PDA

View Full Version : SuperPI 32M - Windows vs Linux



tiborrr
03-02-2007, 03:22 AM
Testbed:
- Intel C2D E6600 @ 465x9 = 4185MHz
- 2x512MB D9-GMH @ 465 4-4-4-12-5-25
- ASUS P5B Deluxe
- WinXP SP2, some finetuning & tweaking done
- Gentoo Linux (2.6.18 kernel) - zero tweaks, for 24/7 usage

All in all, setup wasn't overclocked to the limits and the latencies weren't tightened at all.
Let's check how did the 32M SuperPI test ran on both Windows, where it ran in native mode, and Linux, where it ran in emulated mode via 'Wine' emulator. The results are quite interesting as you can see from the screenshots below:

Windows XP SP2:
http://shrani.si/files/spi4185winuqcl.jpg

Linux 2.6.18 - emulation:
http://shrani.si/files/spi4185linuqeo.jpg

P.S.: I have already repeated the benchmark twice in Linux and got better result (cca. 13min 24.8s). What's interesting is the first and the very last pass, which vary greatly from OS to OS. I'll try to tweak both Wine and SuperPI and try to get the last pass run as fast as any other. I think it's the problem with writing the results, so if i can speed this up the results will be fenomenal :cool:

http://shrani.si/files/grafuqli.jpg

massman
03-02-2007, 09:18 AM
Strange ... Linux used to be a lot faster. Can someone test with an older cpu? I'm pretty sure the result will be completely different.

SLi_dog
03-06-2007, 04:17 PM
Strange ... Linux used to be a lot faster. Can someone test with an older cpu? I'm pretty sure the result will be completely different.
hmm...that's what I seem to remember too???

Massman, is linux allowed for the hwbot SuperPi competition? :)

stealth17
03-24-2007, 11:57 AM
Try the native linux version.

ftp://pi.super-computing.org/Linux/super_pi.tar.gz

For a 1m run the command would be:


./super_pi 20

Also I've seen gains of 2sec+ when running without X.

kiwi
03-24-2007, 12:09 PM
Sorry but running appz through wine is NOT linux

Too bad there is no SP mod client on linux. You can only try what stealth17 suggested

Ten
03-31-2007, 11:51 PM
Try the native linux version.

ftp://pi.super-computing.org/Linux/super_pi.tar.gz


Can you upload it on speedyshare or smthing because i think ftp is down atm.

kemo
04-01-2007, 12:13 AM
IMO super pi shouldn't be allowed on Linux
1) we all use windows so we need fair comparison
2) it is a lot easier to fool the pi @ Linux

dinos22
04-01-2007, 12:50 AM
you should see how fast linux is in 1M ;) :D

show me how many Windows XP machines can do this with E6600 conroe B1 stepping :D


i did 12.7xx on last reboot at 3GHz

took a screenshot of this one

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/2593/snapshot3cq8.jpg (http://img134.imageshack.us/my.php?image=snapshot3cq8.jpg)





32M times are not that great but 1M oh boy

stealth17
04-01-2007, 08:41 AM
IMO super pi shouldn't be allowed on Linux
1) we all use windows so we need fair comparison
2) it is a lot easier to fool the pi @ Linux

I disagree with your number first reason. It is no different then people using Server 03 or Windows 2000 just because they are faster in one type of Pi then another.

As for number two, yes, that is a problem. I wish it was like the Super Pi Mod so we didn't have to worry about cheaters.

stealth17
04-01-2007, 08:47 AM
Can you upload it on speedyshare or smthing because i think ftp is down atm.

Sure thing

http://www.theoverclocked.com/hosting/custom

GTeng
05-27-2007, 08:12 PM
IMO super pi shouldn't be allowed on Linux
1) we all use windows so we need fair comparison
2) it is a lot easier to fool the pi @ Linux

LOL just WOW. I am having a hard time deciding which of these two statements is the dumbest. You can go back to your kindergarten OS now ;)

ANYWAY.... native linux superpi 1M benchies are about 3 seconds faster than Windows XP in my box :cool:

dinos22
05-27-2007, 08:32 PM
LOL just WOW. I am having a hard time deciding which of these two statements is the dumbest. You can go back to your kindergarten OS now ;)


you comment makes you no different :shrug:

