K6-2 475MHz vs. K6-2+ 533MHz

optim · 2004-01-08, 19:39

I have two old laptops:

1. A Toshiba Satellite with AMD K6-2 475MHz CPU and 64MB RAM. It has 32KB of L1 cache.

2. A Sony Vaio with AMD K6-2+ 533MHz CPU and 192MB RAM. It has 32KB of L1 cache and 128KB of L2 cache.

Both laptops run Windows Me.

I benchmarked them with Prime95 23.7.1.

With most of the FFT sizes, the toshiba laptop seems to be a bit faster than the Sony laptop!!! How do you explain this?

The only reason I can think of is the software environment: Both run WinME but the Toshiba has a fresh installation without any installed programs. Sony Vaio has a 2 or 3-year old WinME installation with lots of programs such as Norton Antivirus and Internet Security. Also, toshiba runs the English version of WinME and Sony runs the Italian version.

do you think that the software environment can cause the difference in the benchmark? or is there some hardware problem with my Sony?

See the results:

TOSHIBA:

[Thu Jan 08 21:06:58 2004]
Compare your results to other computers at http://www.mersenne.org/bench.htm
That web page also contains instructions on how your results can be included.

AMD-K6(tm) 3D processor
CPU speed: 473.97 MHz
CPU features: RDTSC, MMX
L1 cache size: 32 KB
L2 cache size: 0 KB
L1 cache line size: 32 bytes
L2 cache line size: 0 bytes
L1 TLBS: 128
Prime95 version 23.7, RdtscTiming=1
Best time for 384K FFT length: 477.649 ms.
Best time for 448K FFT length: 576.396 ms.
Best time for 512K FFT length: 638.758 ms.
Best time for 640K FFT length: 849.960 ms.
Best time for 768K FFT length: 1033.080 ms.
Best time for 896K FFT length: 1246.757 ms.
Best time for 1024K FFT length: 1392.348 ms.
Best time for 1280K FFT length: 1789.583 ms.
Best time for 1536K FFT length: 2153.252 ms.
Best time for 1792K FFT length: 2585.679 ms.
Best time for 2048K FFT length: 2900.549 ms.

SONY VAIO:

[Thu Jan 08 21:02:41 2004]
Compare your results to other computers at http://www.mersenne.org/bench.htm
That web page also contains instructions on how your results can be included.

AMD-K6(tm)-III Processor
CPU speed: 531.79 MHz
CPU features: RDTSC, MMX
L1 cache size: 32 KB
L2 cache size: 128 KB
L1 cache line size: 32 bytes
L2 cache line size: 32 bytes
L1 TLBS: 128
Prime95 version 23.7, RdtscTiming=1
Best time for 384K FFT length: 484.670 ms.
Best time for 448K FFT length: 580.350 ms.
Best time for 512K FFT length: 645.525 ms.
Best time for 640K FFT length: 852.958 ms.
Best time for 768K FFT length: 1027.537 ms.
Best time for 896K FFT length: 1236.899 ms.
Best time for 1024K FFT length: 1390.976 ms.
Best time for 1280K FFT length: 1812.934 ms.
Best time for 1536K FFT length: 2205.511 ms.
Best time for 1792K FFT length: 2672.867 ms.
Best time for 2048K FFT length: 3030.534 ms.

Thank you,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Optim

E_tron · 2004-01-08, 19:56

i think that the sony might have integrated video. Can you tell if it does? Integrated video taxes your CPU and system memory(which would explain the slow down). Systems with a dedicated video card (like the Radeon and GeForce cards) run p95 faster.

Try lowering your video resolution and color setting, then bench again. If you notice a big increase in speed, then your sony must have integrated video.

optim · 2004-01-08, 23:22

Toshiba has a 4MB S3 PCI video card with dedicated memory.

Sony has a 8MB Trident AGP video card with shared memory (so 192mb ram - 8mb for video = 184mb actual ram).

since Sony has a shared memory video card, I suspect that this may cause the mysterious slowdown.

E_tron · 2004-01-12, 06:08

sounds about right.

My Compaq 1700T notebook has a ATi Mobility Radeon with 8Megs of dedicated memory. It can share up to 32megs of system memory, however p95 performance suffers when i turn it on. I won't even tell you about 3D performance, because the chip doesn't have a T&L engine

.

