PII vs PIII

In article ,
Lane Lewis wrote:

All that and still nothing to back it up.

None from you, either.


The problem with Photoshop is the software, though its smp capable you will
never see a big improvement in processing. Dual machines have no advantage
to a single machine that has an equal amount of processing power and with up
to 20 percent of overhead will show a definite disadvantage.

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.

http://www.irb.uni-hannover.de/~breh...ions/habil.pdf

See especially page 208.

http://www.kikumaru.com/pc/celeron/dcbench.html

Single versus dual Celeron.

http://www.cpuscorecard.com/cpufaqs/jul00e.htm

Dual PIII up to 80% faster than single PIII, if we can believe Intel.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/200...pteron-23.html

Benchmarking some graphics software besides Photoshop. The dual Xeons and
Opterons beat their similarly-clocked single processor counterparts in
every test by at least 50%.

--
"Is that plutonium on your gums?"
"Shut up and kiss me!"
-- Marge and Homer Simpson

In article ,
Steve Wolfe wrote:

Here's a tip for you in life: Becoming a vehement, rabid dog over
something with which you have no experience is usually just going to make
you look like a fool.

But it will get you bombarded with more and higher quality information on
Usenet than you could ever get by asking politely.

--
"Is that plutonium on your gums?"
"Shut up and kiss me!"
-- Marge and Homer Simpson

"Lane Lewis" wrote in message
...

"Steve Wolfe" wrote in message
news:1065901901.201638@cache1...

Great even more claims and nothing to back them up.

You haven't done any backing up, either. All you've done is say "I
was
at
someone's site and saw some benchmarks, dood!"

We have experience with SMP systems, and you don't. You'll
understand,
of
course, if we find it hard to take you seriously.

Are you starting to get the picture yet. Why are there all these
claims
about dual CPU systems and nothing to confirm them with. The fact is
their
slow and not worth the money spent for the desktop regardless of what
is
said about them.

Translation: "I'm too poor to buy an SMP system, I've never used one,
and
I think I know what I'm talking about."

steve


Actually I've owned two.

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~


---
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

Steve Wolfe escribió:

Please, oh great one who knows everything. Expound to us the cost of
context-switching on x86 hardware, the effects of high levels of interrupts,
and the difference between PIC and APIC interrupt handling.


Now, I'd like to now about that. Any pointers, please?


--
To contact me, for each pair of hex values add: the value itself,
its reversed position (16..1) and the correspondig letter in the
faked address (add spaces to the end). Use only 8 bits. Thank
spam & co. EB E3 FB E1 15 37 39 32 2B 09 45 2C FC 2F 4D 4C

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:29:49 GMT, "Lane Lewis"
wrote:


And even more nonsense, but not even one website, datasheet, review,
anything to back up any of their claims.

Does anyone else start to see a pattern here. The reason they can't provide
any proof is because it doesn't exist. The dual cpu on the desktop is a
joke, it provides less than a ten percent improvement over a same sized
single cpu system and that's only with special programs written for a dual
machine. This has been know for years so why this nonsense keeps popping up
again and again is beyond me.

Lane

Hi Lane... you sure got a huge thread going, eh? ;-)

I agree, SMP on a desktop is never anywhere near 2X the performance of
one, but I'd put the performance in two categories, single-treaded
apps and multi-threaded (with supportive OS, etc)... for multithreaded
the performance boost can approach 60% or so, but only in these
specific tasks... makes for a good specific-purpose workstation but in
everyday use it's a lot closer to the 10% you mentioned.


Dave

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.

At best, all he can demonstrate is a mild improvement for
some unique desktop applications and only during extreme CPU
intensive processing. In the meantime, he does not even
demonstrate what is necessary to make that dual system
effective - just more missing facts.

Lurkers should note two types of responses. Some agree with
Steve Wolfe et al because of emotional viewpoints - who they
feel is posting nicer. Real people first look for facts and
citation; brutally and aggressively need the irrefutable
fact. Its called reality. Plenty of citations provided that
don't prove anything other than Steve Wolfe, et al have made
claims they cannot support. Just many feelings that are
irrelevant to significant improvement in system performance.

Lane Lewis keeps asking for one simple little thing - the
irrefutable fact. He is not getting 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. One response instead was a long useless chain of
posts. No specific fact. Bottom line remains that Steve, et
al provided no relevant fact - just many irrelevant numbers to
confuse the issue - leaving those who demand facts do his work
for him - to wade through that long useless citation.

