Perpetual benchmark thread... - Page 35

Xyzzy · 2008-11-05, 04:07

Quote:

What about from the aspect of GIMPS performance, throughput, etc?

Vista Basic is available in 64-bit. It lacks some of the fancy "Aero" GUI effects so it may be faster. More expensive versions of Vista just add on features. You can upgrade up the chain if you want once the OS is installed.

We read somewhere that the network part of Vista Basic is less sophisticated than the more expensive versions but we can't find a link to back that up.

We have Vista Basic (64-bit) on a laptop, with the "Classic" interface, and it works very reliably.

We would prefer to run Linux but on our laptop, no matter how much we tweak it, we cannot get it to sleep or hibernate reliably. (And believe us, we have spent countless hours on this issue!)

It really hurts because everything else on the laptop works with Linux. And we're not talking about via restricted drivers either. Straight Debian works OOTB.

The darn thing just goes "double maverick" when told to sleep or hibernate.

S485122 · 2008-11-05, 06:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by petrw1

I'm pretty much sold on the idea of 64 Bit Vista (I only shudder slightly as I type this).

If I do so is there any noticeable GIMPS benefit to having MORE THAN 4GB of RAM (DDR2-1066)?

I know of some gamers using Vista 64 bits : they say there are no problems.

About the memory, at the moment 2GB is enough for Pime95 v25.7 (32 and 67 bits) : because of a bug it will not accept allocation of more than 1703 MB. When that bug is fixed 8GB or more will be usefull during the memory intensive phases (P-1 2 and ECM...) For that reason I still run one CPU on a quadcore with Prime95 v24.14.

Jacob

starrynte · 2008-11-06, 02:42

how do you run a benchmark WITHOUT prime95 submitting results automatically to primenet? (prime95 v25.7)

petrw1 · 2008-11-06, 05:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by S485122

I know of some gamers using Vista 64 bits : they say there are no problems.

About the memory, at the moment 2GB is enough for Pime95 v25.7 (32 and 67 bits) : because of a bug it will not accept allocation of more than 1703 MB. When that bug is fixed 8GB or more will be usefull during the memory intensive phases (P-1 2 and ECM...) For that reason I still run one CPU on a quadcore with Prime95 v24.14.

Jacob

I has surmised that most ECM tests have stopped at 4,294,000,000 because that is the 32 bit limit but with a 64 bit OS and more memory available that could be MUCH higher.

gdf · 2008-11-06, 10:02

Just installed V25.7 (upgraded from V24.x)

Code:

Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 2.80GHz
CPU speed: 300.00 MHz, 2 cores
CPU features: RDTSC, CMOV, Prefetch, MMX, SSE, SSE2
L1 cache size: 16 KB
L2 cache size: 1 MB
L1 cache line size: 64 bytes
L2 cache line size: 128 bytes
TLBS: 64
Prime95 32-bit version 25.7, RdtscTiming=1
Best time for 768K FFT length: 26.076 ms.
Best time for 896K FFT length: 31.651 ms.
Best time for 1024K FFT length: 36.140 ms.
Best time for 1280K FFT length: 44.623 ms.
Best time for 1536K FFT length: 54.022 ms.
Best time for 1792K FFT length: 64.489 ms.
Best time for 2048K FFT length: 72.079 ms.
Best time for 2560K FFT length: 96.052 ms.
Best time for 3072K FFT length: 115.435 ms.
Best time for 3584K FFT length: 138.142 ms.
Best time for 4096K FFT length: 154.372 ms.
Best time for 5120K FFT length: 196.196 ms.
Best time for 6144K FFT length: 249.801 ms.
Best time for 7168K FFT length: 299.634 ms.
Best time for 8192K FFT length: 331.630 ms.
Timing FFTs using 2 threads.
Best time for 768K FFT length: 15.539 ms.
Best time for 896K FFT length: 18.181 ms.
Best time for 1024K FFT length: 21.830 ms.
Best time for 1280K FFT length: 24.538 ms.
Best time for 1536K FFT length: 29.307 ms.
Best time for 1792K FFT length: 34.487 ms.
Best time for 2048K FFT length: 39.034 ms.
Best time for 2560K FFT length: 50.853 ms.
Best time for 3072K FFT length: 62.487 ms.
Best time for 3584K FFT length: 76.587 ms.
Best time for 4096K FFT length: 89.447 ms.
Best time for 5120K FFT length: 121.796 ms.
Best time for 6144K FFT length: 136.877 ms.
Best time for 7168K FFT length: 173.027 ms.
Best time for 8192K FFT length: 200.139 ms.
Best time for 58 bit trial factors: 9.880 ms.
Best time for 59 bit trial factors: 9.914 ms.
Best time for 60 bit trial factors: 9.792 ms.
Best time for 61 bit trial factors: 9.863 ms.
Best time for 62 bit trial factors: 13.488 ms.
Best time for 63 bit trial factors: 13.509 ms.
Best time for 64 bit trial factors: 16.144 ms.
Best time for 65 bit trial factors: 16.241 ms.
Best time for 66 bit trial factors: 16.005 ms.
Best time for 67 bit trial factors: 16.258 ms.

