Forum > Windows
Core2 Duo E7600, SSSE3 instead of SSE4.1
Jason G:
I agree if the point was to decide which one to use. However for the purposes of replicating Surtaru's test with the same apps. Quoting myself:
--- Quote ---Pretty close! ;) So close it doesn't really matter anymore.
--- End quote ---
Point was to show convergence of times with better memory subsystem, where there was a big difference on Sutaru's....so it does that successfully ;).
Of course I don't use either of these apps, but the 64 bit versions where the story is very slightly different again: and variation is more like 1-2%, which becomes a bit more repeatable & a tiny bit more worthwhile.
Gecko_R7:
--- Quote from: Jason G on 08 Jun 2010, 07:14:47 am ---I agree if the point was to decide which one to use. However for the purposes of replicating Surtaru's test with the same apps. Quoting myself:
--- Quote ---Pretty close! ;) So close it doesn't really matter anymore.
--- End quote ---
Point was to show convergence of times with better memory subsystem, where there was a big difference on Sutaru's....so it does that successfully ;).
Of course I don't use either of these apps, but the 64 bit versions where the story is very slightly different again: and variation is more like 1-2%, which becomes a bit more repeatable & a tiny bit more worthwhile.
--- End quote ---
FWIW, we've all seen SOOO many of the ssse3 and sse4.1 tests that bounce back and forth in range of .5% to 2-3% on one side or the other.
Earlier tests in 2007/08' were run on XP and Vista hosts etc.
These tests are now Win7.
I think we saw sse4.1 being favored on Jason's big-cache dual core Penryns & Mark's quad core rigs in cases where he had big cache + combo of low latency & high speed memory. Tests with small cache quad core Q8200/8300 etc. showed ssse3x quicker. Made sense since builds w/ entry to mid-level Q-series likely tend towards more budget-friendly MBs & DDR800 sticks in majority of cases. So, a triple whammy of core contention, slower bus and slower memory.
With a variance range of only .5 to 3%, OS differences between XP, Vista and Win7, number of and kind of background services and programs running, and even BOINC disk write interval settings can swing the results on both sides of this range for identical HW rigs.
So, even *if* there *is* a fractional advantage between instruction set builds, real world performance variance in HW and OS set-ups is likely a greater variance than the instruction set difference.
To quote Bugs Bunny, still looks like splitting Hares to me, lol. :P
Jason G:
--- Quote from: Gecko on 08 Jun 2010, 11:04:58 am ---To quote Bugs Bunny, still looks like splitting Hares to me, lol. :P
--- End quote ---
One favourite hair splitting trick I used back in the day, was running the same build against itself. That gives some idea of the run to run variation, but more importantly shows if something on the system is pinching cycles periodically. Wide run to run variation spotted by careful hair splitting can be a good locator of system issues & possible tuning, but, if the sources of variation can't be isolated & rectified, it tends to lead to 'grasping at straws'.
Richard Haselgrove:
Another thing to draw out of this conversation is the important distinction between "information" and "advice" - applies everywhere, of course, but let's keep it to computing.
Information is always helpful, useful and welcome - "My hosts run slightly quicker with the SSSE3x version"
Advice - "You should install such-and-such a version on your host" - is much more problematic, and requires much more knowledge about the other user's situation, needs and wants than we readily have access to.
Many times down the years, I've given users information - "you could do SETI work more quickly and reliably if you installed an optimised application" - and they've considered it and decided not to: perhaps lack of confidence, perhaps difficulty re-gaining access to the machine when an update is required, whatever. But a considered and reasonable decision. It would have been quite wrong to "advise" such a user even to install an opti app, let alone to presume to choose the best one on their behalf.
MarkJ:
Just starting a run with x32h. Managed to trash my cache of work on this machine. It has a GTS250 installed and can be seen at http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/results.php?hostid=5400417
Cheers,
MarkJ
edit: Just re-read 1st message in this thread and Jason wants us to concentrate on x32f cuda 3.0 build. So i'll let it finish off what its got and then change over.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version