If 'usability' is a major improvement - then numerical specs
can demonstrate that advantage. I paste wax the car. That
day, the car engine 'feels' smoother. I know paste waxing did
not affect the engine. But the car's motor always *feels*
smoother after a paste wax. Its called 'hands on'
experience. And so we have more proof dual processor
advantage? Its called emotion - the source of so much junk
science. One *feels* it is better - therefore he just knows?
Rubbish.

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 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? Lane asked for
specific facts - and got none. He does not have to prove
anything. Steve Wolfe, et al are making blanket and
emotionally inspired statements they cannot support.

René Descartes did not say "I feel; therefore I am". Steve
Wolfe's reasons are in direct contradiction to those who deal
in reality; not in junk science. And that is what we have in
the computer industry - too many 'experts'who need not first
learn facts - junk scientists.

Just because something like dual processors "can't be
backed-up by a website or a benchmark" *does* make it
probably untrue. No benchmarks are provided by Steve Wolfe
who is selling this dual processor concept just like
Listerene. It must work because "I feel something". Classic
junk science. If that is not obvious to the lurker, then the
lurker should ask whether he is easily made a victim of
propaganda and advertising; things proven simply by emotion.

~misfit~ wrote:
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.
...

"kony" wrote in message
...
snip

Hi Lane... you sure got a huge thread going, eh? ;-)

Its not so big by past standards. There were probably more heated threads
over the Buffer statement in DOS. That goes back a few years though.

IDE vs. SCSI
This one is just about over I hope.
Dos vs. Windows
Windows vs. OS2 (The OS Wars)
This was probably the worse time in the computer newsgroups (ECHOs?).
IBM unleashed "Team OS2" on the unsuspecting Win crowd with a vengeance.
They were supposed to help people with OS2 but quickly became some of the
worse thugs in Usenet history. You couldn't post a question about window 3.1
without some member of the team telling you what an idiot you were for using
Windows. This generally started flame wars that went on for weeks if not
months.

PIII vs. Athlon
This started multiple crossposting between AMD and Intel newsgroups and
it was hard to get any other topic discussed
Via chipset vs. all the others
A bad one here because no matter how many problems were pointed out,
some of the VIA crowd insisted they were the best motherboards around.

Lots more that aren't mentioned but it might be better not to :O)

Lane

snip

"~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.

Lane

"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 ? If one of the advantages is running
smp programs and it can't even win in that catagory imagine how poorly it
will do with the average desktop program. You'll be running the average
program at half speed and that doesn't even take into consideration the
extra OS overhead. So why is this a good idea for the average destop user
when its not even a good idea for the workstation photoshop user.

Lane

snip

"Lane Lewis" writes:

"SIOL" wrote in message
...
snip

My two centiEuros go with Steve's perspective. I have several machines in
my
workshop and I can tell you that dual PIII- 1 GHz feel much more
responsive
than one Tualatin at 1.7 GHz. Yeah, there could be overhead, but dual CPU
is
certainly worth it.

Thing is, almost all benchmarks measure "linear speed", something like
drag
racing, they don't take into account real traffic performance with curves,
crossroads etc. With mothern machines, task switching, intetrrupts etc.
take
considerable efforts and time.
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.

ALL my machines will be at least dual CPU in future (workstations, servers
etc). I'm still waiting for a decent dual CPU Opteron board for good
price...

And even more nonsense, but not even one website, datasheet, review,
anything to back up any of their claims.

Does anyone else start to see a pattern here. The reason they can't provide
any proof is because it doesn't exist. The dual cpu on the desktop is a
joke, it provides less than a ten percent improvement over a same sized
single cpu system and that's only with special programs written for a dual
machine. This has been know for years so why this nonsense keeps popping up
again and again is beyond me.

Up until last year, I was using a quad ppro 200 with 256MB of ram. It
was a tank. Not very fast but it *never* *slows* *down* (at least
interface wise). You can open programs, run jobs in the background,
et cetera and your input is not sluggish, keypress gives immediate
result, your mouse moves, menus open. It just feels more resiliant.
With a single CPU machine (I had a 650MHz Cu-mine PIII at work) things
would get choppy or herky-jerky when under heavy loads.

The only reason I retired it is that it sounde like a jet airplane
trying to take off with all the fans that beast.

I realize that you are skeptical. Sure it doesn't get long haul jobs
any quicker than single CPU MHz would say and memory contention means
that it might be worse. On the other hand, for interactive use, it
just seems to be a tough, solid system when you have more than one CPU.

Everybody here who has used a multi-CPU box knows what I am talking
about and is trying to tell you how it is. You might trying believing
us. We aren't trying to mislead you.

--
Johan KULLSTAM