[RC5] Client 2.8010 faster than later ones, x86 core #6 change ?

Christopher Hodson chrishodson at mail.com
Fri Jun 7 23:43:22 EDT 2002


Bruce Wilson explained to the list on 4/25 why using older client the
benchmark marginally (.2%)higher is a bad idea.  I can't get to the list
archive right now, so I'll give my own answer:
If you use older clients you risk those blocks not being counted.  Newer
clients are released for a reason, often it is to add features (which you
may argue you do not need), but sometimes it is for stability or validity
reasons.

Do yourself a favor and keep up to date.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryu" <odjmico2 at wanadoo.fr>
To: <rc5 at lists.distributed.net>
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 8:30 PM
Subject: RE: [RC5] Client 2.8010 faster than later ones, x86 core #6 change
?


> i personally use a dnetc v2.8011-464-GTR-00102500 for Win32 client under
all
> my windows systems, except for P4 processors for which the latest pre
> released client is the better. I found 8011 to be faster than 8015 and
> newers
> here on a Duron 700 at 950 under Win NT5.0.2195 it does [3,391,062.31
keys/sec]
> i also remember old client V2.7016 that was the best ! but it can't manage
> blocks greater than 2^31 :(
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : owner-rc5 at lists.distributed.net
> [mailto:owner-rc5 at lists.distributed.net]De la part de Frédéric Kayser
> Envoyé : vendredi 7 juin 2002 23:06
> À : rc5 at lists.distributed.net
> Objet : [RC5] Client 2.8010 faster than later ones, x86 core #6 change ?
>
>
> I've found that on my system (AMD Duron 963, FreeBSD 4.2), client version
> 2.8010 outperforms newer clients (8015 and 8018).
> 2.8010 has perhaps a slightly different #6 core called "RG/HB ath" whereas
> it's called "RG/HB re-pair II" later.
> Benchmarks show that "RG/HB re-pair II" is a very little faster than
"RG/HB
> ath".
> In realworld terms it's somewhat different, after a few hours average
speed
> is 3,394,400 k/s (2.8010) compared to 3,387,100 and 3,386,600.
> I've used the same .ini file, and it's repeatable.
>
> Perhaps the new clients have introduced an overhead that globally slows
the
> cruncher, or the new core #6 is not really faster.
>
>
> Have you noticed slowdowns between 2.8010 and later clients ?
>
>
>
> Benchmarked speeds in keys/sec (best out of 3 runs):
>                     #6          #3          #2          #4          #1
> 2.8010-463   3,432,997   2,980,191   2,963,697   2,821,431   2,735,029
> 2.8015-469   3,434,040   2,977,933   2,961,175   2,822,590   2,733,956
> 2.8018-472   3,433,885   2,979,382   2,978,925   2,839,458   2,740,711
>
> Realworld speeds in keys/sec (average after a few hours):
>                     #6
> 2.8010-463   3,394,400
> 2.8015-469   3,386,600
> 2.8018-472   3,387,100
>
> Cores:
> #0 (RG/BRF class 5)
> #1 (RG class 3/4)
> #2 (RG class 6)
> #3 (RG re-pair I) or (RG Cx re-pair)
> #4 (RG RISC-rotate I)
> #5 (RG RISC-rotate II)
> #6 (RG/HB re-pair II) or (RG/HB ath)
> #7 (RG/BRF self-mod)
> #8 (AK class 7) or (NB class 7)
> #9 (jasonp P5/MMX) is #0 on v2.8010
>
> --
> Frédéric Kayser
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
> rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
> rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest
>

--
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