Not bad for a 300MHz???? machine ?

Jeff Gilchrist · 2008-11-06, 17:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by starrynte

how do you run a benchmark WITHOUT prime95 submitting results automatically to primenet? (prime95 v25.7)

I didn't think the client did submit it automatically. You need to copy and paste the benchmark info from your results.txt file into a form on the v5 server for it to appear on the PrimeNet server.

sdbardwick · 2008-11-06, 17:55

Left to its own devices, v25.7 automatically submits benchmark data to PrimeNet; just did one on my laptop.

James Heinrich · 2008-11-06, 23:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdbardwick

Left to its own devices, v25.7 automatically submits benchmark data to PrimeNet

Somewhat related is a bug I have noticed in the v5 server:
http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpos...&postcount=161
This only applies if a full benchmark is enabled (via override setting in prime.txt), so really shouldn't affect anybody but us weirdos who like to break things

Meikel · 2008-11-12, 22:48

I can't believe it, but it seems like I am the first one to post a test with a brand-new Core i7 here...

The machine is brand new, no overclocking whatsoever. 6 GB of RAM installed (3x2GB DDR3-1066), Win Vista 64Bit.

I wonder, why the benchmark does not try to start 4 threads on 4 physical CPUs - it stubbornly uses 4 threads on two physical CPUs (and two hyperthreaded ones) - and all 4 real cores only get used with 8 threads.

This way, the "sweet spot" seems to be 6 cores on 3 cpus...

George, should you search for someone to try out some special tweaks maybe for SSE4.2 or the way the Core i7 has its three levels of cache organized ... don't hesitate to contact me!

Code:

Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU         940  @ 2.93GHz
CPU speed: 2940.03 MHz, 4 hyperthreaded cores
CPU features: RDTSC, CMOV, Prefetch, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE4
L1 cache size: 32 KB
L2 cache size: 256 KB, L3 cache size: 8064 KB
L1 cache line size: 64 bytes
L2 cache line size: 64 bytes
TLBS: 64
Prime95 64-bit version 25.7, RdtscTiming=1
Best time for 768K FFT length: 13.368 ms.
Best time for 896K FFT length: 16.293 ms.
Best time for 1024K FFT length: 18.486 ms.
Best time for 1280K FFT length: 23.668 ms.
Best time for 1536K FFT length: 28.368 ms.
Best time for 1792K FFT length: 34.041 ms.
Best time for 2048K FFT length: 38.716 ms.
Best time for 2560K FFT length: 50.189 ms.
Best time for 3072K FFT length: 60.043 ms.
Best time for 3584K FFT length: 72.395 ms.
Best time for 4096K FFT length: 81.989 ms.
Best time for 5120K FFT length: 107.426 ms.
Best time for 6144K FFT length: 128.328 ms.
Best time for 7168K FFT length: 148.590 ms.
Best time for 8192K FFT length: 167.032 ms.
Timing FFTs using 2 threads on 1 physical CPUs.
Best time for 768K FFT length: 6.689 ms.
Best time for 896K FFT length: 8.195 ms.
Best time for 1024K FFT length: 9.917 ms.
Best time for 1280K FFT length: 11.875 ms.
Best time for 1536K FFT length: 14.864 ms.
Best time for 1792K FFT length: 18.063 ms.
Best time for 2048K FFT length: 19.861 ms.
Best time for 2560K FFT length: 25.788 ms.
Best time for 3072K FFT length: 31.210 ms.
Best time for 3584K FFT length: 38.233 ms.
Best time for 4096K FFT length: 41.931 ms.
Best time for 5120K FFT length: 54.641 ms.
Best time for 6144K FFT length: 65.475 ms.
Best time for 7168K FFT length: 79.814 ms.
Best time for 8192K FFT length: 90.862 ms.
Timing FFTs using 4 threads on 2 physical CPUs.
Best time for 768K FFT length: 7.477 ms.
Best time for 896K FFT length: 8.506 ms.
Best time for 1024K FFT length: 11.261 ms.
Best time for 1280K FFT length: 11.120 ms.
Best time for 1536K FFT length: 13.407 ms.
Best time for 1792K FFT length: 16.011 ms.
Best time for 2048K FFT length: 18.202 ms.
Best time for 2560K FFT length: 24.070 ms.
Best time for 3072K FFT length: 30.140 ms.
Best time for 3584K FFT length: 35.505 ms.
Best time for 4096K FFT length: 39.085 ms.
Best time for 5120K FFT length: 50.311 ms.
Best time for 6144K FFT length: 61.976 ms.
Best time for 7168K FFT length: 75.375 ms.
Best time for 8192K FFT length: 84.356 ms.
Timing FFTs using 6 threads on 3 physical CPUs.
Best time for 768K FFT length: 5.492 ms.
Best time for 896K FFT length: 5.965 ms.
Best time for 1024K FFT length: 8.925 ms.
Best time for 1280K FFT length: 7.579 ms.
Best time for 1536K FFT length: 9.484 ms.
Best time for 1792K FFT length: 11.080 ms.
Best time for 2048K FFT length: 12.399 ms.
Best time for 2560K FFT length: 15.691 ms.
Best time for 3072K FFT length: 18.883 ms.
Best time for 3584K FFT length: 22.388 ms.
Best time for 4096K FFT length: 26.680 ms.
Best time for 5120K FFT length: 32.753 ms.
Best time for 6144K FFT length: 43.160 ms.
Best time for 7168K FFT length: 53.001 ms.
Best time for 8192K FFT length: 63.023 ms.
Timing FFTs using 8 threads on 4 physical CPUs.
Best time for 768K FFT length: 5.892 ms.
Best time for 896K FFT length: 6.615 ms.
Best time for 1024K FFT length: 8.571 ms.
Best time for 1280K FFT length: 7.954 ms.
Best time for 1536K FFT length: 9.800 ms.
Best time for 1792K FFT length: 12.616 ms.
Best time for 2048K FFT length: 13.749 ms.
Best time for 2560K FFT length: 16.434 ms.
Best time for 3072K FFT length: 18.823 ms.
Best time for 3584K FFT length: 23.083 ms.
Best time for 4096K FFT length: 28.770 ms.
Best time for 5120K FFT length: 33.957 ms.
Best time for 6144K FFT length: 44.094 ms.
Best time for 7168K FFT length: 54.124 ms.
Best time for 8192K FFT length: 63.830 ms.
Best time for 58 bit trial factors: 2.534 ms.
Best time for 59 bit trial factors: 2.538 ms.
Best time for 60 bit trial factors: 2.854 ms.
Best time for 61 bit trial factors: 2.989 ms.
Best time for 62 bit trial factors: 3.492 ms.
Best time for 63 bit trial factors: 4.391 ms.
Best time for 64 bit trial factors: 4.673 ms.
Best time for 65 bit trial factors: 4.860 ms.
Best time for 66 bit trial factors: 4.872 ms.
Best time for 67 bit trial factors: 4.746 ms.

