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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Lane Lewis wrote:
"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote in message ... snip Okay, here's a few URLs for you to look at. If you want more, use Google. http://www.chaosmint.com/benchmarks/...c-g5-ps7bench/ Not quite a straight comparison because it compares a G5 1.6 GHz with a G5 dual 2.0 GHz, but the dual machine is about twice as fast, sometimes around 2.5 times as fast. The athlon tests also show the problems with a dual system. Comparing the athlon dual 2200 with the athlon 3000 and you see somewhat mixed results but mostly the dual 2200 is faster. Heres the problem, if we compared an athlon 3000 system with a dual 1500 system there just would be no comparison of the two. The 3000 would win hands down, so whats the point of a dual system if it loses in every benchmark ? Who said we're comparing dual CPUs to a single CPU of twice the clock rate? Go back to the start of this thread. The OP has an HP Kayak system that'll take CPUs upto 600MHz, and either 1 or 2 of them. His choice is limited to single 600 vs. dual 600. Dual wins. Whether or not a single 1200MHz CPU would be better is irrelevant---he'd have to replace the system to get that and that's not what he was asking about! BTW, I'm running dual 3.06GHz Xeons. Just what single CPU system is going to be faster? A single 6.12GHz Xeon??? One of my favourite vendors currently list AthlonXPs upto "3200+" rating and AthlonMPs upto "2800+". Now I ask you, which is faster: dual 2800 or single 3200? Clearly the dualie wins. Frankly the perfomance of a dual 1600 has little to no bearing on the discussion at hand. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
No support is provided by Steve Wolfe, et al for these
claims of improvement. Instead of posting facts and numbers, they discuss some sort of 'usability'. IOW its called junk science reasoning in its most classic form. They *feel* the dual processor system works better. Feel is what junk scientists must use to prove a point - as if they are in contact with mystical spirits. What I posted was fact, not opinion or viewpoint. If one machine is bogged down to where I can't use the interface and the other isn't, that's not "feeling". Lane Lewis keeps asking for one simple little thing - the irrefutable fact. He is not getting it. And, after all of the times we asked Lane for irrefutable fact, did he provide it? When will Steve Wolfe post in specific detail one short fact to prove his point - with a paragraph to summarize his point? Just more examples of what junk scientists do: try to confuse the issue, like a deer caught in headlights, because someone demanded facts. I posted a lot of facts. They were ignored. I talked about context switching, interrupt floods, and other things. They were all conveniently dropped on the floor. If you're going to throw around the term "Junk Scientist", I think it would apply more to someone who has no experience, and bases his opinions on what he's read, rather than someone who has years of first-hand experience. Another nonsense post: "SMP takes some load of the foirst CPU and makes it possible for one CPU to deal with real time data and enables other to go for performance." SMP does not work that way. But that is proof of why dual processors are superior? His sentence demonstrates more junk science reasoning. I certainly didn't say that, and I suspect that nobody else did, either. I searched groups.google.com for "smp takes some load of the foirst cpu group:comp.os.linux.hardware" in comp.os.linux. hardware, and yours was the only post to come up. I fixed your spelling error, and again, your message was the only one to come up. So, you're attributing a direct quote that was, in fact, never made. That makes it awfully hard to take you seriously. "I have experience and you don't. Therefore I am the expert and you don't know anything." What kind of reasoning is this? More examples of what junk scientists do - simply because they have the divine knowledge? Again, that quote was never made. Are you sure that you aren't Lane in disguise? Lane asked for specific facts - and got none. Bull. He got them, and ignored them. If you don't believe my claims, then you are free to follow your own advice, and provide some non-junk science disproving them. Otherwise, you're just a pot calling the kettle black. steve |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
The athlon tests also show the problems with a dual system.
