Axlegear
09-28-2006, 10:28 PM
(Forgive me if this is the wrong forum. I'm new to this forum! It's also 12:30am and I haven't slept..)
Okay, so here's the deal. We have all these new-age CPUs, and all this overclocking.
How much of an effect does it REALLY have?
Is a 1.8 GHz Venice really ten times faster than a 600 MHz Celeron?
I've read that a 3.2 GHz P4 is only 30% faster than a 486, at scanning the encyclopedia britannica in and out of itself, though i'm skeptical of that.
So let's put this to the test.
I have several reasons for wanting this information.
1) So I can identify which CPUs are superior in price:performance for very specific applications (namely F@H)
2) So I can work out the best way to build a Yatta rig for Price:Performance:Power Consumption. (IE, would having a bunch of dirt-cheap, low power consumption VIA's work, or a ton of dual cores, or lots of junker P2's and P3's, or etc.)
3) Personal curiosity.
So, here's what I want gathered. Using a tool which measures raw GFlops, I plan to harvest all the processors I can. Everyone's help is much appreciated!
Of all the tools i've used, the only accurate one I know of that gives a raw read of FLOPs and MIPs is SiSoft's SANDRA. If anyone has a better suggestion, i'm open to hearing it.
here's what I want:
MFLOPs
MIPs
CPU (plus Family, Stepping, Revision, etc. and also especially the Cores, L1 and L2 cache, and instruction sets. Basically, screenshot CPU-Z. =) )
Stock Core/FSB frequencies
Current Core/FSB frequencies
Power Consumption (if you know it)
I promise to only use this information for good! (If F@H isn't good, what is?)
Mostly, i'm just curious if, say, a 10% boostin Core/FSB actually translates to a 10% performance boost, or even 5%. I've never noticed much of a performance boost in all but video card OCing, even with extreme levels (like my old XP3200's 333 FSB to 355)
Note1: We know the core frequency's effect is really quite subjective and situational. For example, Via's microprocessors are up to 1.2 GHz (maybe more, that was some time ago) but perform on-par with a 533 MHz Celeron. So, yeah.
Note2: I plan to actually bench a few processors and system of my own shortly too, not just for MFLOPs but also for F@H and monitor them closely. I plan to compare both MFLOPs reported by SANDRA or similar, to real-world F@H performance. I plan to be quite concisive and give the most accurate results I can produce to acheive a real answer.
Okay, so here's the deal. We have all these new-age CPUs, and all this overclocking.
How much of an effect does it REALLY have?
Is a 1.8 GHz Venice really ten times faster than a 600 MHz Celeron?
I've read that a 3.2 GHz P4 is only 30% faster than a 486, at scanning the encyclopedia britannica in and out of itself, though i'm skeptical of that.
So let's put this to the test.
I have several reasons for wanting this information.
1) So I can identify which CPUs are superior in price:performance for very specific applications (namely F@H)
2) So I can work out the best way to build a Yatta rig for Price:Performance:Power Consumption. (IE, would having a bunch of dirt-cheap, low power consumption VIA's work, or a ton of dual cores, or lots of junker P2's and P3's, or etc.)
3) Personal curiosity.
So, here's what I want gathered. Using a tool which measures raw GFlops, I plan to harvest all the processors I can. Everyone's help is much appreciated!
Of all the tools i've used, the only accurate one I know of that gives a raw read of FLOPs and MIPs is SiSoft's SANDRA. If anyone has a better suggestion, i'm open to hearing it.
here's what I want:
MFLOPs
MIPs
CPU (plus Family, Stepping, Revision, etc. and also especially the Cores, L1 and L2 cache, and instruction sets. Basically, screenshot CPU-Z. =) )
Stock Core/FSB frequencies
Current Core/FSB frequencies
Power Consumption (if you know it)
I promise to only use this information for good! (If F@H isn't good, what is?)
Mostly, i'm just curious if, say, a 10% boostin Core/FSB actually translates to a 10% performance boost, or even 5%. I've never noticed much of a performance boost in all but video card OCing, even with extreme levels (like my old XP3200's 333 FSB to 355)
Note1: We know the core frequency's effect is really quite subjective and situational. For example, Via's microprocessors are up to 1.2 GHz (maybe more, that was some time ago) but perform on-par with a 533 MHz Celeron. So, yeah.
Note2: I plan to actually bench a few processors and system of my own shortly too, not just for MFLOPs but also for F@H and monitor them closely. I plan to compare both MFLOPs reported by SANDRA or similar, to real-world F@H performance. I plan to be quite concisive and give the most accurate results I can produce to acheive a real answer.