just a bit of fun

regarding the post sent by muzician21 on 09/04/2009 about
Suggestions for Core 2 Duo systems that use PCI - not PCI express
why don't people download the 'benchmark designed by Australian PC User
magazine' web address http://darrenyates.com.au/?p=573
then post their results just to see what the difference in performance is
between hardware and os.

Hardware
CPU = AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual core 6400+
Motherboard = ASUS M2N-SLI Deluxe
RAM = Elixer 1 gig x 2
GPU = ASUS EN7600S Silent
PSU = Tagan 600W

OS OpenSuse 10.3
Frequency policy

Current Scheme Acoustic / Current cpu Frequency policy Dynamic

UserBench Encode 2009 sco 2076.26

- audio component scores: 0m1s / 391.07MB/s / 1710.93
- video component scores: 0m1s / 4511.73fps / 2442.35

Component results

MP3 encoding speed: 389.11MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs
AAC encoding speed: 391.25MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs
WMA encoding speed: 391.65MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs
OGG encoding speed: 391.75MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs
AC3 encoding speed: 391.47MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs

MPEG2/AC3 encoding speed: 4509.5fps Encoding time: 0.33secs
H.264/AAC encoding speed: 4511.44fps Encoding time: 0.33secs
MPEG4/MP3 encoding speed: 4508.67fps Encoding time: 0.33secs
WMV8/WMA8 encoding speed: 4514.34fps Encoding time: 0.33secs
MPEG1/MP2 encoding speed: 4513.42fps Encoding time: 0.33secs

Current Scheme Acoustic / Current cpu Frequency policy Performance

UserBench Encode 2009 sco 2062.59

- audio component scores: 0m1s / 389.09MB/s / 1702.29
- video component scores: 0m1s / 4475.09fps / 2422.51

Component results

MP3 encoding speed: 386.17MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs
AAC encoding speed: 389.07MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs
WMA encoding speed: 389.18MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs
OGG encoding speed: 389.19MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs
AC3 encoding speed: 391.78MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs

MPEG2/AC3 encoding speed: 4450.52fps Encoding time: 0.33secs
H.264/AAC encoding speed: 4479.76fps Encoding time: 0.33secs
MPEG4/MP3 encoding speed: 4481.47fps Encoding time: 0.33secs
WMV8/WMA8 encoding speed: 4511.8fps Encoding time: 0.33secs
MPEG1/MP2 encoding speed: 4451.18fps Encoding time: 0.33secs

Current Scheme Performance / Current cpu Frequency policy Dynamic

UserBench Encode 2009 sco 2080.74

- audio component scores: 0m1s / 391.95MB/s / 1714.82
- video component scores: 0m1s / 4520.95fps / 2447.34

Component results

MP3 encoding speed: 390.48MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs
AAC encoding speed: 391.75MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs
WMA encoding speed: 392.43MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs
OGG encoding speed: 392.78MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs
AC3 encoding speed: 392.22MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs

MPEG2/AC3 encoding speed: 4523.97fps Encoding time: 0.33secs
H.264/AAC encoding speed: 4519.58fps Encoding time: 0.33secs
MPEG4/MP3 encoding speed: 4517.88fps Encoding time: 0.33secs
WMV8/WMA8 encoding speed: 4521.14fps Encoding time: 0.33secs
MPEG1/MP2 encoding speed: 4520.9fps Encoding time: 0.33secs

Current Scheme Performance / Current cpu Frequency policy Performance

UserBench Encode 2009 sco 2068.99

- audio component scores: 0m1s / 389.24MB/s / 1702.96
- video component scores: 0m1s / 4501.19fps / 2436.64

Component results

MP3 encoding speed: 388.82MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs
AAC encoding speed: 389.14MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs
WMA encoding speed: 391.79MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs
OGG encoding speed: 389.4MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs
AC3 encoding speed: 386.98MB/s Encoding time: 0.33secs

MPEG2/AC3 encoding speed: 4512.18fps Encoding time: 0.33secs
H.264/AAC encoding speed: 4454.97fps Encoding time: 0.33secs
MPEG4/MP3 encoding speed: 4513.84fps Encoding time: 0.33secs
WMV8/WMA8 encoding speed: 4509.18fps Encoding time: 0.33secs
MPEG1/MP2 encoding speed: 4515.05fps Encoding time: 0.33secs

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:03:50 +0100, darklight
wrote:

regarding the post sent by muzician21 on 09/04/2009 about
Suggestions for Core 2 Duo systems that use PCI - not PCI express
why don't people download the 'benchmark designed by Australian PC User
magazine' web address http://darrenyates.com.au/?p=573
then post their results just to see what the difference in performance is
between hardware and os.

The problem is threefold.

1) People need PCI slots when they have cards they either
can't replace, or don't want to pay to replace, so PCIe
isn't an option for them.