Vapor
05-27-2007, 08:33 PM
LOL just WOW. I am having a hard time deciding which of these two statements is the dumbest. You can go back to your kindergarten OS now ;)

ANYWAY.... native linux superpi 1M benchies are about 3 seconds faster than Windows XP in my box :cool:1) Welcome to XS :toast:
2) YGPM :nono:
3) both his points are valid....A) the results from Linux are so different that it's essentially not even the same benchmark, thus can't be used for competitive benching. B) it's a lot easier to cheat with [the appearance of] Linux....whether that be via VM or other means.

dinos22
05-27-2007, 08:37 PM
1) :toast:
2) :nono:
3)

:ROTF:

MuffinFlavored
05-27-2007, 08:45 PM
This is interesting.

I was considering just throwing Linux onto a hard drive and booting into it for this reason.

I think my overclocks are squandered by the fact that alot of my overclocks POST, but they do not boot into Windows.

So, this would be considered 'unstable' in my terms. As, I can not even get into my operating system.

I want to see if I can boot at higher speeds into Linux.

I would expect Linux to be slower because, I get that sluggish feel with the operating system, with my rather, non-sluggish system. And yes, I did have video drivers installed. :P

I used Linux for quite a while, but, for just Firefox and Pidgin, Windows is just faster. In terms of Firefox. Maybe not statically, but definitely in overall feel and general page loading. And a lot of plugins aren't out for Linux in terms of Firefox.

EDIT: I would just put my voltage at 1.5v, boot into Windows at stock, and then overclock at operating-system level, but nTune returns a 1608 installation error (which I googled and could not solve), ClockGen increase my RAM with FSB, and my RAM is so terrible it is funny. With my FSB at 487, I just leave my RAM at 900 5-5-5-15. And SetFSB doesn't support the nForce chipsets. If there is a way to un-link the RAM from the FSB in terms of increasing in ClockGen with the 650i SLI chipset, please inform me.

dinos22
05-27-2007, 08:49 PM
the trouble is that everyone is benching Spi XS mod 1.5 on windows and it makes for easy comparison

once you start benching uncommon OSes it's hard to know how much is hardware and how much software related and most people will not bother to figure out linux just to bench one app

nfm
05-27-2007, 09:29 PM
This is just silly comparison, you are emulating dude. We can take some sort of pi algorithm (other than superpi and one that is open), compile it with gcc under linux and mingw under windows with same cpu flags and optimizations, pair it with properly configured kernel and there you go.

kemo
05-27-2007, 10:02 PM
LOL just WOW. I am having a hard time deciding which of these two statements is the dumbest. You can go back to your kindergarten OS now ;)

ANYWAY.... native linux superpi 1M benchies are about 3 seconds faster than Windows XP in my box :cool:

Thank you :toast:

massman
05-27-2007, 11:25 PM
hmm...that's what I seem to remember too???

Massman, is linux allowed for the hwbot SuperPi competition? :)

No, it wouldn't be fair at all

GTeng
06-03-2007, 10:01 AM
1) Welcome to XS :toast:
2) YGPM :nono:
3) both his points are valid....A) the results from Linux are so different that it's essentially not even the same benchmark, thus can't be used for competitive benching. B) it's a lot easier to cheat with [the appearance of] Linux....whether that be via VM or other means.

:rolleyes: What you call cheating I call more efficient computing just because you can't compare it to a Winblows benchmark doesn't mean any of his point make any f-ing sense. For us Linux users who actually give a damn about number crunching performance for work/research this does mean a lot. In fact at the same clock speed I get about 20% improved performance in Linux over all in number crunching.

GTeng
06-03-2007, 10:06 AM
you comment makes you no different :shrug:

You got a little brown something in your nose, pull your head out of it.....

Vapor
06-03-2007, 10:21 AM
:rolleyes: What you call cheating I call more efficient computing just because you can't compare it to a Winblows benchmark doesn't mean any of his point make any f-ing sense. For us Linux users who actually give a damn about number crunching performance for work/research this does mean a lot. In fact at the same clock speed I get about 20% improved performance in Linux over all in number crunching.Yes, Linux is faster in SuperPi....that's not the cheating part. We're just saying that they're incomparable.

The cheating comment about the Linux SuperPi is that it's just EASIER to cheat in the Linux version than it is in the Windows version....just another reason why we don't acknowledge those scores as official.