Comparing the athlon dual 2200 with the athlon 3000 and you see somewhat mixed results but mostly the dual 2200 is faster. Heres the problem, if we compared an athlon 3000 system with a dual 1500 system there just would be no comparison of the two. The 3000 would win hands down, so whats the point of a dual system if it loses in every benchmark ? In terms of a single task, yes, like I've been saying, the 3000 would win. I've never argued that at all. I've said since that sort of thing since the first of the discussion, like when I pointed out that if I wanted to play a 3D game, I'd never choose the SMP system. Why do you keep beleagering the point? steve |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
"Lane Lewis" wrote in message om... "~misfit~" wrote in message ... snip What CPUs were in those machines and what did you use them for Lane? I've always read your posts and have thought you to be informed and helpful. This thread is making me reconsider my opinion of you. It's becoming an increasingly likely assumption that you mainly pick up your information from websites and newsgoups you read and pass it on. That, with a little experience of your own, is not a bad thing in and of itself, and can help a lot of people who ask questions in newsgroups. However, websites and benchmarks aimed at, for want of a better word, 'fan-boys', don't always cover real-world computing and are certainly no substitute for hands-on experience. Just because something can't be backed-up by a website or a benchmark doesn't make it untrue. "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy Horatio." to quote The Bard. As an example, albeit a bit tangential, I frequent alt.comp.hadware.overclockers. Several mods discussed over there include breaking the pins off CPUs, a move always seen as being irreversible. I asked for, and was given, a mod method which required just such an action. However, I managed to break off the wrong pin. I was told by all the regulars that I was screwed. This was the gospel according to a.c.h.o and was widely accepted as bring true. Against all advice I attempted, and succeeded in, soldering the pin back onto the CPU, rendering it functional again. It's now running at a 50% overclock, running rock-solid and stable and has been for months. Now the advice usually given over there is to make sure you break off the right pin as it can be very difficult, if not impossible to fix if you don't. Listen to the other contributers in this thread Lane and you just might learn something valuable. Something beyond the scope of the hardware review sites and benchmarks. -- ~misfit~ I have no misconceptions about benchmarks being accurate but they do give you something to work with. Discussing something without any data at all and it just becomes a I know better than you argument. Real world test are the best way to go but that involves a lot of work and unless there's a clear reason to do so I don't want to get into it. Hold your opinion into you see how this pans out, we all might learn a little more about computing and how to carry on a discussion about sensitive subjects. I spend more of time now in other groups and some of the debaters there have been doing this since the early 90s and will severely denigrate you for not following the rules such as backing up any assertions you might profess to be true. You soon learn not to post what you believe if you don't have piles of websites that at least seem to agree with some of your assumption. This group has changed quite a bit and part of the problem is that I probably come off as a know it all stranger that has no business telling anyone about anything, but I weathered thru worse than this and hopefully it will end with the group being a little better. As far as the systems I used to have were dual P2s and dual celerons. They were for a while the fastest machines on the market but once the 533a and the 600 O/C 900 celerons came out and with their ease at overclocking they just killed the dual boards with brute force. You would think that a Dual P2 450 or a dual celeron O/C 550 could keep up with a single celeron O/C 900 but they couldn't. I always attributed it to overhead of the OS but I think most of the smp programs were not capable of taking full advantage of the dual CPUs. So anyway I parted out the dual machines and have recommended single processors for the desktop ever since. Thanks for the reply Lane. Funny you should mention celeron 600s running at 900. It was a celeron 600 that I broke the wrong pin off, in the process of getting it to run in a non-coppermine slocket. Soldered it back on, broke off the correct pin, jumpered the back of the socket with a strand of IDE cable and it's running perfectly at 900Mhz now. Still quite usuable too, although not my main machine. -- ~misfit~ --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 9/10/2003 |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Instead of posting repeatedly what you did post (a waste of