2) Since the exact same cards are usually not available in
both PCI and PCIe formats, a fair comparison cannot be made
of what the performance degradation would be while using the
PCI card instead of the PCIe, and if using neither than
which slot type it has will make no difference but rather
the particulars of the chipset performance and bios settings
might make a small difference, especially since the memory
controller for Core 2 Duo is still in the northbridge
meaning newer chipsets will tend to be faster.

Ultimately, if someone wants/needs to use a PCI card, they
will still get great benefit from the newer platform even if
the PCI bus occasionally bottlenecks things. The other
remaining issue is if there really aren't PCIe alternatives
and if not, will that situation improve in the future or are
they just delaying the inevitable by a few years to still
end up in the same position with even fewer alternatives
since slowly but surely there will be fewer and fewer PCI
slots on modern motherboards, then people will have to
settle for defeatured legacy industrial boards at much
higher cost.

Then again, it is possible that some day someone will come
up with a bridge card similar to the riser cards used years
ago that converts one PCIe slot into several PCI, but using
such a card would require a specialized case since it would
put all the cards' slot mount brackets at 90' orientation to
the an ATX case's slots, and a different location.

3) The linked benchmark does not specifically stress the
operations on the PCI bus to the cards one might want to
use. That would be necessary in order to show the
difference in performance when there is one.

Oh, there is a fourth issue too:

4) Quoting Darren Yates - "UserBench Encode 2009 is
exclusive to Australian PC User magazine and you’ll only
find it in the February 2009 issue, on sale now." That
makes acquiring the software inconvenient at least, costly
if not reasonably impossible for those outside of Australia.

darklight wrote:
regarding the post sent by muzician21 on 09/04/2009 about
Suggestions for Core 2 Duo systems that use PCI - not PCI express
why don't people download the 'benchmark designed by Australian PC User
magazine' web address http://darrenyates.com.au/?p=573
then post their results just to see what the difference in performance is
between hardware and os.

I took a look at it. I used the Linux version (tar.gz).
I noticed during the run, that CPU never went over 100%,
while a copy of mprime95 from mersenne.org runs 200% with
the same test conditions and OS (i.e. both cores running). I
only saw a few seconds at the very end of the benchmark,
where the CPU hit about 128%. So for me, it looked like it
was mainly benching one core.

My result, using the summary on the tool's main display.

33.94 (25.08 audio, 45.12 video)

2.6GHz Core2 E4700 FSB800, 2x1GB DDR2-533 CAS3 RAM, PT880/VT8237S chipset
Knoppix 5.3.1 OS, benchmark files on the Knoppix ramdisk.
Swap disk available, but the benchmark did not
consume enough RAM for swap to be involved.

I booted back into Windows to post this.

Paul

Somewhere on teh intarwebs Paul wrote:
darklight wrote:
regarding the post sent by muzician21 on 09/04/2009 about
Suggestions for Core 2 Duo systems that use PCI - not PCI express
why don't people download the 'benchmark designed by Australian PC
User magazine' web address http://darrenyates.com.au/?p=573
then post their results just to see what the difference in
performance is between hardware and os.

I took a look at it. I used the Linux version (tar.gz).
I noticed during the run, that CPU never went over 100%,
while a copy of mprime95 from mersenne.org runs 200% with
the same test conditions and OS (i.e. both cores running). I
only saw a few seconds at the very end of the benchmark,
where the CPU hit about 128%. So for me, it looked like it
was mainly benching one core.

My result, using the summary on the tool's main display.

33.94 (25.08 audio, 45.12 video)

2.6GHz Core2 E4700 FSB800, 2x1GB DDR2-533 CAS3 RAM, PT880/VT8237S
chipset Knoppix 5.3.1 OS, benchmark files on the Knoppix ramdisk.
Swap disk available, but the benchmark did not
consume enough RAM for swap to be involved.

I booted back into Windows to post this.

My main machine is running XP Pro SP3 up-to-date.

E7300 with the FSB raised from 266 to 333. No alteration of vcore. Asus
P5KE-WiFi/AP P35/ICH9r mobo. Prime95 stable 24 hours+. 4GB DDR2-800 RAM.

UserBench Encode 2009 score of 48.81.

I didn't make note of the seperate audio/video scores, I don't turn the
machine on often and ran it not long after I got the magazine (and wrote it
down in my benchmarking notebook).
--
Shaun.

"Build a man a fire, and he`ll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and
he`ll be warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchett, Jingo.

kony wrote:

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:03:50 +0100, darklight
wrote:

regarding the post sent by muzician21 on 09/04/2009 about
Suggestions for Core 2 Duo systems that use PCI - not PCI express
why don't people download the 'benchmark designed by Australian PC User
magazine' web address http://darrenyates.com.au/?p=573
then post their results just to see what the difference in performance is
between hardware and os.

The problem is threefold.

1) People need PCI slots when they have cards they either
can't replace, or don't want to pay to replace, so PCIe
isn't an option for them.

2) Since the exact same cards are usually not available in
both PCI and PCIe formats, a fair comparison cannot be made
of what the performance degradation would be while using the
PCI card instead of the PCIe, and if using neither than
which slot type it has will make no difference but rather
the particulars of the chipset performance and bios settings
might make a small difference, especially since the memory
controller for Core 2 Duo is still in the northbridge
meaning newer chipsets will tend to be faster.