Meikel · 2008-11-12, 23:04

Hi, it's me again. I've now switched off hyperthreading in the BIOS - the benchmarking now thinks, that i have two hyperthreaded cores. This is wrong, of course: I have four "full" cores now.

Still, this gives me the fastest results yet:

Code:

Compare your results to other computers at http://www.mersenne.org/bench.htm
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU         940  @ 2.93GHz
CPU speed: 2940.07 MHz, 2 hyperthreaded cores
CPU features: RDTSC, CMOV, Prefetch, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE4
L1 cache size: 32 KB
L2 cache size: 256 KB, L3 cache size: 8064 KB
L1 cache line size: 64 bytes
L2 cache line size: 64 bytes
TLBS: 64
Prime95 64-bit version 25.7, RdtscTiming=1
Best time for 768K FFT length: 12.747 ms.
Best time for 896K FFT length: 15.277 ms.
Best time for 1024K FFT length: 17.934 ms.
Best time for 1280K FFT length: 23.013 ms.
Best time for 1536K FFT length: 28.270 ms.
Best time for 1792K FFT length: 33.592 ms.
Best time for 2048K FFT length: 37.665 ms.
Best time for 2560K FFT length: 47.850 ms.
Best time for 3072K FFT length: 58.709 ms.
Best time for 3584K FFT length: 70.034 ms.
Best time for 4096K FFT length: 79.401 ms.
Best time for 5120K FFT length: 100.429 ms.
Best time for 6144K FFT length: 121.148 ms.
Best time for 7168K FFT length: 145.074 ms.
Best time for 8192K FFT length: 163.836 ms.
Timing FFTs using 2 threads on 1 physical CPUs.
Best time for 768K FFT length: 6.676 ms.
Best time for 896K FFT length: 7.966 ms.
Best time for 1024K FFT length: 9.456 ms.
Best time for 1280K FFT length: 11.804 ms.
Best time for 1536K FFT length: 14.461 ms.
Best time for 1792K FFT length: 17.122 ms.
Best time for 2048K FFT length: 19.235 ms.
Best time for 2560K FFT length: 24.964 ms.
Best time for 3072K FFT length: 30.479 ms.
Best time for 3584K FFT length: 36.404 ms.
Best time for 4096K FFT length: 41.065 ms.
Best time for 5120K FFT length: 51.963 ms.
Best time for 6144K FFT length: 62.756 ms.
Best time for 7168K FFT length: 75.391 ms.
Best time for 8192K FFT length: 85.677 ms.
Timing FFTs using 4 threads on 2 physical CPUs.
Best time for 768K FFT length: 4.953 ms.
Best time for 896K FFT length: 5.564 ms.
Best time for 1024K FFT length: 7.762 ms.
Best time for 1280K FFT length: 6.416 ms.
Best time for 1536K FFT length: 7.598 ms.
Best time for 1792K FFT length: 8.918 ms.
Best time for 2048K FFT length: 10.136 ms.
Best time for 2560K FFT length: 13.041 ms.
Best time for 3072K FFT length: 15.907 ms.
Best time for 3584K FFT length: 19.533 ms.
Best time for 4096K FFT length: 21.483 ms.
Best time for 5120K FFT length: 27.949 ms.
Best time for 6144K FFT length: 34.438 ms.
Best time for 7168K FFT length: 42.808 ms.
Best time for 8192K FFT length: 51.298 ms.
Best time for 58 bit trial factors: 2.533 ms.
Best time for 59 bit trial factors: 2.536 ms.
Best time for 60 bit trial factors: 2.837 ms.
Best time for 61 bit trial factors: 2.981 ms.
Best time for 62 bit trial factors: 3.467 ms.
Best time for 63 bit trial factors: 4.313 ms.
Best time for 64 bit trial factors: 4.600 ms.
Best time for 65 bit trial factors: 4.794 ms.
Best time for 66 bit trial factors: 4.752 ms.
Best time for 67 bit trial factors: 4.729 ms.

stars10250 · 2008-11-13, 15:55

Thanks much for the numbers, and please keep them coming! I have some questions...