2004-01-08, 19:39	#1
optim Nov 2003 European Union 150₈ Posts	K6-2 475MHz vs. K6-2+ 533MHz I have two old laptops: 1. A Toshiba Satellite with AMD K6-2 475MHz CPU and 64MB RAM. It has 32KB of L1 cache. 2. A Sony Vaio with AMD K6-2+ 533MHz CPU and 192MB RAM. It has 32KB of L1 cache and 128KB of L2 cache. Both laptops run Windows Me. I benchmarked them with Prime95 23.7.1. With most of the FFT sizes, the toshiba laptop seems to be a bit faster than the Sony laptop!!! How do you explain this? The only reason I can think of is the software environment: Both run WinME but the Toshiba has a fresh installation without any installed programs. Sony Vaio has a 2 or 3-year old WinME installation with lots of programs such as Norton Antivirus and Internet Security. Also, toshiba runs the English version of WinME and Sony runs the Italian version. do you think that the software environment can cause the difference in the benchmark? or is there some hardware problem with my Sony? See the results: TOSHIBA: [Thu Jan 08 21:06:58 2004] Compare your results to other computers at http://www.mersenne.org/bench.htm That web page also contains instructions on how your results can be included. AMD-K6(tm) 3D processor CPU speed: 473.97 MHz CPU features: RDTSC, MMX L1 cache size: 32 KB L2 cache size: 0 KB L1 cache line size: 32 bytes L2 cache line size: 0 bytes L1 TLBS: 128 Prime95 version 23.7, RdtscTiming=1 Best time for 384K FFT length: 477.649 ms. Best time for 448K FFT length: 576.396 ms. Best time for 512K FFT length: 638.758 ms. Best time for 640K FFT length: 849.960 ms. Best time for 768K FFT length: 1033.080 ms. Best time for 896K FFT length: 1246.757 ms. Best time for 1024K FFT length: 1392.348 ms. Best time for 1280K FFT length: 1789.583 ms. Best time for 1536K FFT length: 2153.252 ms. Best time for 1792K FFT length: 2585.679 ms. Best time for 2048K FFT length: 2900.549 ms. SONY VAIO: [Thu Jan 08 21:02:41 2004] Compare your results to other computers at http://www.mersenne.org/bench.htm That web page also contains instructions on how your results can be included. AMD-K6(tm)-III Processor CPU speed: 531.79 MHz CPU features: RDTSC, MMX L1 cache size: 32 KB L2 cache size: 128 KB L1 cache line size: 32 bytes L2 cache line size: 32 bytes L1 TLBS: 128 Prime95 version 23.7, RdtscTiming=1 Best time for 384K FFT length: 484.670 ms. Best time for 448K FFT length: 580.350 ms. Best time for 512K FFT length: 645.525 ms. Best time for 640K FFT length: 852.958 ms. Best time for 768K FFT length: 1027.537 ms. Best time for 896K FFT length: 1236.899 ms. Best time for 1024K FFT length: 1390.976 ms. Best time for 1280K FFT length: 1812.934 ms. Best time for 1536K FFT length: 2205.511 ms. Best time for 1792K FFT length: 2672.867 ms. Best time for 2048K FFT length: 3030.534 ms. Thank you, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Optim

2004-01-08, 19:56	#2
E_tron Sep 2002 Austin, TX 3·11·17 Posts	i think that the sony might have integrated video. Can you tell if it does? Integrated video taxes your CPU and system memory(which would explain the slow down). Systems with a dedicated video card (like the Radeon and GeForce cards) run p95 faster. Try lowering your video resolution and color setting, then bench again. If you notice a big increase in speed, then your sony must have integrated video.

2004-01-08, 23:22	#3
optim Nov 2003 European Union 150₈ Posts	Toshiba has a 4MB S3 PCI video card with dedicated memory. Sony has a 8MB Trident AGP video card with shared memory (so 192mb ram - 8mb for video = 184mb actual ram). since Sony has a shared memory video card, I suspect that this may cause the mysterious slowdown.

2004-01-12, 06:08	#4
E_tron Sep 2002 Austin, TX 3×11×17 Posts	sounds about right. My Compaq 1700T notebook has a ATi Mobility Radeon with 8Megs of dedicated memory. It can share up to 32megs of system memory, however p95 performance suffers when i turn it on. I won't even tell you about 3D performance, because the chip doesn't have a T&L engine .