PAR2 Multithreaded Archive Recovery Performance

Par2 is an application used for reconstructing downloaded archives. It can generate parity data from a given archive and later use it to recover the archive

Chuchusoft took the source code of par2cmdline 0.4 and parallelized it using Intel’s Threading Building Blocks 2.1. The result is a version of par2cmdline that can spawn multiple threads to repair par2 archives. For this test we took a 708MB archive, corrupted nearly 60MB of it, and used the multithreaded par2cmdline to recover it. The scores reported are the repair and recover time in seconds.

Data Recovery - par2cmdline 0.4 Multithreaded

Microsoft Excel 2007

Excel can be a very powerful mathematical tool. In this benchmark we're running a Monte Carlo simulation on a very large spreadsheet of stock pricing data.

Microsoft Excel 2007 SP1 - Monte Carlo Simulation

The same is true for our Excel Monte Carlo simulation - where there's an Intel optimization, the performance is predictable.

Sony Vegas Pro 8: Blu-ray Disc Creation

Although technically a test simulating the creation of a Blu-ray disc, the majority of the time in our Sony Vegas Pro benchmark is spend encoding the 25Mbps MPEG-2 video stream and not actually creating the Blu-ray disc itself.

Sony Vegas Pro 8 - Blu-ray Disc Image Creation (25Mbps MPEG-2)

More of the same here - the 965 BE is faster than any LGA-775 Intel CPU here, but compared to i7 it's noticeably slower.

Sorenson Squeeze: FLV Creation

Another video related benchmark, we're using Sorenson Squeeze to convert regular videos into Flash videos for use on websites.

Sorenson Squeeze Pro 5 - Flash Video Creation

I'm running out of ways to say that the standings remain unchanged.

WinRAR - Archive Creation

Our WinRAR test simply takes 300MB of files and compresses them into a single RAR archive using the application's default settings. We're not doing anything exotic here, just looking at the impact of CPU performance on creating an archive:

WinRAR 3.8 Compression - 300MB Archive

The standings remain unchanged.

3D Rendering Performance Gaming Performance
POST A COMMENT

58 Comments

View All Comments

  • andrenb91 - Tuesday, August 18, 2009 - link

    amd's only hope to beat the i7s is the istambul core, if it brings istambul to the desktop market, I guess this future cpu can beat some high-end i7 processors, and after some revisions on the deneb core, amd will place it to ''fight'' the i5s leaving the athlon x4 playing against the i3s, but most denebs must be at 95W to be efficient against i5. of course this strategy depends if amd is economically capaple of putting a 300mm squared die in the desktop market...deneb is already too large to compete against the i7!
    Reply
  • Denithor - Friday, August 14, 2009 - link

    You measured performance in video encoding and then power consumption under the same test. Why not take the obvious next step to calculate performance/watt and post those results?

    And I was quite disappointed to see that you posted only about half of each CPU list on each of those charts - a few chips overlap but many do not so we cannot even do the calculation for ourselves except in less than half the cases.
    Reply
  • - Monday, August 17, 2009 - link


    Two things : Intel's SSE extentions are used by everyone, and should be the difference in some of these tests.



    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...

    http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=719">http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=719

    The other disturbing thing is the FarCry benchmark, the writer:

    FarCry 2 is another example of a title well optimized for Intel's architectures and thus we see that the 965BE can't even win against its Q9550 competition. Thankfully for AMD, I do not believe FarCry 2 is representative of the majority of titles on the market.

    I believe this is an example of how SSE extentions deliver; but looking at the game benchmark data closer, we see that all cpu's are comparatively the same even the i7's vs Intel Core ll. Most, if not all vendors optimize in Intels favor

    asH
    Reply
  • - Tuesday, August 18, 2009 - link

    Note the extention differences between the two designs-

    Phenom ll X4 945
    Processor core Deneb
    Core stepping C2
    Manufacturing process 0.045 micron SOI
    758 million transistors
    Die size 243 mm2
    Data width 64 bit
    Number of cores 4
    Floating Point Unit Integrated
    Level 1 cache size ? 4 x 64 KB 2-way associative instruction caches
    4 x 64 KB 2-way associative data caches
    Level 2 cache size ? 4 x 512 KB 16-way associative caches
    Level 3 cache size 6 MB shared 48-way associative cache
    Virtual memory (TB) 256
    Features MMX
    3DNow!
    SSE
    SSE2
    SSE3
    SSE4a ?
    Advanced Bit Manipulation ?
    AMD64 technology ?
    AMD-V (virtualization) technology
    Enhanced Virus Protection ?

