AMD or Intel as well as the memory brand - page 28

New comment
 

Script:

Athlon 64 X2 4200+ @ 1 GB (?), cache 1 MB / DDR2 PC-3200 (?) 3 GB (BLACK_BOX): script ff=77.84 sec*1.0GHz (?) = 77.84;

Xeon W5590 @ 3.47 GHz, cache 1 L2 + 8 L3 / RAM DDR3 PC-10670 12 GB (begemot61): script ff=27.53 sec*3.47GHz = 95.53;

Core 2 Duo Q8200 @ 2.33 GHz, cache 4 MB (?) / RAM 4 GB PC-6400 (forex-k): script ff=46.84 sec*2.33GHz = 109.14;

Pentium Dual CPU E2180 @ 2 GHz, czche 1 MB L2 / RAM 2 GB (kombat): script ff=55.94 sec*2.0GHz = 111.88;

Celeron 900 @ 2.20 GHz, cache 1 MB / DDR2 PC-6400 2 GB (Svinozavr): ff=52.18 sec*2.2GHz = 114.8

Core 2 Duo E7200@2.53, cache 3 MB / 4GB RAM (Mathemat): script ff=46.27 sec*2.53GHz = 117.06;

Opteron 2439 SE @ 2.8 GHz, cache 3 MB L2 + 6 MB L3 / RAM DDR2 4 GB PC-5333 (begemot61): ff=42.33 sec*2.8GHz = 118.52;

Celeron 430 1.8GHz, cache 0.5 MB / DDR2 PC-5333 2 GB (kombat): script ff=68.53 sec*1.8GHz = 123.354;

Core 2 duo 1800 MHz laptop, cache 1 MB (?) / 2 GB (DDR2-667) (keekkenen): script ff=75.77 sec*1.8GHz = 136.39;

Phenom II X3 720 @ 3.72 GHz, cache 1.5 MB L2 + 6 MB L3 / RAM ? (Belford): script ff=37.91 sec*3.72GHz = 141.03;

AMD 5050e @ 2.6GHz, cache 1 MB / RAM 8 GB PC-5970 (four2one): script ff=60 sec*2.6GHz =156;

Athlon 64 X2 6000+ @ 3.01 GHz, cache 2 MB / RAM 3 GB PC-6030 (lea): script ff=52.85 sec*3.01GHz = 159.08;

Athlon X2 3800 (2000 MHz), cache 1 MB / DDR2 PC-5360 2GB RAM (joo): script ff=82.07 sec*2GHz (?) = 164.14;

Athlon 64 X2 4000+ @ 2.1 GHz, cache 1 MB / DDR2 PC-5625 2 GB RAM (skv.): script ff=80.17 sec*2.1GHz = 168.36;

Pentium 4 @ 3 GHz, cache 512 MB / RAM 1.15 GB DDR2 PC-2570 (?) (Dmido): script ff=64.49 sec*3 GHz = 193.47;

Celeron 325 @ 2.53 GHz, cache 256 K / DDR2 PC-6400 1 GB (benik): script ff=103.3 sec*2.53GHz = 261.35;

Pentium 4 670 @ 3.8 GHz, cache 2 MB / DDR2 PC-4266 2 GB (begemot61): script ff=78.57 sec*3.8GHz = 298.57;

 
I have DDR-400 ) I'll post the second test later, but it will definitely take at least 5 min (I gave up on 4, I had no time, so I haven't posted it yet...)
 

Here's the same thing in table form:


Nick Stone RAM Script (ff) Expert (ff)
joo Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (2000 MHz), cache 2x512 KB L2 DDR2 PC-5360 2GB 82.07*2(?)=164.14 310*2=620
keekkenen notebook core 2 duo 1800 MHz, cache 1 MB (?) L2 2 Gb (DDR2-667) 75.77*1.8=136.39
Mathemat Core 2 Duo E7200@2.53, cache 3 MB L2 4GB RAM PC-6400 46.27*2.53=117.06 213*2.53=538.89
Svinozavr Celeron 900 @ 2.20 GHz, cache 1 MB L2 DDR2 PC-6400 2GB 52.18*2.2=114.8 206*2.2=453.2
benik Celeron 325 @ 2.53 GHz, cache 256 K L2 DDR2 PC-6400 1GB 103.3*2.53=261.35 438*2.53=1108.14
begemot61 Pentium 4 670 @ 3.8 GHz, cache 2 MB L2 DDR2 PC-4266 2GB 78.57*3.8=298.57 169*3.8=642.2
kombat Celeron 430 1.8ghts, cache 0.5 MB L2 DDR2 PC-5333 2GB 68.53*1.8=123.354

BLACK_BOX

Athlon 64 X2 4200+ @ 2.2 GHz, cache 2x512 KB L2

DDR1 PC-3200 (?) 3 GB

77.84*2.2=171.25


forex-k Core 2 Duo Q8200 @ 2.33 GHz, cache 2x2 MB L2 RAM 4 GB PC-6400 46.84*2.33=109.14 189*2.33=440.37
Belford