If people want to have a Linux SuperPi competition...by all means go ahead, it'd probably be fun with the challenges in in-OS OCing that Linux presents. BUT, under no condition will those results be considered for the overall SuperPi WR.


You got a little brown something in your nose, pull your head out of it.....
Ugh, YGPM, again

kemo
06-03-2007, 10:50 AM
You got a little brown something in your nose, pull your head out of it.....

Still it makes no difference :shrug:

afireinside
06-03-2007, 10:52 AM
:rolleyes: What you call cheating I call more efficient computing just because you can't compare it to a Winblows benchmark doesn't mean any of his point make any f-ing sense. For us Linux users who actually give a damn about number crunching performance for work/research this does mean a lot. In fact at the same clock speed I get about 20% improved performance in Linux over all in number crunching.

We're not doing "efficient computing" here, it's a competition. We all know windows. It's been the standard used since this hobby began. If linux is faster for your work that's great, but this isn't a job. We're far to late into the game to learn a new OS and have every bench recoded. The only person here who's not making "any f-ing sense" is you ;)

Think about it, we have enough problems with cheating accusations as it is on an OS we already understand inside and out. Imagine what would happen when we use an open source OS with TONS of different distros and tons of tweaks we don't know about. How would you tell a highly tweaked version of a fast distro from a flat out cheat?

MarlboroMan
06-03-2007, 11:06 AM
Why linux is easier to cheat?? Nobody gives an example. No concrete evidence on it.


-if you compare superpi (the windows binary) running on linux and on windows , that is total fair! You still have the checksum to validate it.

-Linux is easier to tweak not to cheat. Like optimizing your kernel to run on your processor only.

- If someone there knows about programing a lil bit, that person would know that to hack a compiled binary without having a header or the source is quite difficult on windows. On linux is MORE difficult, because you are "emulating" windows to run this app, so you have to hack the "emulator" first than start to hack the app. 2x more difficult ;)

-You have 10x more hacking tutorial on windows than on linux.

-If linux is easier to cheat, so is strange the fact that linux don't have a single spyware, adware, trojan or "bad boy virus". This stuff are all HACKS, CHEATS. Windows have tons of it. Your anti-virus download patch every single day, why? :rolleyes:

-If linux can run the same binary faster than windows, its not linux fault or cheat. Its windows that is bloatware and can't even run well even an app that is compiled to run natively on windows.


So if you are claiming that linux is easier to cheat, first show me something concrete. :up:

kiwi
06-03-2007, 11:08 AM
If there was the same version of SuperPI compiled for both windows and Linux then it would be fair to include Linux. And yes, there are much more tweaks available than on windows. If you don't know them don't blame linux, blame yourself for not knowing how to tweak linux.

afireinside
06-03-2007, 11:15 AM
-If linux is easier to cheat, so is strange the fact that linux don't have a single spyware, adware, trojan or "bad boy virus". This stuff are all HACKS, CHEATS. Windows have tons of it. Your anti-virus download patch every single day, why?

Mac users say the same thing. Compare the user base of OS X, linux, and unix to that of windows. Hackers would rather hit 50 million people than about 50.

MarlboroMan
06-03-2007, 11:51 AM
Mac users say the same thing. Compare the user base of OS X, linux, and unix to that of windows. Hackers would rather hit 50 million people than about 50.

yeah, i'd expect that. Many windows fans say this. BUT...
if hack linux was as easy as hack windows, im sure that linux would have much more cases of virus or other malware than now, and linux would have to use some kind of anti-virus protection too.


the fact is UNIX-like/based OS is much more secure than windows based systems. You can gain root privileges on windows (even vista) just by clicking OK BY DEFAULT :rolleyes:



A good example is Quake 4:
- windows version of quake 4 was hacked not more than 1 week after its release, its quite easy to find some cheat to quake 4 for windows.
- until today, i never heard anything about linux cheat for quake 4.

now i ask you afireinside, which version of quake 4 is more secure of hacking? Which q4 client you thrust more? linux or windows :rolleyes:

hmm :rolleyes:

kemo
06-03-2007, 12:05 PM
^^^
No one here talking about hacking ,, we are talking about cheating ,, getting the PI to run and getting a validated Checksum for a fake score was done on Linux ages before windows and yet the cheat is transparent

