On AMD XP 2800 Barton C37 is 3% - 5% faster. And compared to the offifial binary it's 130% faster.
>Thanks for the confirmation as we are seeing the same 3%-5% gain with C37 on our XP 3000+ over version A36. Doesn't do much for the X2's though....Cheers, Rog.
On AMD XP 2800 Barton C37 is 3% - 5% faster. And compared to the offifial binary it's 130% faster.
>Thanks for the confirmation as we are seeing the same 3%-5% gain with C37 on our XP 3000+ over version A36. Doesn't do much for the X2's though....Cheers, Rog.
Small difference, but don't forget that C37 was made for 386+ processors.
C37 is 3%-5% faster over A36 on my Athlon XP 2600+, too.
And it seems there is a better speed improvement on P4 machines, but i need some time to confirm it.
I think is great to have a highly optimized version using 386 code only. It could be the generic Windows application automatically distributed by the project (in case the Einstein team does not achieve as fast applications due to compiler limitations).
And after that, individual users could manually replace it with a more specific version.
And I suppose that the default use of standard 387 math instrucctions (instead of SSE stuff) could help to reduce numerical precission discrepances, such that we have observed for months between Windows and Linux clients. The validator has now a higher tolerance, but ocasionally some of my linux client results are still rejected...
On AMD XP 2800 Barton C37 is
)
On AMD XP 2800 Barton C37 is 3% - 5% faster. And compared to the offifial binary it's 130% faster.
RE: On AMD XP 2800 Barton
)
>Thanks for the confirmation as we are seeing the same 3%-5% gain with C37 on our XP 3000+ over version A36. Doesn't do much for the X2's though....Cheers, Rog.
RE: RE: On AMD XP 2800
)
Small difference, but don't forget that C37 was made for 386+ processors.
Will the C37 changes be
)
Will the C37 changes be rolled into the A36 tree using modern instructions?
RE: Will the C37 changes be
)
Only serious alternative is the usage of SSE2.
Probably it would be faster on 128-bit SSE engine processors.
Thank you again, Akosf C37
)
Thank you again, Akosf
C37 is 3%-5% faster over A36 on my Athlon XP 2600+, too.
And it seems there is a better speed improvement on P4 machines, but i need some time to confirm it.
I think is great to have a highly optimized version using 386 code only. It could be the generic Windows application automatically distributed by the project (in case the Einstein team does not achieve as fast applications due to compiler limitations).
And after that, individual users could manually replace it with a more specific version.
And I suppose that the default use of standard 387 math instrucctions (instead of SSE stuff) could help to reduce numerical precission discrepances, such that we have observed for months between Windows and Linux clients. The validator has now a higher tolerance, but ocasionally some of my linux client results are still rejected...
C37 is really slower on some
)
C37 is really slower on some intel processors (Pentium-III <5%, Pentium-M <0.3%), the cost of compatibility.
Can somebody tell me a result of AMD K6?
RE: RE: Will the C37
)
Would you be so good to create such a SSE2 version? :)
CU HiNuN
PS: On my XP 2400+ C37 is also slightly faster as A36.
RE: Can somebody tell me a
)
Hmm. Only a result for a K7 650 MHz here:
387: 7500 seconds (http://einsteinathome.org/task/21067840)
C37: 6200 seconds (http://einsteinathome.org/task/21364171)
=> 17% percent faster.
CU HiNuN
RE: Would you be so good to
)
I'm working on it, because of fun.