A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Processors » Overclocking AMD Processors
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Performance difference on single vs multi core



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 29th 08, 10:23 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Performance difference on single vs multi core

I posted this originally on alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd

Since there are a number of people over here that know about CPU's
they might be able to enlighten me on what is happening here. I'm not
picking on AMD, I just don't have any Intel's to test it on.


We are seeing some significant performance differences on single vs
multi-core processors on AMD chips.

We have a database application that we are running on XP which also
does regression analysis.

I have asked the manufacturer of the software if they have seen this,
but they have not. They are using Clarion from SoftVelocity to build
the application.

on some systems I know the core others I do not

AMD Athlon Socket 939 (single) 4000+ 102 secs

AMD Athlon 64 X2 (Toledo) (single) 4800+ 145 secs

AMD Athlon 64 (Unknown) (dual) 3500+ 184 secs

AMD Black Edition (Brisbane) (dual) 5000+ 780 secs
(Overclocked to 3GHz)

AMD Athlon 64 (Brisbane) (dual) 5200 +

AMD Quad Phenom 9950 810 secs

We then installed the application on an operating system installed as
guest in VMWare

AMD Quad Phenom 9950 92 secs

Any idea on what is going on here. This really doesn't make sense. I
would expect maybe a little performance hit but 5 to 6 times
different..

The only hint I can see of the issue may be the run made on the
Toledo. While it's clock speed is faster It's performance is still
worse than a 4000+. My understanding is that a Toledo is a dual core
with one core disabled.
  #2  
Old October 29th 08, 11:35 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,364
Default Performance difference on single vs multi core

wrote:
I posted this originally on alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd

Since there are a number of people over here that know about CPU's
they might be able to enlighten me on what is happening here. I'm not
picking on AMD, I just don't have any Intel's to test it on.


We are seeing some significant performance differences on single vs
multi-core processors on AMD chips.

We have a database application that we are running on XP which also
does regression analysis.

I have asked the manufacturer of the software if they have seen this,
but they have not. They are using Clarion from SoftVelocity to build
the application.

on some systems I know the core others I do not

AMD Athlon Socket 939 (single) 4000+ 102 secs

AMD Athlon 64 X2 (Toledo) (single) 4800+ 145 secs

AMD Athlon 64 (Unknown) (dual) 3500+ 184 secs

AMD Black Edition (Brisbane) (dual) 5000+ 780 secs
(Overclocked to 3GHz)

AMD Athlon 64 (Brisbane) (dual) 5200 +

AMD Quad Phenom 9950 810 secs

We then installed the application on an operating system installed as
guest in VMWare

AMD Quad Phenom 9950 92 secs

Any idea on what is going on here. This really doesn't make sense. I
would expect maybe a little performance hit but 5 to 6 times
different..

The only hint I can see of the issue may be the run made on the
Toledo. While it's clock speed is faster It's performance is still
worse than a 4000+. My understanding is that a Toledo is a dual core
with one core disabled.


Start by running a pure compute benchmark. SuperPI runs on a single
core. Select enough digits of PI when running it, so that the
size of the cache does not influence the results. For example,
run 1 million digits and 32 million digits.

http://www.xtremesystems.com/pi/

http://www.xtremesystems.com/pi/super_pi_mod-1.5.zip

AMD processors feature Cool N' Quiet, use a "CPU driver" downloadable
from the AMD site, and in the hardware, have a programmable
multiplier. By making multiplier and voltage changes (FID and VID),
the processor can change from a full power state, to a power saving state,
up to something like 30 times a second.

When there are problems, sometimes an application will end up
"stuttering". For example, Anandtech, in their last series
of movie playback benchmarks, found a difference in playback
smoothness, with CNQ enabled and disabled. So they had to
run benchmarks under both conditions, on the assumption a
****ed off customer would turn off CNQ, to get the smoothness
they wanted. This causes a higher average power dissipation
on the processor (important in the HTPC market).

I don't know anything about which application is best to monitor
the processor state. There is an AMD Power Monitor application
here, and presumably it can tell you the currently used FID and VID.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/..._15259,00.html

Maybe after you've benchmarked with SuperPI, and compare clock speeds
from the various processors, you'll get a better feeling for where
to look next. Perhaps there are peripheral differences between
boxes ? Faster disks ? More memory for an application level cache ?
And so on.

I have run into the odd person, who has done everything to set up
their AMD processor in terms of CNQ, CPU drivers, Microsoft patches
and the like. And for some reason, the processor stays in "low gear".
Which is why it would be nice to be able to monitor what speed the
thing is running at.

