> Well I guess I'll have to slack along at 2 WU's every 10 to 10 1/2 hours with
> that Computer, oh wait, that beats almost 100% of the CPU's out there anyway
> ... hehehe "Evil Grin" ... ;)
That's what my FX-53 does. ;)
=========
:P ... I know Heff, I keep an eye on what your FX-53 is doing at the Sites for comparison against my Intel's since their about the same Original Clock speed ... ;) My ThunderBox with do 2 every 9 hr's :O ...
> Thanks for the table, ric.
> Interesting that Northwoods are doing better than Presshot; or is it the
> impact of memory (e.g. DDR vs. DDR2)?
>
Can you imagine, Honza, how many times it takes to collect all those informations? even over VNC.
And it's called PRESCOTT, even the are getting HOT while pressing..
All are "legacy" DDR (the older 266, the amd mostly 333 or 400, all 3 GHz+ DDR400, 2 sticks.
The fastest AMD 2400 is running with 333 MHz DDR, the mainboard allowed +33 MHz in memory speed
> Can you imagine, Honza, how many times it takes to collect all those
> informations? even over VNC.
Yes, i can imagine.
I would suggest to at have a look at BOINCView - a handy tool for monitoring/controlling BOINC Clients over LAN. It is very usefull for collecting processing times as well. See at http://boincview.amanheis.de/ for more.
I showed that the P4 had a significant advantage over the A64, at least with LHC@home... But ever since I started crunching with Einstein I noticed that the P4 lost it's edge. This thread just confirms what I thought. My two overclocked 2800 are now crunching at about the same speed.
> @ric
>
> my P4 has two WUs at ten Hours, with HT
Uli,
didn't mentioned it, but all Intels, able to HT, are set to work with HT and taking 2 active slots at one time.
I write slot, because mostly all of *my* hosts are attached to several project and running several WUs at one time, 2 are active.
On the same system, in point of view daily troughtput, there is a visible gain
with the HT enabled versus NON HT enabled. This can be seen in every project.
The actual CPU speed (memory timing and much more) can be mesured with tools,
one I like much is the freeware cpuZ (Web page cpuZ).
On the other side, it smells a bid that the Einstein Applications are "better optimized" for AMD based hosts??
> Well I guess I'll have to
)
> Well I guess I'll have to slack along at 2 WU's every 10 to 10 1/2 hours with
> that Computer, oh wait, that beats almost 100% of the CPU's out there anyway
> ... hehehe "Evil Grin" ... ;)
That's what my FX-53 does. ;)
That's what my FX-53 does.
)
That's what my FX-53 does. ;)
=========
:P ... I know Heff, I keep an eye on what your FX-53 is doing at the Sites for comparison against my Intel's since their about the same Original Clock speed ... ;) My ThunderBox with do 2 every 9 hr's :O ...
AMD! It frustrates me a
)
AMD!
It frustrates me a bid, how well the older AMDs are performing versus the
no so cheap Prescotts!
[pre]
CPU Type runing speed Time/Wu ratio/day
AMD 2100 1.76 GHz 06:59:44 3.43
AMD 1200 1.236 GHz 10:14:00 2.35
AMD 1400 1.375 GHz 09:01:11 2.66
Intel 1800 1.800 GHz 12:50:37 1.87
AMD 2400 2.017 GHz 06:20:00 3.64
AMD 2400 2.129 GHz 05:46:32 4.16
AMD 2400 2.036 GHz 06:05:31 3.78
AMD 2500 2.205 GHz 05:33:30 4.32
AMD 2500 2.289 GHz 05:46:17 4.16
AMD 2600 2.249 GHz 05:29:00 4.38
Intel 2660 2.136 GHz 08:36:52 2.79
AMD 2700 2.204 GHz 05:34:22 4.31
AMD 2800 2.225 GHz 05:29:23 4.2
Intel Prescott 3.0 GHz 2.992 GHz 13:25:57 3.58
Intel Northwood 3.0 GHz 3.354 GHz 10:34:15 4.54
Intel Northwood 3.0 GHz 2.996 GHz 11:41:07 3.94
Intel Northwood 3.0 GHz 2.999 GHz 11:30:34 4.16
Intel Prescott 2.8 GHz 2.787 GHz 14:24:12 3.34
Intel Prescott 3.2 GHz 3.443 GHz 11:38:14 4.12
Intel Prescott 3.2 GHz 3.601 GHz 11:01:48 4.36
Intel Prescott 3.2 GHz 3.488 GHz 11:21:44 4.22
[/pre]
but together, they run fine...
Thanks for the table,
)
Thanks for the table, ric.
Interesting that Northwoods are doing better than Presshot; or is it the impact of memory (e.g. DDR vs. DDR2)?
> Thanks for the table,
)
> Thanks for the table, ric.
> Interesting that Northwoods are doing better than Presshot; or is it the
> impact of memory (e.g. DDR vs. DDR2)?
>
Can you imagine, Honza, how many times it takes to collect all those informations? even over VNC.
And it's called PRESCOTT, even the are getting HOT while pressing..
All are "legacy" DDR (the older 266, the amd mostly 333 or 400, all 3 GHz+ DDR400, 2 sticks.
The fastest AMD 2400 is running with 333 MHz DDR, the mainboard allowed +33 MHz in memory speed
If possible, using memory speed 2.0
BTW same situation at LHC last year.
> Can you imagine, Honza, how
)
> Can you imagine, Honza, how many times it takes to collect all those
> informations? even over VNC.
Yes, i can imagine.
I would suggest to at have a look at BOINCView - a handy tool for monitoring/controlling BOINC Clients over LAN. It is very usefull for collecting processing times as well. See at http://boincview.amanheis.de/ for more.
Very interesting thread!
)
Very interesting thread! Some time ago on the overclockers.com forum I posted a comparison between my two 2800, an A64 and P4c.... http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=334902&highlight=lhc+time
I showed that the P4 had a significant advantage over the A64, at least with LHC@home... But ever since I started crunching with Einstein I noticed that the P4 lost it's edge. This thread just confirms what I thought. My two overclocked 2800 are now crunching at about the same speed.
@ric my P4 has two WUs at
)
@ric
my P4 has two WUs at ten Hours, with HT
and my Athlon64 3.200+ takes about 5:30 for every WU
and my XP 2.500+ takes 6:30 for every WU
only for Info
Greetings from Germany NRW
Ulli
[img]http://boinc.mundayweb.com/one/stats.php?userID=380 [/img]
> my P4 has two WUs at ten
)
> my P4 has two WUs at ten Hours, with HT
> and my Athlon64 3.200+ takes about 5:30 for every WU
> and my XP 2.500+ takes 6:30 for every WU
makes me curious whether HT is really an advantage for E@H ...
BTW, what's the clock of your P4?
Steffen
> @ric > > my P4 has two WUs
)
> @ric
>
> my P4 has two WUs at ten Hours, with HT
Uli,
didn't mentioned it, but all Intels, able to HT, are set to work with HT and taking 2 active slots at one time.
I write slot, because mostly all of *my* hosts are attached to several project and running several WUs at one time, 2 are active.
On the same system, in point of view daily troughtput, there is a visible gain
with the HT enabled versus NON HT enabled. This can be seen in every project.
The actual CPU speed (memory timing and much more) can be mesured with tools,
one I like much is the freeware cpuZ (Web page cpuZ).
On the other side, it smells a bid that the Einstein Applications are "better optimized" for AMD based hosts??