If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Processor Performance Ratios?
Is there perhaps an online lookup table where you could plug in...
t7100 1.8ghz t9900 3.06ghz or t7100 1.8ghz i7-820QM 1.7ghz ....and see the approximate performance ratio? Thanks. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Processor Performance Ratios?
On Monday, December 2, 2013 9:59:32 AM UTC-6, Davej wrote:
Is there perhaps an online lookup table where you could plug in... t7100 1.8ghz t9900 3.06ghz I found this cpu lookup, which is adequate... http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Processor Performance Ratios?
Davej wrote:
On Monday, December 2, 2013 9:59:32 AM UTC-6, Davej wrote: Is there perhaps an online lookup table where you could plug in... t7100 1.8ghz t9900 3.06ghz I found this cpu lookup, which is adequate... http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php Yes, those are multi-threaded benchmarks. Not all application software, is capable of using all the cores in a processor in parallel. In such cases, the above PassMarks don't tell you everything. We used to rely on SuperPI timing benchmarks, as a measure of single threaded performance. The hwbot.org site has a large number of these results, but the interface to the information makes it very difficult to get what you need. The problem with that site, is 99% of the SuperPI results are for overclocked processors. Hardly any benchmarks exist for "stock" operation. Still, it's the only other site I know of, that can help predict single-threaded performance. Most of the software on my computer is single threaded. Photoshop would be one of the exceptions (where half the filters are single-threaded for numerical accuracy, and the other half are multi-threaded for speed). Movie editing and rendering, is another area that uses multiple cores to good effect. If you're buying a computer for movie editing or transcoding, then the PassMark results above are the benchmarks to use. But for other purposes, SuperPI is my choice (since much of my software is older, and no effort was made to get it to execute in parallel). Recent versions of Excel, do some calculations in parallel, but then other sections are still single threaded. Engaging parallelism, isn't always the easiest thing to do. And some applications with parallel execution, don't scale to an infinite number of cores. Perhaps the 7ZIP compression option you've selected, runs at most two threads, and only uses half of the processing power of a four-core processor. From that perspective, PassMark over-estimates what you're buying. There could be wasted capacity you cannot use. It's just like Cinebench, which is a "perfect scaling application". Cinebench as a benchmark can use a large number of cores, which may not be representative of how the rest of your software works. The reason Cinebench can do that, is the threads of execution don't talk to one another. Real-world applications have more need to synchronize the threads of execution, which slows them down (waiting for the slow thread to finish). Paul |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Processor Performance Ratios?
On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 6:28:53 AM UTC+8, Paul wrote: We used to rely on SuperPI timing benchmarks, as
a measure of single threaded performance. The hwbot.org site has a large number of these results, but the interface to the information makes it very difficult to get what you need. The problem with that site, is 99% of the SuperPI results are for overclocked processors. Hardly any benchmarks exist for "stock" operation. Still, it's the only other site I know of, that can help predict single-threaded performance. Most of the software on my computer is single threaded. Perhaps the 7ZIP compression option you've selected, runs at most two threads, and only uses half of the processing power of a four-core processor. From that perspective, PassMark over-estimates what you're buying. There could be wasted capacity you cannot use. I just downloaded and ran the SuperPI program, which the latest version for single core tests, and occasionally gives an error message like 'Could not Round' or some such (just restart it and it goes away), and for my system of a i5-2400 Sandy Bridge core for 1M Pi digits got: 11.6 seconds and 11.8; my system is not overclocked. What is strange is that an i7 gave the following weak scores online (you would think the i7 is faster than the i5, as it should be): (Screen scrape from a site online): Super PI 1M (Core i7 4000MQ Series @ 3276.2 MHz) 11.047sec 4700qm Super PI 1M (Core i7 4000MQ Series @ 2394.7 MHz) 15.453sec Note the second Core i7 score is worse than my system, while the first score is not much better--why? I have 4 MB memory. It's also interesting that Paul thinks 7-zip only uses at most 2 cores--actually, I would be happy if it used just one core--I need the other cores to run my other programs. I hate the "freezing" that occasionally happens to a multi-core PC when a parallel execution software program takes over the entire PC (like for example a chess program, which is notorious for using parallel processing--nearly all do nowadays). I heard Intel is working on the next generation that will prevent such 'freezes'. Further, it's interesting that most of the time, even when doing compression using WinZip, etc, Windows Task Manager rarely shows any core (and they all seem to work in parallel, even for a single threaded program, which is weird) working more than 5% to 10% or so. This actually annoys me, as I wish one of my four cores was at 80% so the job would finish quicker. But no, they all chug along at less than 10%, with an occasional spike. It think the 'normal priority' default for cores per any single program is probably very low, perhaps less than 10%, and unless you as a programmer somehow override that, at the system level using some call, you cannot really make the cores work at a higher rate than that (I am guessing but so it seems). RL |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Processor Performance Ratios?