Also, try running your processor hardware descriptions through the
list here. The "Toledo Single" stops at 4000+.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...icroprocessors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...icroprocessors

AMD has their own list of processors, but surprisingly, choose
not to list everything they've ever made. (And I'm not referring
to the one-off lots they ship to OEMs - their server processor
list is far from complete.)

http://www.amdcompare.com/

Paul
  #3  
Old October 30th 08, 08:37 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Performance difference on single vs multi core

On Oct 29, 4:35*pm, Paul wrote:
wrote:
I posted this originally on alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd


Since there are a number of people over here that know about CPU's
they might be able to enlighten me on what is happening here. *I'm not
picking on AMD, I just don't have any Intel's to test it on.


We are seeing some significant performance differences on single vs
multi-core processors on AMD chips.


We have a database application that we are running on XP which also
does regression analysis.


I have asked the manufacturer of the software if they have seen this,
but they have not. *They are using Clarion from SoftVelocity to build
the application.


on some systems I know the core others I do not


*AMD Athlon Socket 939 (single) 4000+ * * * 102 secs


*AMD Athlon 64 X2 (Toledo) (single) 4800+ * * * * *145 secs


AMD Athlon 64 (Unknown) (dual) 3500+ * * * * * * * 184 secs


AMD *Black Edition (Brisbane) (dual) 5000+ * * * * 780 secs
(Overclocked to 3GHz)


AMD *Athlon 64 (Brisbane) (dual) 5200 +


AMD Quad Phenom 9950 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *810 secs


We then installed the application on an operating system installed as
guest in VMWare


AMD *Quad Phenom 9950 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *92 secs


Any idea on what is going on here. *This really doesn't make sense. *I
would expect maybe a little performance hit but 5 to 6 times
different..


The only hint I can see of the issue may be the run made on the
Toledo. * While it's clock speed is faster It's performance is still
worse than a 4000+. *My understanding is that a Toledo is a dual core
with one core disabled.


Start by running a pure compute benchmark. SuperPI runs on a single
core. Select enough digits of PI when running it, so that the
size of the cache does not influence the results. For example,
run 1 million digits and 32 million digits.

http://www.xtremesystems.com/pi/

http://www.xtremesystems.com/pi/super_pi_mod-1.5.zip

AMD processors feature Cool N' Quiet, use a "CPU driver" downloadable
from the AMD site, and in the hardware, have a programmable
multiplier. By making multiplier and voltage changes (FID and VID),
the processor can change from a full power state, to a power saving state,
up to something like 30 times a second.

When there are problems, sometimes an application will end up
"stuttering". For example, Anandtech, in their last series
of movie playback benchmarks, found a difference in playback
smoothness, with CNQ enabled and disabled. So they had to
run benchmarks under both conditions, on the assumption a
****ed off customer would turn off CNQ, to get the smoothness
they wanted. This causes a higher average power dissipation
on the processor (important in the HTPC market).

I don't know anything about which application is best to monitor
the processor state. There is an AMD Power Monitor application
here, and presumably it can tell you the currently used FID and VID.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...0,,30_182_871_...

Maybe after you've benchmarked with SuperPI, and compare clock speeds
from the various processors, you'll get a better feeling for where
to look next. Perhaps there are peripheral differences between
boxes ? Faster disks ? More memory for an application level cache ?
And so on.

I have run into the odd person, who has done everything to set up
their AMD processor in terms of CNQ, CPU drivers, Microsoft patches
and the like. And for some reason, the processor stays in "low gear".
Which is why it would be nice to be able to monitor what speed the
thing is running at.

Also, try running your processor hardware descriptions through the
list here. The "Toledo Single" stops at 4000+.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...icroprocessors

AMD has their own list of processors, but surprisingly, choose
not to list everything they've ever made. (And I'm not referring
to the one-off lots they ship to OEMs - their server processor
list is far from complete.)

http://www.amdcompare.com/

* * Paul


Thanks for the reply.
I'm probably going to re-install the 5000+ chip in the system this
weekend and give it another whirl. Right now it's running the phenom
processor with VMWare.
But I would still like to find out what the issue is.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Seeing performance differences on single vs multi-core [email protected] AMD x86-64 Processors 0 October 27th 08 07:12 PM
Best Multi-chip multi-core mobo question Mike[_7_] General 4 May 14th 07 08:11 AM
Which Notebook to buy? Intel Centrino, Core DUO, Core Duo 2, AMD Turion, Single Core [email protected] General 4 August 31st 06 02:11 AM
Opteron - single dual core vs two single cores CharlesBlackstone General 17 August 19th 06 08:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.