Synthetic Benchmarks

Our Nocona server was setup in a remote location with little access, so we had limited time to run as many real world benchmarks as we are typically accustomed to. Fortunately, there are multitudes of synthetic benchmarks that we can use to deduce information quickly and constructively.

Sieve of Atkin (primegen)

Primegen is an older, but still useful library for generating prime numbers in order using the Sieve of Atkin. We compiled the Bernstein implementation by simply running "make". We ran the program as so:

# time ./primes 1 100000000000 > /dev/null

primegen 0.97

We found the benchmark to be extremely reliable and we replicated our figures continually with less than 1% difference.

Super Pi

We ran the Linux compilation of Super Pi 2.0, which is a closed source application. We are not aware of which optimizations are compiled with the program and we are prohibited from redistributing the binaries. Please download the latest binaries from ftp://pi.super-computing.org/Linux. We ran the command:

# ./super_pi 20

Below is the program's output of calculation time in number of seconds.

Super Pi 2.0

After re-running the program several times, our benchmarks never deviated outside of 1%. In a mathematical operation-only situation, the Intel processor has outpaced the AMD offering twice now.

Content Creation Synthetic Benchmarks (continued)
Comments Locked

275 Comments

View All Comments

  • Accord99 - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link

    The hardware IOMMU is for devices that do not natively support 64-bit addressing, typically these are EIDE controllers, sound cards, USB controllers. So if you do a lot of I/O and have >4GB of memory you may see performance degradation. However, 64-bit SCSI cards, gigabit network controllers do support 64-bit addressing and the issue does not affect them at all. The latest SATA controller may also avoid the problem.

    And it is a chipset issue, not a CPU one. Intel could release a new chipset with a hardware IOMMU.
  • DrMrLordX - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link

    That's cool. I'd like to see how the Opteron 150 does. Heck, even the 3800+ would be interesting. Either way, it'll be a good competition.
  • xlax - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link

    Not a big deal on the choice of hardware; it was just in there for reference anyway. Derek and I are working on an Opteron test as we speak. Gonna work some of the other little changes in the new review as well.

    Kristopher

    hopefully some benchmarx.....and a lot less bs synthetix....
  • KristopherKubicki - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link

    Not a big deal on the choice of hardware; it was just in there for reference anyway. Derek and I are working on an Opteron test as we speak. Gonna work some of the other little changes in the new review as well.

    Kristopher
  • DrMrLordX - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link

    Agreed, the 3.6F P4 is not marketed against the 3500+. It's marketted against the 3800+.

    Kristopher, why are you so dismayed by people complaining about your choice in hardware? You picked the wrong AMD CPU. All the other flaws of your article aside, that flaw caught my eye first and affected my view of the entire article. The remarks in the conclusion clinched it.

    I don't want you to think you're being "flamed" when I, or others, complain about the CPU comparison. If you want the AMD cpu poised to compete with the 3.6F, you want the 3800+, not the 3500+. If you want the competitor for the 3.6 Nocona, it's the Opteron 150/250/850. The competitor for the top-of-the-line EE cpu(which I believe is currently the 3.4, and will later be the 3.73) is the FX-53.

    The 3500+ is the "cheap" CPU for socket 939 and nothing more.
  • xlax - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link

    Hmmmmm, usually dont see this much action on ur reviews. Typically most of us like to see real benchies, not synthetics. Somebody get me a cold beer....thanx...anyways, we all know how sythetics can be optimized for a desired result. Lets see some real benchies. I usually like to read ur reviews cuz they have a balanced feel to them. This one smells.....I think maybe all these luv letters reflect the same and perhaps that is y u have been getting so much feedback. Pleased dont turn into THG, give us the real stuff, not the fluff.

    ps, synthetics dont mean @#!% to gamers and u know that.
  • Drayvn - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link

    When i hear that the 3500+ is a good comparison to the 3.6f, i think that is wrong, in fact shouldnt it be that u should find what Intel are aiming the 3.6f at AMDs line.

    3500+ cant be very well compared to something that has come out after itself....

    maybe the 3.6f was comparing itself to some other cheap maybe?
  • fifi - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link

    what I objected to are sentiments such as

    "Again Thanks for the early release, it really and truly helped. I hope these fanboy's don't affect you decision to post early numbers in the future."

    what did it "really and truly" help? creating more flame bait in a quiet neighbourhood?

    if AMD is as much a litigious bast*rd like SCO (see SCO vs IBM/Red Hat/Novell/Daimler-Chrysler/Autozone) or Intel (see Intel vs 7intel and other tidbits with "intel" and "intel inside" trademarks) or Microsoft (see MS vs mikerowesoft.com), then they would be sending out CAD to AT for publishing bogus numbers, not to mention threats of libel and so on. And in this case, AT is not even in the right, eventhough it's clear it was just some mix up of the numbers (except that stupid conclusion...).

    sure, if he ends up correcting it and does it properly, then he deserves the commendations. But it doesn't change the fact that it was screwed up in the first place, and to release numbers that looked strange even to a layman like me, without checking it thoroughly first is not a good thing for AT's reputation.

    It just seemed like it was done in a hurry as if trying to rush out of the doors before anybody else does.
  • tfranzese - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link

    Too little has been done to correct the matter to deserve much thanks IMO.

    fifi is spot on. There are times it's polite to say thank you for a job well done, but this isn't the time.
  • Viditor - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link

    fifi - "But he screws up major and we are supposed to THANK him for screwing up?"

    No. We thank him for dealing with the inumerable flames over a mistake and being professional enough to correct them.

    We also thank him because he works hard at this and probably gets paid substantially less than that garbage collector you alluded to!

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now