RayLopez99 wrote:
On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 6:28:53 AM UTC+8, Paul wrote: We used to rely on SuperPI timing benchmarks, as a measure of single threaded performance. The hwbot.org site has a large number of these results, but the interface to the information makes it very difficult to get what you need. The problem with that site, is 99% of the SuperPI results are for overclocked processors. Hardly any benchmarks exist for "stock" operation. Still, it's the only other site I know of, that can help predict single-threaded performance. Most of the software on my computer is single threaded. Perhaps the 7ZIP compression option you've selected, runs at most two threads, and only uses half of the processing power of a four-core processor. From that perspective, PassMark over-estimates what you're buying. There could be wasted capacity you cannot use. I just downloaded and ran the SuperPI program, which the latest version for single core tests, and occasionally gives an error message like 'Could not Round' or some such (just restart it and it goes away), and for my system of a i5-2400 Sandy Bridge core for 1M Pi digits got: 11.6 seconds and 11.8; my system is not overclocked. What is strange is that an i7 gave the following weak scores online (you would think the i7 is faster than the i5, as it should be): (Screen scrape from a site online): Super PI 1M (Core i7 4000MQ Series @ 3276.2 MHz) 11.047sec 4700qm Super PI 1M (Core i7 4000MQ Series @ 2394.7 MHz) 15.453sec Note the second Core i7 score is worse than my system, while the first score is not much better--why? I have 4 MB memory. It's also interesting that Paul thinks 7-zip only uses at most 2 cores--actually, I would be happy if it used just one core--I need the other cores to run my other programs. I hate the "freezing" that occasionally happens to a multi-core PC when a parallel execution software program takes over the entire PC (like for example a chess program, which is notorious for using parallel processing--nearly all do nowadays). I heard Intel is working on the next generation that will prevent such 'freezes'. Further, it's interesting that most of the time, even when doing compression using WinZip, etc, Windows Task Manager rarely shows any core (and they all seem to work in parallel, even for a single threaded program, which is weird) working more than 5% to 10% or so. This actually annoys me, as I wish one of my four cores was at 80% so the job would finish quicker. But no, they all chug along at less than 10%, with an occasional spike. It think the 'normal priority' default for cores per any single program is probably very low, perhaps less than 10%, and unless you as a programmer somehow override that, at the system level using some call, you cannot really make the cores work at a higher rate than that (I am guessing but so it seems). RL Using Task Manager, right click on the 7ZIP entry, and use the Set Affinity function to limit 7ZIP to run on just one core. That works, for a running program. So you do have some control over that. You don't have to suffer. There are ways to launch a program, with an external launcher, and restrict execution to one core. So you can have a shortcut on your desktop for "7ZIP on one core". The Task Manager trick will get you by for now. ******* SuperPI performance depends on: 1) Clock rate. 2) Memory bandwidth (cranking memory clocks may help etc) 3) Processor cache. The more of the benchmark that fits in cache, the better it works. That's why choosing 1M digits is kinda cheating. That's an 8MB footprint, and may fit completely in a processor cache. For example, there are some quad core processors with 12MB of cache, and the benchmark of 1M should run real good there. Maybe the mobile processor had slower memory than what you've got ? To prevent the cache from making a difference, serious benchmarking likely uses more than 1M digits. IF you're not careful, and select a small number of digits, the benchmark fits completely in cache. 1M takes 8MB of memory. (See the "Allocated Memory" in the program window, when the benchmark is running.) If you select 8M digits, that takes 64MB of memory, which won't fit in the processor cache, and causes the memory subsystem to get pounded. Thus, the benchmark is now sensitive to main memory speed. It's a dumb benchmark, but it's been around for a long time. The interesting part, is the source code was lost, and most of the modern changes were patched into the executable by hand, using assembler code. I don't know the person who did that, but, pretty impressive. The original author was Japanese, and possibly a professor or something. Paul |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Testing processor performance | [email protected] | Overclocking AMD Processors | 5 | September 30th 08 11:38 PM |
Laptop processor performance Q | TVeblen | Homebuilt PC's | 3 | July 24th 08 12:50 AM |
Single-processor performance | Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro | General | 1 | October 26th 07 07:05 PM |
Best processor, mobo for raw computing performance? | [email protected] | General | 3 | December 15th 05 07:14 PM |
processor/performance | Al | Asus Motherboards | 2 | January 14th 04 03:25 PM |