bandwidth), instead just post the one fact. I don't care how you 'feel' that one machine performs. That is only an opinion based upon an emotion. That emotion does not prove dual processor machines are superior for workstations. Where is the irrefutable facts - basic specification - the numbers? I don't even see your list of workstation programs that operate nearly twice as fast due to multithreading. I do see Lane Lewis's summary of where dual processors should provide utility. But Lane is not making your unsubstantiated claims - claims made without relevant numbers. If you posted lots of facts, then post the 'best one' right here and now. A single irrefutable fact. One simple paragraph at the very top of your reply will do just fine stating why dual processors are so superior and numbers that demonstrate that superiority. Not reams of speculative comments, provided without numbers, and intertwined with my post to confuse the issue and to make those posts difficult to read. Please don't post more URLs that only vaguely relate to your claim. Where is that best irrefutable fact and supporting numbers? Simply state the summary of your claim and provide supporting digits. Steve Wolfe wrote: No support is provided by Steve Wolfe, et al for these claims of improvement. Instead of posting facts and numbers, they discuss some sort of 'usability'. IOW its called junk science reasoning in its most classic form. They *feel* the dual processor system works better. Feel is what junk scientists must use to prove a point - as if they are in contact with mystical spirits. What I posted was fact, not opinion or viewpoint. If one machine is bogged down to where I can't use the interface and the other isn't, that's not "feeling". Lane Lewis keeps asking for one simple little thing - the irrefutable fact. He is not getting it. And, after all of the times we asked Lane for irrefutable fact, did he provide it? When will Steve Wolfe post in specific detail one short fact to prove his point - with a paragraph to summarize his point? Just more examples of what junk scientists do: try to confuse the issue, like a deer caught in headlights, because someone demanded facts. I posted a lot of facts. They were ignored. I talked about context switching, interrupt floods, and other things. They were all conveniently dropped on the floor. If you're going to throw around the term "Junk Scientist", I think it would apply more to someone who has no experience, and bases his opinions on what he's read, rather than someone who has years of first-hand experience. Another nonsense post: "SMP takes some load of the foirst CPU and makes it possible for one CPU to deal with real time data and enables other to go for performance." SMP does not work that way. But that is proof of why dual processors are superior? His sentence demonstrates more junk science reasoning. ... |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Do you happen to know what the function or signal name for
that pin was? Rather interesting experiment. ~misfit~ wrote: Funny you should mention celeron 600s running at 900. It was a celeron 600 that I broke the wrong pin off, in the process of getting it to run in a non-coppermine slocket. Soldered it back on, broke off the correct pin, jumpered the back of the socket with a strand of IDE cable and it's running perfectly at 900Mhz now. Still quite usuable too, although not my main machine. -- ~misfit~ |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Steve Wolfe wrote: The athlon tests also show the problems with a dual system. Comparing the athlon dual 2200 with the athlon 3000 and you see somewhat mixed results but mostly the dual 2200 is faster. Heres the problem, if we compared an athlon 3000 system with a dual 1500 system there just would be no comparison of the two. The 3000 would win hands down, so whats the point of a dual system if it loses in every benchmark ? In terms of a single task, yes, like I've been saying, the 3000 would win. I've never argued that at all. I've said since that sort of thing since the first of the discussion, like when I pointed out that if I wanted to play a 3D game, I'd never choose the SMP system. Why do you keep beleagering the point? It's been explained to me that games tend not to be written for multiple processors because they tend to be written for home versions of Windows, which doesn't support multiprocessing at all. So naturally you get little advantage from the second processor, aside from handling interruptions from the OS. But that has nothing to do with "overhead", rather with the software not even trying to use the second processor. I suspect that's the sort of computing that Lane Lewis is drawing on for his opinion, and then just generalizing it to anyone doing anything on anything. But in one web page I found on game benchmarks the author said that multiprocessing in Apple's G5 gave such a high frame rate that he didn't believe Apple's number until he tried it himself and got a slightly higher number than they did. I couldn't find stats that clearly (to me) showed frame rate with single and dual processors with all else equal, so I didn't post a link. But it seems multiple processors *could* speed up a game if the software supports it. And if the next version of Windows supports multiprocessing in both the pro and home versions (I don't keep up with Windows so I'll have to take my friend's word for it), we'll see how important that second processor becomes to gamers after that. -- "Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekulé |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
John-Paul Stewart randomly warbled in