Bottom line : faking Super PI on Linux is much easier than windows , i didn't do it my self coz i am a Linux n00b but i have seen people doing it long time ago

MarlboroMan
06-03-2007, 12:09 PM
just prove it ;)

kemo
06-03-2007, 12:19 PM
just prove it ;)
:D :)
You Prove it ,, we have seen many easy transparent fakes VIA Linux ,, show me one that was done by Windows (and wasn't posted by an admin or mod here :p: )

afireinside
06-03-2007, 01:14 PM
yeah, i'd expect that. Many windows fans say this. BUT...
if hack linux was as easy as hack windows, im sure that linux would have much more cases of virus or other malware than now, and linux would have to use some kind of anti-virus protection too.


the fact is UNIX-like/based OS is much more secure than windows based systems. You can gain root privileges on windows (even vista) just by clicking OK BY DEFAULT :rolleyes:



A good example is Quake 4:
- windows version of quake 4 was hacked not more than 1 week after its release, its quite easy to find some cheat to quake 4 for windows.
- until today, i never heard anything about linux cheat for quake 4.

now i ask you afireinside, which version of quake 4 is more secure of hacking? Which q4 client you thrust more? linux or windows :rolleyes:

hmm :rolleyes:

I don't even want to comment... WHO GAMES ON LINUX? Why would anyone want to spend time making cheats for about 3 people when they can make them for every single person who plays the game? What's so hard to see about that?

If linux were used for pi it would be cheated by someone. It would be infinitely easier to code a cheat and play it off as you being a linux guru with secret tweaks than on windows. If you can't understand that then god help you.

MarlboroMan
06-03-2007, 02:45 PM
:D :)
You Prove it ,, we have seen many easy transparent fakes VIA Linux ,, show me one that was done by Windows (and wasn't posted by an admin or mod here :p: )

I asked b4 on last post on the 1st page... but ok... I will not write names here. Don't you remember the first sub 9s superpi 1M? :rolleyes:


anyway, back on thread:

I don't know why you people started to blame linux. I did now a fresh install of windows xp 32bit sp2 to show you guys that if you tweak linux, you can easily beat windows using the same binary.

take a look:
-one shot is a fresh windows install, without any other 3rd party programs but superpi and cpu-z

-the other is slackware 11.0 linux (9 months old installation) with kernel 2.6.20.7 hand-tweaked and an ultra-light window manager.

for me this is nothing wrong, and it can be count as a legit superpi run.

linux beats windows running native windows binary :rofl:

afireinside
06-03-2007, 02:51 PM
Hardly a difference at all for a fully tweaked OS vs stock... Luna theme would probably clear that difference.

MarlboroMan
06-03-2007, 03:04 PM
err...
windows is very tweaked too. it is running on FAT32 file system for faster I/O operations, recovery is off, virtual memory is pointed to a FAT16 file system for faster swap and the C: is desfragmented.

on linux i could tweak a lil more too by compiling a new kernel and using ext2 for file system for better I/O operations.


so both are tweaked, fair comparation.





/// EDIT, tweaked windows: Luna theme + no desktop picture
tweaked linux: kernel clean-up ;)

yeah, linux still beat windows... small difference, but linux still wins.:up:

kiwi
06-04-2007, 06:25 AM
Can you also run 32M with LSC and copy waza on windows?

By the way, I can make a screenshot and you won't even tell which OS I used :p:

kemo
06-04-2007, 06:47 AM
I asked b4 on last post on the 1st page... but ok... I will not write names here. Don't you remember the first sub 9s superpi 1M? :rolleyes:


anyway, back on thread:

I don't know why you people started to blame linux. I did now a fresh install of windows xp 32bit sp2 to show you guys that if you tweak linux, you can easily beat windows using the same binary.

take a look:
-one shot is a fresh windows install, without any other 3rd party programs but superpi and cpu-z

-the other is slackware 11.0 linux (9 months old installation) with kernel 2.6.20.7 hand-tweaked and an ultra-light window manager.

for me this is nothing wrong, and it can be count as a legit superpi run.

linux beats windows running native windows binary :rofl:

:nono: don't play with fire

Vapor
06-04-2007, 06:48 AM
Can you also run 32M with LSC and copy waza on windows?

By the way, I can make a screenshot and you won't even tell which OS I used :p:Granted you don't do any photochopping, I could probably tell ;)