While the timing numbers for employing various threads is interesting, isn't one of the biggest questions the ability of 4 cores to accomplish work simultaneously on 4 separate exponents? I don't understand how to interpret the benchmark results of 4 threads all working on the same FFT compared to 4 threads working on 4 unique FFTs. Don't we all want to use a quad-core chip to calculate 4 exponents (or maybe 8 with hyperthreading) simultaneously rather than just 1 exponent as fast as possible? I guess what I'm getting at is I'd like to know if the i7 deals better with the memory bottle-neck that people reported with existing quad-core chips running 4 exponents (users reported about 3 cores-worth of performance when running all 4 cores).

Your result of ~50 ms for a 2560K FFT is consistent with another post I saw, but not as good as I was hoping for. My E8500 already gives me this performance level (with its admittedly much larger L2 cache but with only 2 cores). However, if i7 can maintain this across 4 cores simultaneously then it would beat the "3 cores worth of performance" seen on current quads.

Lastly, do the listed performance specs make you guys want to run out and buy an i7, or would better results (and price) be had by overclocking the existing line of hardware. I'm leaning toward the latter.

2008-11-06, 17:55	#381
sdbardwick Aug 2002 North San Diego County 685₁₀ Posts	Left to its own devices, v25.7 automatically submits benchmark data to PrimeNet; just did one on my laptop. Last fiddled with by sdbardwick on 2008-11-06 at 17:55

2008-11-13, 15:55	#385
stars10250 Jul 2008 San Francisco, CA 11001001₂ Posts	Thanks much for the numbers, and please keep them coming! I have some questions... While the timing numbers for employing various threads is interesting, isn't one of the biggest questions the ability of 4 cores to accomplish work simultaneously on 4 separate exponents? I don't understand how to interpret the benchmark results of 4 threads all working on the same FFT compared to 4 threads working on 4 unique FFTs. Don't we all want to use a quad-core chip to calculate 4 exponents (or maybe 8 with hyperthreading) simultaneously rather than just 1 exponent as fast as possible? I guess what I'm getting at is I'd like to know if the i7 deals better with the memory bottle-neck that people reported with existing quad-core chips running 4 exponents (users reported about 3 cores-worth of performance when running all 4 cores). Your result of ~50 ms for a 2560K FFT is consistent with another post I saw, but not as good as I was hoping for. My E8500 already gives me this performance level (with its admittedly much larger L2 cache but with only 2 cores). However, if i7 can maintain this across 4 cores simultaneously then it would beat the "3 cores worth of performance" seen on current quads. Lastly, do the listed performance specs make you guys want to run out and buy an i7, or would better results (and price) be had by overclocking the existing line of hardware. I'm leaning toward the latter. Last fiddled with by stars10250 on 2008-11-13 at 15:57

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Perpetual "interesting video" thread...	Xyzzy	Lounge	43	2021-07-17 00:00
LLR benchmark thread	Oddball	Riesel Prime Search	5	2010-08-02 00:11
Perpetual I'm pi**ed off thread	rogue	Soap Box	19	2009-10-28 19:17
Perpetual autostereogram thread...	Xyzzy	Lounge	10	2006-09-28 00:36
Perpetual ECM factoring challenge thread...	Xyzzy	Factoring	65	2005-09-05 08:16

2008-11-06, 02:42	#377
starrynte Oct 2008 California 2²×59 Posts	how do you run a benchmark WITHOUT prime95 submitting results automatically to primenet? (prime95 v25.7)