Miscellaneous > The Lounge

CPU wars

(1/8) > >>

solemnwarning:
I have written a simple benchmark program in C that will work out how many floating point calculations a UNIX system can do in 10 seconds and attached the source to this post, as the results of several machines Here show, AMD Athlon CPUs pwn and intel sucks, ffs my 2.2GHz Athlon XP did nearly 6x the work of a 3.2GHz P4, and my 1.8GHz Athlon XP does over 4x the work, why do people even buy intel processors when they suck this much?

EDIT: Can admin enable .c, .h, .cpp and .hpp file extentions for upload?

[verwijderd door de beheerder]

piratePenguin:
I get 21,431,390 with my Athlon XP 2600+, but I'm compiling mozilla now so that's not really accurate...
You'd need to make sure all the machines are running basically the same stuff (or the benchmark process mightn't get the same scheduling time). T'wouldn't be a bad idea to make the benchmark log the result in a text file and pass "init=/path/to/benchmark" to the kernel after rebooting. Then the process will run with only the kernel running, and when it's finished you'll have to reset the computer (might even get a kernel panic). Then you can read the result from where you logged it.

They're still not running the same kernel... But it's basically the same.

This benchmark doesn't show that much though.. I somehow doubt Intel chips are this bad overall.........

WMD:
Floating point performance has never been Intel's strength...but these numbers don't seem to make sense as you have them.

Here's my results, anyway...
PowerPC G4 1.5GHz, Mac OS X 10.4.5
32572406
33345288
33165002  (three tries)

I'll get my Pentium 4 done in a little bit.

WMD:
Ok, Pentium 4 2.8GHz, Linux 2.4.29:
16519493
16516455
16002699

Perhaps you should try a benchmark that does integer math, too.

H_TeXMeX_H:
Benchmarks are usually done with games like UT2004 or the like ... floating point will give you different results. I don't really believe them myself, I've seen lots of benchmarks with games like UT2004 and the results do favor AMD, but not like this ... it's a more subtle difference.

Examples: (note that most of these were done on Window$ due to the fact that most games don't run on Linux ... and wine kinda blows)

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/reviews/hardware/processorsmemory/0,39024015,39164010,00.htm

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1854918,00.asp

And with dual-core AMD is definitely superior:
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-9.html?tag=btn

for more just google "AMD Intel benchmark"

Yeah AMD is better in performance ... so I'm thinking of buying one for my next computer ... building will commence in about 1-2 months ... but there is only one thing holding me back from buying AMD as opposed to Intel ... heat management.

I'd like a guarrantee that my processor (I'll buy the best and probably most expensive one available) won't burn if the cooling system fails. (I'm thinking of putting in liquid cooling just cuz fans get clogged with dust so quickly, and it's a pain to clean it ... my GPU fan got clogged and I got random crashes while playing games) From what evidence I've seen Intel does far better in preventing CPU meltdown/burning ... any evidence to the contrary ? I need hard evidence, like articles and benchmarks, not just you telling me AMD has no heat problems whatsoever.

P.S. All articles I've seen on this issue have favored Intel ... and include very nice pictures of burned AMD CPUs and the motherboard damage that incurrs ... no burned Intel CPU pictures at all.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page