Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MIPS Loongson 3A Benchmarks On Debian

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Well you see how inefficiant amd cpus are. the i7-3770S cpu has got a turbo speed of 3900 (1 core used) and that test is using mainly 1 core (rest is for other parallel tasks). You can easyly see that intel cpus have got more than 30% advantage at the same clock speed. I could oc my cpu, but usually it is fast enough. Asus likes to fix all turbo modes to the same max level (39 with that cpu), which is a tiny bit faster of course. This setting is somehow autoselected as soon as the ram speed is selected manually.

    And do you really think that this MIPS Loongson cpu will have got a similar speed/core?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Kano View Post
      Well you see how inefficiant amd cpus are. the i7-3770S cpu has got a turbo speed of 3900 (1 core used) and that test is using mainly 1 core (rest is for other parallel tasks). You can easyly see that intel cpus have got more than 30% advantage at the same clock speed. I could oc my cpu, but usually it is fast enough. Asus likes to fix all turbo modes to the same max level (39 with that cpu), which is a tiny bit faster of course. This setting is somehow autoselected as soon as the ram speed is selected manually.
      I think different than you for me there are only 2 valid numbers to rate a CPU.
      First of all the over-clock-tweak-speed-up-factor my pc do have 280% speed to the "Base"
      And the Second is the Speed per EURO rate.
      And I'm 100% sure my CPU beat your CPU in both numbers and this is the only valid comparison!
      And only 30% advantage at the same clock speed in 2 years is really poor !
      Its a ridiculous speed-up!

      Originally posted by Kano View Post
      And do you really think that this MIPS Loongson cpu will have got a similar speed/core?
      You should have noticed that I just don't care about single-core speed.
      Because I know you can speed up single-core tasks with multi-core optimizations.
      I will buy a dual-socket Loongson3C CPU system and I'm sure that this 32core system will beat my system right now completely!
      Remember why I think in this way: Even if I only use Firefox to surf in the Internet i use 60 open windows this means 2 windows per core.
      For other people who only use 1-2 Firefox windows to surf in the web a dual-core or quad-core CPU is much better for the same task even if you use ALL multi core-speed-up tricks on the planet.
      And no this does not mean that a single-core is better for single-thread applications in my point of view you need at minimum a dual-core even if you only use single-core applications.

      I can accept a dual-core emulation of a quad-core CPU but i can not accept a single-core emulation of a quad-core even for single-core tasks.
      Some people understand this point and some others do not understand it. but in the end you get a quad-core loongson CPU and not a single-core and then the hard reality will hit these naive people.

      Comment


      • Well i guess you save and restore your tabs. What you mentioned is only valid for firefox up to 12, because with 13 it changed:

        https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo.../releasenotes/

        "Restored background tabs are not loaded by default for faster startup"

        You gain absolutely nothing with more cores anymore for your way of webbrowsing. Only for newly opened ones and those are usually not rendered in parallel all the time. Also you dont have got flash for mips, well in the future you will have to use chrome to get flash, but a few years there will be flash 11.2 for ff as well.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Kano View Post
          Well i guess you save and restore your tabs. What you mentioned is only valid for firefox up to 12, because with 13 it changed:

          https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo.../releasenotes/

          "Restored background tabs are not loaded by default for faster startup"

          You gain absolutely nothing with more cores anymore for your way of webbrowsing. Only for newly opened ones and those are usually not rendered in parallel all the time. Also you dont have got flash for mips, well in the future you will have to use chrome to get flash, but a few years there will be flash 11.2 for ff as well.
          hi thank you for your information i call this a bug can i turn of this option ?
          is this bug also in the google chrome browser ?
          Also this was just a example I use more software than only a web browser.
          this means I'm sure i can use 32 cores

          " Also you dont have got flash for mips"
          who cares? you can use a x86 emulation to run flash.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Kano View Post
            Usually Pentium G860 are faster than your cpu in that test. And whats your cpu? Btw you paid 50 more than i did
            Actually, even Pentium G840 is faster. Just tried this on my system and got 0:54.61. Not bad considering it's 1GHz slower than that B50 and probably uses 120W less to do the same job.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by maldorordiscord View Post
              what arguments? you have no arguments.
              So now you try to ignore my previous posts. Of course you do.

              Sorry, Q, but you lose.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                So now you try to ignore my previous posts. Of course you do.

