Forum > Windows
Some performance comparision between x86 and x64 Windows-based apps
Raistmer:
Hi all :)
I did some tests with WU-1 from reference WUs (01mr99ab.14893.2848.703400.3.151) and recived such table:
KWSN_2.4_SSE2-AMD_MB Win2003 x86 0:06:22
KWSN_2.4_SSE_MB Win2003 x86 0:07:04
KWSN_2.4_MMX_MB Win2003 x86 0:08:38
KWSN_2.4_SSE_MB x86 Win2003 x64 0:07:02
KWSN_2.4_MMX_MB x86 Win2003 x64 0:08:38
KWSN_2.4_SSE2-AMD_MB x86 Win2003 x64 0:06:11
KWSN_2.4_SSE2_IPP_Ben-Joe x64 Win2003 x64 0:08:16
KWSN_2.4_SSE2_IPP_Ben-Joe x64 Win2003 x64 0:08:14
It seems that under Win2003 x64 SETI runs slightly faster than under x86 edition (32-bit ones), but 64-bit SETI version slower than best 32-bit.
At least on my AMD Athlon 64 3200+. The best result is aquired with 32-bit SSE2 version under Win2003 64-bit edition.
Maybe someone did such comparisions on another hardware? Please, post your results and comments here.
Crunch3r:
--- Quote from: Raistmer on 14 Aug 2007, 02:28:21 pm ---Hi all :)
I did some tests with WU-1 from reference WUs (01mr99ab.14893.2848.703400.3.151) and recived such table:
KWSN_2.4_SSE2-AMD_MB Win2003 x86 0:06:22
KWSN_2.4_SSE_MB Win2003 x86 0:07:04
KWSN_2.4_MMX_MB Win2003 x86 0:08:38
KWSN_2.4_SSE_MB x86 Win2003 x64 0:07:02
KWSN_2.4_MMX_MB x86 Win2003 x64 0:08:38
KWSN_2.4_SSE2-AMD_MB x86 Win2003 x64 0:06:11
KWSN_2.4_SSE2_IPP_Ben-Joe x64 Win2003 x64 0:08:16
KWSN_2.4_SSE2_IPP_Ben-Joe x64 Win2003 x64 0:08:14
It seems that under Win2003 x64 SETI runs slightly faster than under x86 edition (32-bit ones), but 64-bit SETI version slower than best 32-bit.
At least on my AMD Athlon 64 3200+. The best result is aquired with 32-bit SSE2 version under Win2003 64-bit edition.
Maybe someone did such comparisions on another hardware? Please, post your results and comments here.
--- End quote ---
IPP for EM64T was never very well optimized for SSE2. If you have an Intel with SSE3, results will look different ;)
Raistmer:
Well, I will try to test Core 2 Duo soon :)
BTW, is it mean that on AMD Athlon 64 with SSE3 support situation will be better too?
Raistmer:
Well, there is a table for Core 2 Duo 6420
CPUID:
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 6420 @ 2.13GHz
Speed: 2 x 2128 MHz
Cache: L1=64K L2=4096K
Features: MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 x86_64
KWSN_2.4_SSE3-Core2_MB x86 Win2003 x64 0:03:57
KWSN_2.4_SSE3-Core2_MB x86 Win2003 x64 0:03:57
KWSN_2.4_SSE3-Intel-P4_MB x86 Win2003 x64 0:04:03
KWSN_2.4_SSE3-Intel-P4_MB x86 Win2003 x64 0:04:02
KWSN_2.4_SSE2-Intel-PM_MB x86 Win2003 x64 0:04:00
KWSN_2.4_SSE2-Intel-P4_MB x86 Win2003 x64 0:03:58
KWSN_2.4_SSE2-Intel-P4_MB x86 Win2003 x64 0:04:00
KWSN_2.4_SSE2-AMD_MB x86 Win2003 x64 0:03:58
KWSN_2.4_SSE_MB x86 Win2003 x64 0:04:15
KWSN_2.4_MMX_MB x86 Win2003 x64 0:06:07
KWSN_2.4_SSE2_IPP_Ben-Joe x64 Win2003 x64 0:03:45
KWSN_2.4_SSE2_IPP_Ben-Joe x64 Win2003 x64 0:03:45
KWSN_2.4_SSE3_IPP_Ben-Joe x64 Win2003 x64 0:03:49
KWSN_2.4_SSE3_IPP_Ben-Joe x64 Win2003 x64 0:03:50
KWSN_2.4_SSSE3_IPP_Ben-Joe Win2003 x64 0:03:43
KWSN_2.4_SSSE3_IPP_Ben-Joe Win2003 x64 0:03:44
Only 64-bit OS here. 64-bit app really runs better! But the difference between SSE2 and best of SSE3 is in error range. No promised SSE3 gain ;)
(the same WU was used as in first post)
P.S. two other test WUs show the same - 64-bit SSE2 and SSE3 conro-optimized (SSSE3) the best ones (results attached).
[attachment deleted by admin]
michael37:
I am seeing very good performance with Windows 2.4 for SSSE3 64-bit.
--- Code: ---<stderr_txt>
Optimized SETI@Home Enhanced application
Optimizers: Ben Herndon, Josef Segur, Alex Kan, Simon Zadra
Version: Windows SSSE3 64-bit based on S@H V5.15 'Noo? No - Ni!'
Revision: R-2.4|xT|FFT:IPP_SSSE3|Ben-Joe
CPUID: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5150 @ 2.66GHz
Speed: 2 x 2659 MHz
Cache: L1=64K L2=4096K
Features: MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 x86_64
Work Unit Info
True angle range: 0.406102
Spikes Pulses Triplets Gaussians Flops
4 0 0 0 16402148931791
</stderr_txt>
--- End code ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version