    Low power features Cool'n'Quiet 3.0
    CoolCore Technology ?
    Dual Dynamic Power Management ?
    Core C1 and C1E states
    Package S0, S1, S3, S4 and S5 states

    On-chip peripherals Integrated 144-bit DDR2 Memory Controller
    HyperTransport 3 technology

    -----------------------------------------

    Type CPU / Microprocessor
    Family Intel Core i7
    Model number ? I7-920
    CPU part number AT80601000741AA (Q1CM, Q1H7, SLBCH, SLBEJ)
    Box part numbers BX80601920 (SLBCH, SLBEJ)
    BXC80601920 (SLBCH, SLBEJ)
    Frequency (MHz) ? 2667
    Bus speed (MHz) ? 2400 MHz QPI
    Package 1366-land Flip-Chip Land Grid Array (FC-LGA8)
    Socket Socket 1366 (LGA1366)
    Introduction date Nov 17, 2008
    Price at introduction $284

    Architecture / Microarchitecture
    Processor core Bloomfield
    Core steppings C0 (SLBCH)
    D0 (Q1H7, SLBEJ)
    Manufacturing process 0.045 micron Hi-k metal gate technology
    731 million transistors
    Die size 263 mm2
    Data width 64 bit
    Number of cores 4
    Floating Point Unit Integrated
    Level 1 cache size ? 4 x 32 KB instruction caches
    4 x 32 KB data caches
    Level 2 cache size ? 4 x 256 KB
    Level 3 cache size Inclusive shared 8 MB cache
    Features MMX instruction set
    SSE
    SSE2
    SSE3
    Supplemental SSE3
    SSE4.1 ?
    SSE4.2 ?
    EM64T technology ?
    Hyper-Threading technology
    Turbo Boost technology ?
    Virtualization technology
    Execute Disable bit ?

    Low power features Thread C1, C3 and C6 states
    Core C1, C3 and C6 states
    Package C3 and C6 states
    SpeedStep technology ?

    On-chip peripherals Integrated triple-channel DDR3 SDRAM Memory controller
    Quick Path Interconnect



    Reply
  • - Tuesday, August 18, 2009 - link


    Type CPU / Microprocessor
    Family Intel Core 2 Quad
    Model number ? Q9650
    CPU part number AT80569PJ080N (QHGF, SLB8W)
    Box part numbers BX80569Q9650 (SLB8W)
    BXC80569Q9650 (SLB8W)
    Frequency (MHz) ? 3000
    Bus speed (MHz) ? 1333
    Clock multiplier ? 9
    Package 775-land Flip-Chip Land Grid Array (FC-LGA8)
    1.48" x 1.48" (3.75 cm x 3.75 cm)
    Socket Socket 775 (LGA775)
    Introduction date Aug 10, 2008
    Price at introduction $530

    Architecture / Microarchitecture
    Processor core Yorkfield
    Core stepping E0 (QHGF, SLB8W)
    Manufacturing process 0.045 micron
    Data width 64 bit
    Number of cores 4
    Floating Point Unit Integrated
    Level 1 cache size ? 4 x 32 KB instruction caches
    4 x 32 KB data caches
    Level 2 cache size ? 2 x 6 MB 12-way set associative caches (each L2 cache is shared between 2 cores)
    Features MMX instruction set
    SSE
    SSE2
    SSE3
    Supplemental SSE3
    EM64T technology ?
    Virtualization Technology
    Execute Disable Bit technology ?
    SSE4.1 ?
    Trusted Execution technology

    Low power features Enhanced SpeedStep technology ?
    Stop Grant state ?
    Halt state
    Extended Halt state
    Extended Stop Grant State
    Sleep state ?
    Deep Sleep state ?
    Deeper Sleep state ?


    http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_2/Intel-Core%20...">http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_2/In...BX80569Q...
    Reply
  • - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    Intel's biggest (only?) advantage is hyperthreading; realize Windows 7 had to be optimized (how much more code?)for hyperthreading..how will Intel's i7's react in an openCL, CPUGPU environment (WARP) compared to Phenoms II's and an ATI graphics card, is it cost efficient(less code) and more efficient (faster) to go with CPUGPU over hyper..Will multicores do away with hyperthreading? These current comparisons on vista or XP do not necessary reflect comparisons on Windows 7 or DirectX 11. staytuned Reply
  • - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    I would also love my excel spreadsheets to have the advantage of CPUGPU...Photoshop too Reply
  • - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    oh yeah, Intels game plan to fight AMD's CPUGPU concept-

    a)license the SLI technology from Nvidia for Nehelam
    b)get Microsoft to optimise Windows 7 for hyperthreading (sidebar-Intel pushes Windows 7 for corporate upgrades- can you say payoff))

    innovative genius

    but in reality they will probably make sure this great technological concept dies, thereby assuring comp's remain in the dark ages for another 10 years
    Reply
  • JumpingJack - Sunday, September 21, 2014 - link

    You really had zero clue what you were talking about .... it is funny to come back in time and re-read all this AMD fanboy nonsense. Very entertaining, thank you for the horrendously great laugh. Reply
  • ash9 - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    "Now once you start throwing in background tasks and look at future titles being more threaded then the picture becomes a little more muddy"

    I dont understand where the writer is going with these conclusions. As CPUGPU or OpenCL begins to take hold, the old comparative model of simply looking at raw speed becomes obsolete, now, overall power can be reduced while concurrent events run parallel in multicores and GPU, thats is where AMD is heading. These comparisons with Vista may not be as eye opening as compared on Windows 7 or DirectX 11, this is where AMD planed to rock and roll from the start.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now