Forum > Windows
AMD optimized App
Slawek:
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=392151435 this is Core 2 SSE 3
My SEE3 (Athlon )
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/results.php?hostid=4708858&offset=40 ~130.000 sec vs 33.000 sec....
Jason G:
That appears to be an E8400, and probably, by the look of the time, extremely overclocked. My E8400 runs comfortably at a moderate overclock of 3.6GHz, and got around 10.5 hour times with that r69 release build. That machine seems to have achieved results in 8hr40mins , or about 20% quicker. So probably in the range of about 4.3GHz.
Are you sure you want to compare times against this machine?
Slawek:
ok. i have 2.9 ghz and ~130.000 sec ??? - 36 h
36 h vs 10 h.... :-\
maybe SSE3 in Athlon not working to fast :(
Jason G:
That's okay,
Apart from clock speed it also comes down to clocks per instruction, and sheer cache size. In both regards the E8400 is a bad example to compare against because it is a new generation, huge cache model. Even the quads are generally much more bus and cache starved. In that respect the E8400/8500/8600 are some of the fastest dual cores ever produced (to my knowledge).
If you can pick an Intel model of about the same generation as your chip it will probably make a much better comparison. e.g. My p4 3.2 Cedar Mill running stock has slightly longer times than yours, though a faster clock speed and larger cache.
It is difficult to compare times cross brand, but I can assure you that none of the apparent disadvantage is because of anything other than CPU generation.
Jason
arkayn:
My T7200(2.0)(r84) does them in about 28 hours and the E6550(2.33)(r69) does them in 18.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version