Phenom II X3 720 @ 3.72 GHz, cache 3x512 KB L2 + 6 MB L3

RAM ? 37.91*3.72=141.03 113*3.72=420.36
four2one Athlon 64 X2 5050e @ 2.6 GHz, cache 2x512 KB L2 RAM 4 (8) GB PC-5970 60*2.6=156.0 134*2.6=348.4
skv. Athlon 64 X2 4000+ @ 2.1 GHz, cache 2x512 KB L2 DDR2 PC-5625 2 GB 80.17*2.1=168.36
lea Athlon 64 X2 6000+ @ 3.01 GHz, cache 2x1 MB L2 RAM 3 GB PC-6030 52.85*3.01=159.08
kombat Pentium Dual CPU E2180 @ 2 GHz, cache 1 MB L2 RAM 2 GB 55.94*2.0=111.88
begemot61 6-Core Opteron 2439 SE @ 2.8 GHz, cache 6x512 KB L2 + 6 MB L3 DDR2 4 GB PC-5333 42.33*2.8=118.52 95*2.8=266
begemot61 Xeon W5590 @ 3.47 GHz, cache 4x256 KB L2 + 8 MB L3 DDR3 PC-10670 12GB 27,53*3,47=95.53 62*3.47=215.14
Dmido Pentium 4 @ 3 GHz, cache 512 KB L2 DDR1 PC-3200 1.15 GB
 64.49*3=193.47

315*3 = 945
TorBar Intel Celeron 331 @ 2.66 GHz, cache 256 KB L2

DDR1 (PC-1600?) 1.5GB

 105.49*2.66=280.60 386*2.66=1026.76
imp120 Athlon 64 X2 3800+ @ 2 GHz, cache 2x512 KB L2 DDR1(?) PC-3200 2 GB 90*2.0=180 318*2.0=636
 

The results are strange....maybe the formula for HZ*s is a bit left-handed? Isn't it better to compare just by sec? Although it's clear that it won't give efficiency, but it turns out that overclocked proceses up to about 4 Hz win in speed in sec 4-10, but in the calculation lose purely to their retarded fellows...


Eh, if we could make a table of price*sec, it would be interesting, although AMD X3 or maybe something from old generation would come out on the first place, but Xeon would definitely fall back...

 
Dmido >> :

The results are strange....maybe the formula for HZ*s is a bit left-handed? Isn't it better to compare just by sec? Although it's clear that it won't give efficiency, but it turns out that overclocked processors up to 4 Hz win in speed in sec 4-10, but in the calculation lose purely to inhibited fellows...

We are trying to compare mat-computing technologies and not pure speed. Alas, new Intel's stones are evidently superior to AMD's ones by their script (about four years ago it would have been vice versa).

The only case where AMD has cut in with Intel is Opteron (with 6 cores and lots of cache). Pardon, there is also BLACK_BOX, but not everything is clear there yet.

P.S. And the idea with the "price*sec" table is not bad either.

P.P.S. With your memory type, maybe (PC-6400 or DDR2-400), but what is its real frequency?

 
Yes, Mathemat. It's more convenient to judge.

Dmido писал(а) >>

The results are strange....maybe the HZ*s formula is a bit left-handed? Isn't it better to compare just by sec?


It depends on what we're evaluating. If you are strictly following the topic of this thread (who is better: AMD or Intel), then this formula is the best. It shows you which company's stones are better on average.

But if you are trying to figure out from the results what configuration is better to choose for yourself, this ff is just like an average temperature in a hospital. Basically, it doesn't tell you anything. So, what do I care if the Athlon 64 X2 4200+ BLACK_BOX shows better performance results than Xeon W5590? It's clear that Xeon is better. :-)

 
PC-3200 DDR1(!)-400 this old expensive crap... (I don't know what the CPU-z showed, but the memory is exactly the same
 

Benik, don't forget, the calculations here are done on one core. And also dispel the myth that until now the maths is only AMD :)

А вот если по результатам пытаться сообразить какую конфигурацию лучше выбрать самому, то этот ff, конечно, как средняя температура по больнице.

I'm not arguing. It depends on what your budget is. You can do as I did, upgrading an ancient Pentium 1.8 GHz with 0.5 MB L2 (Northwood) along with memory (and motherboard) for 7.5k. HDD hasn't done it yet, it's too old...

2 Dmido: corrected my RAM and added the result to the EA.

 
Mathemat >> :


>> thank you for the effort.



 
Mathemat >> :

And at the same time we are dispelling the myth that until now mathematics is only AMD :)


It does not disperse very well. :-)

You may notice that according to the results of the script new Intel stones crushed AMD:

1st place - BLACK_BOX Athlon 64 X2 4200+.

2nd place - begemot61 Xeon W5590

3rd place - forex-k Core 2 Duo Q8200

4th place - kombat Pentium Dual CPU E2180

5th place Svinozavr Celeron 900

6th place Mathemat Core 2 Duo E7200

7th place kombat Celeron 430

And only 8th (!) place begemot61 Opteron 2439 SE

...


And by expert the situation is almost the opposite:

1st place - four2one AMD 5050e

2nd place - Belford Phenom II X3 720

3rd place - Mathemat Core 2 Duo E7200

...

Is it not because the AMD-compatible rocks are better in mathematics?


P.S. Oh, dear, I didn't notice that BLACK_BOX is from AMD camp. But, ok. I'll keep my rating. I did it for nothing... :-)

1...212223242526272829303132333435...94
New comment