Ultimately, if someone wants/needs to use a PCI card, they
will still get great benefit from the newer platform even if
the PCI bus occasionally bottlenecks things. The other
remaining issue is if there really aren't PCIe alternatives
and if not, will that situation improve in the future or are
they just delaying the inevitable by a few years to still
end up in the same position with even fewer alternatives
since slowly but surely there will be fewer and fewer PCI
slots on modern motherboards, then people will have to
settle for defeatured legacy industrial boards at much
higher cost.

Then again, it is possible that some day someone will come
up with a bridge card similar to the riser cards used years
ago that converts one PCIe slot into several PCI, but using
such a card would require a specialized case since it would
put all the cards' slot mount brackets at 90' orientation to
the an ATX case's slots, and a different location.

3) The linked benchmark does not specifically stress the
operations on the PCI bus to the cards one might want to
use. That would be necessary in order to show the
difference in performance when there is one.

Oh, there is a fourth issue too:

4) Quoting Darren Yates - "UserBench Encode 2009 is
exclusive to Australian PC User magazine and youÂ’ll only
find it in the February 2009 issue, on sale now." That
makes acquiring the software inconvenient at least, costly
if not reasonably impossible for those outside of Australia.

I Darklight live in england

Paul wrote:

darklight wrote:
regarding the post sent by muzician21 on 09/04/2009 about
Suggestions for Core 2 Duo systems that use PCI - not PCI express
why don't people download the 'benchmark designed by Australian PC User
magazine' web address http://darrenyates.com.au/?p=573
then post their results just to see what the difference in performance is
between hardware and os.

I took a look at it. I used the Linux version (tar.gz).
I noticed during the run, that CPU never went over 100%,
while a copy of mprime95 from mersenne.org runs 200% with
the same test conditions and OS (i.e. both cores running). I
only saw a few seconds at the very end of the benchmark,
where the CPU hit about 128%. So for me, it looked like it
was mainly benching one core.

My result, using the summary on the tool's main display.

33.94 (25.08 audio, 45.12 video)

2.6GHz Core2 E4700 FSB800, 2x1GB DDR2-533 CAS3 RAM, PT880/VT8237S chipset
Knoppix 5.3.1 OS, benchmark files on the Knoppix ramdisk.
Swap disk available, but the benchmark did not
consume enough RAM for swap to be involved.

I booted back into Windows to post this.

Paul
why are your results different to mine?

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:46:15 -0400, darklight wrote:

Paul wrote:
Knoppix 5.3.1 OS, benchmark files on the Knoppix ramdisk.

why are your results different to mine?

Were you using Knoppix 5.3.1? If not, what do you get for ...
zgrep SMP /proc/config.gz
zgrep HIGHMEM /proc/config.gz

Regards, Dave Hodgins

--
Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)

David W. Hodgins wrote:

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:46:15 -0400, darklight
wrote:

Paul wrote:
Knoppix 5.3.1 OS, benchmark files on the Knoppix ramdisk.

why are your results different to mine?

Were you using Knoppix 5.3.1? If not, what do you get for ...
zgrep SMP /proc/config.gz
zgrep HIGHMEM /proc/config.gz

Regards, Dave Hodgins


this is what i get
linux-v099:/home/username # zgrep SMP /proc/config.gz
CONFIG_SMP=y
# CONFIG_X86_BIGSMP is not set
CONFIG_SUSPEND_SMP=y
CONFIG_X86_FIND_SMP_CONFIG=y
CONFIG_X86_SMP=y
linux-v099:/home/username # grep HIGHMEM /proc/config.gz
linux-v099:/home/username #

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:46:15 +0100, darklight
wrote:

Paul wrote:

darklight wrote:
regarding the post sent by muzician21 on 09/04/2009 about
Suggestions for Core 2 Duo systems that use PCI - not PCI express
why don't people download the 'benchmark designed by Australian PC User
magazine' web address http://darrenyates.com.au/?p=573
then post their results just to see what the difference in performance is
between hardware and os.

I took a look at it. I used the Linux version (tar.gz).
I noticed during the run, that CPU never went over 100%,
while a copy of mprime95 from mersenne.org runs 200% with
the same test conditions and OS (i.e. both cores running). I
only saw a few seconds at the very end of the benchmark,
where the CPU hit about 128%. So for me, it looked like it
was mainly benching one core.

My result, using the summary on the tool's main display.

33.94 (25.08 audio, 45.12 video)

2.6GHz Core2 E4700 FSB800, 2x1GB DDR2-533 CAS3 RAM, PT880/VT8237S chipset
Knoppix 5.3.1 OS, benchmark files on the Knoppix ramdisk.
Swap disk available, but the benchmark did not
consume enough RAM for swap to be involved.

I booted back into Windows to post this.

Paul
why are your results different to mine?

Check the status of the benchmark; it's encountering a runtime library
error.