage of things like how long it take specific processors to fetch data, taking into account cache delays, which instructions run faster, and other very specific items.  This is why 3 processors which run the same instruction set and are very similar, the PII/III, the Pentium Pro, and the Athlon all have different cores.  The internals are different enough to warrant specific optimization even though almost no other software bothers due to the hassle and extra code not being normally worth the performance difference.
    I'm not saying you should rush out and buy a P4, but it is silly to say it sucks before anyone has even tried to optimize the software for it.
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Ferry van Steen [mailto:td at salesint.com]
      Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 5:31 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....

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.distributed.net/pipermail/rc5/attachments/20010512/bc96313d/attachment-0001.htm

More information about the rc5 mailing list