Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (
More info?)
"Don Taylor" <dont@agora.rdrop.com> wrote in message
news:n-WdnTIUscKynvDdRVn-tw@scnresearch.com...
> "JB" <highlinex@yahoo.com> writes:
> >> > "Don Taylor" <dont@agora.rdrop.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:tLSdnRCiX7uglfbd4p2dnA@scnresearch.com...
> >> > > On a similar subject, beating up on processors trying to factor
numbers,
> >> > > if anyone would take a few minutes to run the following test on
some
> >> > > AMD parts, maybe 2600, 3000 and one of the 64 parts of about the
same
> >> > > speed, and P4 at about the same speed, I'd greatly appreciate it.
> >> > >
> >> > > The code to do this is a Java applet that is behind this web page:
> >> > >
http://www.alpertron.com.ar/ECM.HTM
> >> > >
> >> > > After the screen loads type
> >> > > (2^2281+1)/(3*22811*95803)
> >> > > into the "number or expression to factor..." box
> >> > > and type
> >> > > 400
> >> > > into the box next to "New Curve"
> >> > > and then click the "New Curve" button.
> >> > >
> >> > > That should start it running the Java applet on your box, trying
> >> > > to find the next factor for this. It will take perhaps 20-30
minutes
> >> > > of furious crunching to complete Step 1 up to 100% and Step 2 up to
> >> > > 100%. The elapsed time to get to 100% on Step 2 is the benchmark.
> >> > > (Then it will start over with Step 1, so you have to watch it)
> >> > >
> >> > > With an AMD 2000+ I'm getting just under 40 minutes and I'd greatly
> >> > > appreciate some numbers to see how much I would gain with a 2600
> >> > > and with a -64 processor. Or if I were to switch to a P4 at about
> >> > > the same speeds or better.
> >>
> >> I got 52 minutes with a P4-1.8A @ 2.771 GHz and 512 MB.<
>
> >This test includes interaction with the site so the connection speed
> >contaminates the results. I am on dial-up and maybe that explains why my
> >time is so high.
>
> It seems to me that once it starts crunching there is almost no
> interaction. You can even drop your connect to the net and if
> your web browser doesn't complain about the dropped connection
> it will just keep crunching away.
>
> Now, DISCLAIMER, I'm NOT kicking dirt on anybody or anything.
> As a comparison I tried running the identical test on a Dell
> 2400 with a 2.4 Ghz real P4, not a Celeron. The bus speed to
> memory is faster than the AMD I tried it on and got the 40
> minute figure. The clock is 2.4/2.0, there is almost zero
> video I/O with this test, there is zero hard drive activity,
> from what I can tell, it doesn'use much memory to run.
>
> But the Dell took almost 60 minutes. Repeat, I'm not criticizing
> ANYBODY. But I'm really confused why it wouldn't take more
> like 33 minutes. There were no other jobs running on either
> machine (but that doesn't seem to matter a great deal), both
> were running XP, Home on the Dell, Pro on the AMD. I can't
> figure out why it seems somewhere like half the speed I would
> expect. It is even slower than the 52 minutes quoted for the
> P4 above, but if I compare the clock rates those don't look
> wildly out of line with each other.
>
> I had a pro check the BIOS info on the Dell and he agrees
> that it is a real P4, not a celeron. The only thing I've been
> able to find that is different thus far is that the Dell is
> running Java 2 from Sun and the AMD is running Microsoft Java.
> I haven't taken the leap trying to swap Java's yet.
>
> I never had any intention of turning this into bragging about
> "mine is faster than yours" or criticizing either brand.
> But I'm wondering if there is something wrong with the Dell.
> I did the usual virus and spyware checks, etc. Nothing.
> Is it possible that this particular Java app just runs slower
> on P4's than on AMD's? This certainly isn't the sort of
> streaming video crunching or massive floating point calcs
> where the P4 might shine. Or maybe there is some other
> explanation that I haven't figured out yet. Any ideas would
> be greatly appreciated.
>
> And I'm wondering where I should go from my AMD 2000. All
> my time is spent sitting inside Mathematica doing symbolic
> crunching, other than this little factoring problem came
> up and the new version of elliptic curve factoring code
> in Mathematica isn't ready yet. Few can afford multiple
> CPU Mathematica licenses, I can't. So I am thinking of
> the AMD 64's, Wolfram has included specific optimizations
> to take advantage of 64 bit CPU's now. If it were feasible
> it would be cheaper to just have 4 cheap AMD 2600's for the
> price of a fast 64 bit system today.
>
> Thanks for any suggestions, looking for > 2x current speeds.<
I think your'e right. Looking at the meter on winxp reveals little going
over the phone line. I also ran benchmarks on the CPU and found the xp2000
much faster in both integer and fpu tests. Mine beats the xp in the memory
benchmark but the cpu performance seems to be the key for this particular
application.
Perhaps the same would hold in Mathcad. My copy of Mathcad is v2 (DOS) so
it's not a candidate for comparison.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram