"Hold your mouse over for the 64-bit graph."

I like to see the 32 and 64 bits on the same graph. Why not use Athlon FX-53 (32) and Athlon FX-53 (64) for labels?



Reply

Good article, but I have a comment on the mouse-over graphs. They work well in other articles such as the recent DVR-108D article where the scale and axes remain constant. In this case however the layout and in some cases even the scale are different between the two graphs. It would be easier to compare the two if the scale was the same and processors were in the same layout(spacing/location), with the inapplicable processors still listed to maintain the same appearance between the two.

If that explanation is nonsensical I can create a few images to try to elucidate my point.





Reply

What klah is trying to say in too many and too big of words : Make the scale the same for the mouseover pics.

Also make the picture height the same as well if possible.

Otherwise a very good article.

Has anyone thought of making an open office benchmark for linux?



Reply

I too would prefer longer images that include both 32 and 64-bit results. Mouseover comparisons are cumbersome.

Is sample.wav 800mb or 700mb? I'm guessing the 7 was probably just a typo.

Nice analysis of DDR1 vs 2.

My only gripe is I wish a full complement of "lower end" processors were included in all these benchmarks (754s, slower prescotts, and heck even northwoods)... but I guess that'd be too much work.

Reply

"This does not bode well for the processor. Our processor test bed is completely caseless, and if we have issuse with our 3.6GHz processor out of a normal case, we can't imagine what issues might exist in a full enclosure."
That quote made me laugh, and I'm not entirely sure why. :D

Anyway, I see that going to 64-bit is definitely worth the price of admission, considering the huge gains the processors get in the jump. One thing I had a question on, though: Why does the result from the SSL benchmark halve between 32-bit and 64-bit? Is it that the keys are longer in 64-bit?

Reply

Some thoughts --

can we please have Graphs where the order of the legend is the same as the order of the bars in the bar-graph. Surely that's possible.

also, the strange "Thermal issue" error. It seems that you thought it was weird but immediately assumed that it was correct; that the Intel CPU(s) were getting too hot.

Did you verify this somehow?? It seems strange to call it "An unusual problem" and then trust that it's correct without question or explanation.

Thanks

Reply

First of all : good article. It really shows the early benefits of well written 64-bit software. The 3500+ is definately on my wishlist ;-)

"This does not bode well for the processor. Our processor test bed is completely caseless, and if we have issues with our 3.6GHz processor out of a normal case, we can't imagine what issues might exist in a full enclosure."

Rather confusing this bit, Kristopher. Anyway, I read that a good case will offer convection which apparently a caseless testbed does not. How were the tempratures of the other CPU's? Were they also a tad above average or typical peak?

Reply

Isn't it normal procedure for a P4 that's getting too hot that it throttles the clock speed down? Maybe that would explain the extremely bad results, though it seems a bit unrealistic that the results has been reproducible, unless each iteration of the benchmark has been run for a long time.

Reply

A note about the compilation benchmark:

Make and gcc themselves are not multi-threaded, but make does understand a -j option to specify the # of concurrent make jobs to run. The general rule-of-thumb I have heard, is to specify a -j equal to n+1, where n is the number of processors in the system(One compile job per processor, and one control job.) So, to test if hyperthreading lowers the compile time, specifiy `time make -j 3`.

I would personally like to see this, in addition to the single-threaded results. I read some quick-and-dirty benchmark results suggesting hyperthreading does help the compile time, but those results were published by curious people when hyperthreading was new.. I haven't seen any results on recent processors.

Reply

"Our processor test bed is completely caseless, and if we have issuse with our 3.6GHz processor out of a normal case, we can't imagine what issues might exist in a full enclosure. "

Todays processors ("today" meaning back to the days of the original Pentium) typically run hotter with the case open than with it closed. With the case closed, cooler air is forced through the case and across the right places to help lower component temperatures, assuming that the fans are placed appropriately, are venting in the right direction, and cables/components are arranged to allow the air to flow properly.

Newer form factors, such as Intel's BTX, are designed in a large part to cope with cooling the thing down.

You should be running your test bed in a case with appropriate cooling.

Reply