hwbot multipi - multithreaded superpi (open beta)

[RichBa5tard]

I made a second beta (0.2). Download link will be available shortly. Results will _not_ be comparable to beta 0.1.

I altered the algoritm to consume a lot more memory, and to check the memory for faults. The standard calculation now uses approx 200mb of ram.

The heavier use on memory makes the bonus for having additional cores smaller. I think a second core would give a +50% bonus, a 3th and 4th maybe 20 to 30%. The faster your memory, the more benefit you'll get from having additional cores.

Testrun on my macbook pro:
T2500 (1.86Ghz Core Duo) with 1 core: 3m 07.140s
T2500 (1.86Ghz Core Duo) with 2 cores: 2m 02.754s

download link:
http://www.hwbot.org/download/multipi-0.2.zip

Input highly appreciated!

[Cranox]

2min 15 sec - A64 3800+ venice at 210 x 12 =2520 mhz ( 24/7 settings )

[RichBa5tard]

A bit slower than a Core Duo at 1.86Ghz... seems about right. Thanks.

[kiwi]

Any results Win vs Win64 vs linux? Anyway I will try and see Linux SMP is supposed to be better

EDIT:

OK Run on win, version 0.2
58.937s

e6300 @ 3.3Ghz


Well, I can tweak ram subtimings from Win but no way to do that from Linux
And DS3 bios is a bit buggy as for subtimings

[[XC] leviathan18]

1m50.56s

t2400 stock with 1gb ram (laptop)

[haPpydUde]

Its a nice little program you got there, xeon thats been on for days 2m on the dot, i was surprized it being so close to a c2d im guessing ht helps?

[m0da]

02m 21.016s
specs in sig... still ha

[RichBa5tard]

Its a nice little program you got there, xeon thats been on for days 2m on the dot, i was surprized it being so close to a c2d im guessing ht helps?

So you're running 2 xeons with HT on? 2m seems about right. Thank you.

[RichBa5tard]

1m50.56s

t2400 stock with 1gb ram (laptop)

That's 10sec faster than my stock T2500, but I'm running Mac OSX with a lot of widgets running.... I'll see how it runs on windows.

02m 21.016s
specs in sig... still ha

That's too fast for a P4 at 3.9Ghz. You should be somewhere in the 2m45 - 3m range. Damn : /


The new beta 0.2 seems to produce better results:

6 minutes for a slow singlecore (Amd Turion 1.6Ghz)
4 minutes for a midrange singlecore (P4 3Ghz)
3 minutes for a fast singlecore (core solo 2ghz)
2 minutes for a midrange dual core (core duo 2ghz, X2 @ 2.5ghz, dual xeon 3Ghz)
1 minute for a fast dual core (core duo at 3.5ghz)
45s for a midrange quad core (woodcrest at 3ghz)

Anomalities:
P4 @ 3.9Ghz: 2m21s ? Thats too fast, it should be around 2m45 - 3m.
No P4 dual core results?

[leejsmith]

would it be possible to run it for a set period of time and report on how many calculations performed in that period.
there is another thread someware with this idea and i am not sure who suggested it i thought it was a good idea.

[RichBa5tard]

Yes that's possible, but I believe the popularity of SuperPi is mainly because it's so much fun trying to reach a certain time. You can even explain how superpi works to a computer illiterate.

[alpha0ne]

1M 4.539s as per sig running @ 3GHz

Great program

[hrvojezg00]

your download link doesn`t work, I`d like to try it on my dual dual opteron system
greats

[RichBa5tard]

Sorry, new version, new link:

http://www.hwbot.org/download/multipi-0.2.zip

[leejsmith]

Yes that's possible, but I believe the popularity of SuperPi is mainly because it's so much fun trying to reach a certain time. You can even explain how superpi works to a computer illiterate.

i belive it was based on the idea that soon 1m will be so quick and so 2m will be the new 1m. if it's based on lets say 60 secounds then no matter how fast the cpu the same benchmark can be run.

[RichBa5tard]

i belive it was based on the idea that soon 1m will be so quick and so 2m will be the new 1m. if it's based on lets say 60 secounds then no matter how fast the cpu the same benchmark can be run.

I fully agree, but it wouldn't be as much fun. There are dozens of apps that bench your cpu for x time, but they're not populare, are they?

[leejsmith]

I fully agree, but it wouldn't be as much fun. There are dozens of apps that bench your cpu for x time, but they're not populare, are they?

i know it was awsome when 10 secounds was broke in 1m pi.
perhaps as an option if you have nothing better to do.

[m0da]

P4 550 has HT as well, maybe that's why the time is a bit lower:

[Vapor]

Any chance of a non-java coming out, even if it means no cross-platform comparos? Maybe call it MultiPiW? It'd need to be slightly re-worked to accomodate for Java's slowness, but I imagine it'd really increase popularity.

[dig412]

Any chance of a non-java coming out, even if it means no cross-platform comparos? Maybe call it MultiPiW? It'd need to be slightly re-worked to accomodate for Java's slowness, but I imagine it'd really increase popularity.

Speed doesnt matter as much, as long as it's consistent across platforms. Java makes it much easier to compare a linux and windows system for example.

[leejsmith]

my time 56s

[RichBa5tard]

Any chance of a non-java coming out, even if it means no cross-platform comparos? Maybe call it MultiPiW? It'd need to be slightly re-worked to accomodate for Java's slowness, but I imagine it'd really increase popularity.

Not planning a non java version, no. Why would it increase popularity?

[Vapor]

By eliminating the need to install Java runtime enviro on a bench partition....people already throw fits installing .NET framework for CCC.

I like the cross-platform comparos, but a cut-and-dry version in C would be great for the benching partition. (and we'd all know it couldn't be compared across platforms, but it'd still be great for just our purposes)

Speed doesnt matter as much, as long as it's consistent across platforms. Java makes it much easier to compare a linux and windows system for example.

Of course, but this exact same algorithm in C would be too fast for benching, probably even faster than SPi 1M. Hence the necessary tweaks (if a benching version were made).

btw:

[RichBa5tard]

Still not convinced me not to do it in java. Okay, installing .net sucks. If you really hate to install java that much I can make a bundled version. It wouldn't require a java vm installed, but it would weigh a heavy 30mb, but my stats (hwbot.org) tells me 97.5% of the visitors already have it installed.

Cross platform is a holy grail for me, i'm tired of not being able to bench my linux / mac boxes.

[Kunaak]

I say let them throw fits.
every damn time I been apart of testing some program like this, 90% of overclockers want to strip the program down to nothing, so it fits thier needs alone.

I had no problem downloading java for this...
I dont see why anyone else would.
all I want is functionality.
this is doing great so far... thats all I want to see

one of the things that killed PI-Fast, was that there was about 20 different versions out there, and no version was clearly marked, so if you didn't like your time, just download a different version and try again....
it was frustrating as hell back then to find versions from japan were like 10 seconds faster, and looked exactly like the version I was using...
once people saw all that crap, that benchmark pretty much died.

I think your on the right track so far.