comp.os.linux.hardwa One of my favourite vendors currently list AthlonXPs upto "3200+" rating and AthlonMPs upto "2800+". Now I ask you, which is faster: dual 2800 or single 3200? Clearly the dualie wins. I'm smelling a bit of an Intel bias here... Both Athlon XP and Athlon MP are fully dual-processor capable. The difference (AFAIAA) is that the MP can be used in N-way multiprocessing systems, while for the XP 2 CPUs is the limit. So you could run the XP3200+ in a dual system - Tyan makes the best MoBo's for this. -- Jeroen Geilman All your bits are belong to us. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
John-Paul Stewart wrote: Lane Lewis wrote: "Gregory L. Hansen" wrote in message ... snip Okay, here's a few URLs for you to look at. If you want more, use Google. http://www.chaosmint.com/benchmarks/...c-g5-ps7bench/ Not quite a straight comparison because it compares a G5 1.6 GHz with a G5 dual 2.0 GHz, but the dual machine is about twice as fast, sometimes around 2.5 times as fast. The athlon tests also show the problems with a dual system. Comparing the athlon dual 2200 with the athlon 3000 and you see somewhat mixed results but mostly the dual 2200 is faster. Heres the problem, if we compared an athlon 3000 system with a dual 1500 system there just would be no comparison of the two. The 3000 would win hands down, so whats the point of a dual system if it loses in every benchmark ? Who said we're comparing dual CPUs to a single CPU of twice the clock rate? Go back to the start of this thread. The OP has an HP Kayak system that'll take CPUs upto 600MHz, and either 1 or 2 of them. His choice is limited to single 600 vs. dual 600. Dual wins. Whether or not a single 1200MHz CPU would be better is irrelevant---he'd have to replace the system to get that and that's not what he was asking about! I think the thread is no longer about the original poster at all. But you're right, PIII 600 is as high as I can go. I already have a PII 400, so my choice is really single or dual PII 400, or single or dual PIII 600 or 550 or something. For two PIII's and a VRM I'm aiming for around $90 including shipping, half of that cost due to the VRM (thanks a lot, HP). Maybe I'll spend $10 on a second PII while waiting for deals on PIIIs to appear on eBay. I'm not really in any hurry. There's the other opinion that a motherboard and newer processor can be had for $150 or so. And I'd have to get a case and power supply because I have an HP ("Highly Proprietary"?), could be another $30 not including shipping, maybe cheaper at a computer show. And then I could in principle port everything else -- disk drives and memory and things. But it's not really just about maximizing performance. I *like* the Kayak, I want to keep it intact. I'm just wondering how to get the best I can out of it, but I don't really expect to be doing anything that will overly tax it in the near future. I won't be running Windows on it, for instance. -- "Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekulé |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Lane Lewis wrote: "Gregory L. Hansen" wrote in message ... snip Okay, here's a few URLs for you to look at. If you want more, use Google. http://www.chaosmint.com/benchmarks/...c-g5-ps7bench/ Not quite a straight comparison because it compares a G5 1.6 GHz with a G5 dual 2.0 GHz, but the dual machine is about twice as fast, sometimes around 2.5 times as fast. The athlon tests also show the problems with a dual system. Comparing the athlon dual 2200 with the athlon 3000 and you see somewhat mixed results but mostly the dual 2200 is faster. And the 3D rendering tests on Tom's web page shows the potential. http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/200...pteron-23.html To summarize, for a speedup factor defined as the time required for a single processor to complete a task divided by the time for dual processors we have Xeon 3.06 Xeon 2.8 Opteron 1.8 Lightwave 7.5 1.7 1.6 1.6 Cinema 4D XL R8 2.3 2.3 1.97 3D Studio Max 5.1 1.9 1.9 1.7 My finger didn't slip in the Cinema results, that's a 2.3x speedup for the dual Xeons! There's nothing "mixed" or "mostly" about these results, the single processor machines got their asses handed to them. Obviously it depends on what you're doing and which OS you're running, so results may vary. Heres the problem, if we compared an athlon 3000 system with a dual 1500 system there just would be no comparison of the two. The 3000 would win hands down, so whats the point of a dual system if it loses in every benchmark ? If one of the advantages is running I have a better idea. Let's compare an Athlon 3000 system with a dual 3000 system. You can use the dual 1500 system if you like, but as long as we're comparing hypothetical systems mine is going to be tricked out. -- "Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekulé |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
PIII 1333 | roch | General | 3 | October 3rd 03 12:53 AM |
CPU upgrade, how high can I go? | Sam | General | 3 | September 19th 03 03:30 PM |
DELL Inspiron 4000 PIII, 600, 128 RAM | sc | General | 0 | August 14th 03 11:57 AM |
Dell CS-X Slimline Notebook PIII 500Mhz help | hammer | General | 1 | July 15th 03 09:59 PM |
my graphic card require 650mhz I have a pIII 450mhz is that enough? | Kanolsen | General | 4 | June 29th 03 02:13 PM |