                Sorry, Q, but you lose.
                There were no arguments without argument against it and the point is you stop bringing new arguments.
                In a strict rhetoric rule-set you lost.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by devius View Post
                  Actually, even Pentium G840 is faster. Just tried this on my system and got 0:54.61. Not bad considering it's 1GHz slower than that B50 and probably uses 120W less to do the same job.
                  good result for a 70 cpu but you still compare your cpu with a 2 year old cpu.
                  65w+120=185 I'm sure my board can not handle 185 watt
                  its a 140watt mainboard.
                  ~140-65=~75 watt
                  but your cpu is a dual-core cpu and my cpu is a quad-core cpu...
                  this means ~75-65w=10Watt.
                  your system is only "10" watt better than my system.

                  overall my system is faster than your dualcore system 14000 mips in 7zip measured in wine with the 7zip windows clind. your system maybe do have 6000-8000 mips...

                  Comment


                  • Are you too stupid to run
                    Code:
                    7z b
                    Result with locked 39 turbo, base 100
                    Code:
                    7-Zip [64] 9.20  Copyright (c) 1999-2010 Igor Pavlov  2010-11-18
                    p7zip Version 9.20 (locale=de_DE.UTF-8,Utf16=on,HugeFiles=on,8 CPUs)
                    
                    RAM size:    7885 MB,  # CPU hardware threads:   8
                    RAM usage:   1701 MB,  # Benchmark threads:      8
                    
                    Dict        Compressing          |        Decompressing
                          Speed Usage    R/U Rating  |    Speed Usage    R/U Rating
                           KB/s     %   MIPS   MIPS  |     KB/s     %   MIPS   MIPS
                    
                    22:   19729   577   3323  19193  |   255778   793   2907  23068
                    23:   21606   657   3351  22014  |   250634   786   2916  22930
                    24:   19841   630   3387  21333  |   249470   793   2917  23141
                    25:   20881   674   3537  23842  |   243943   787   2914  22939
                    ----------------------------------------------------------------
                    Avr:          635   3400  21595               790   2913  23019
                    Tot:          712   3157  22307
                    As you OC your cpu, i did the same. Just compare with
                    Turbo at 43/42/41/40 , Base 105.2 (cpu does not allow direct multiplicator change)
                    Code:
                    7-Zip [64] 9.20  Copyright (c) 1999-2010 Igor Pavlov  2010-11-18
                    p7zip Version 9.20 (locale=de_DE.UTF-8,Utf16=on,HugeFiles=on,8 CPUs)
                    
                    RAM size:    7885 MB,  # CPU hardware threads:   8
                    RAM usage:   1701 MB,  # Benchmark threads:      8
                    
                    Dict        Compressing          |        Decompressing
                          Speed Usage    R/U Rating  |    Speed Usage    R/U Rating
                           KB/s     %   MIPS   MIPS  |     KB/s     %   MIPS   MIPS
                    
                    22:   21620   612   3436  21032  |   263713   782   3040  23783
                    23:   22848   651   3575  23280  |   263828   786   3069  24137
                    24:   22664   670   3635  24368  |   261552   791   3068  24261
                    25:   22303   687   3706  25465  |   258269   793   3064  24287
                    ----------------------------------------------------------------
                    Avr:          655   3588  23536               788   3060  24117
                    Tot:          722   3324  23827
                    Btw. f(50000):
                    Code:
                    30.62user 0.30system 0:31.05elapsed 99PU (0avgtext+0avgdata 1496maxresident)k
                    Last edited by Kano; 07-11-2012, 03:59 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Kano View Post
                      Are you too stupid to run:7z b
                      you should read these articles and try to find the difference:
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupidity
                      After you read these articles you should get the point that your sentence do not make sense at all.
                      But sure you can only get the point if you are a human with intelligence.

                      Apart from that I benchmark more than only 7zip with my method.
                      The requirements are higher!
                      anyway your total number is: 23 827 without the higher requirements of wine and stuff.
                      now calculate the speed per euro (o well I know you never do this because you never pay for your hardware by yourself.)
                      23827/270 =88.24
                      14000/50=280
                      my system is 3,18 times faster per euro than your system. (but you will still claim your system is "faster")

                      You can buy 4000 Intel cpus and its "Faster" in 7zip but its just "stupid" to calculate like this.
                      Anyone who do economical decisions will admit that I'm right.

                      Comment


                      • I do not benchmark wine, thats 32 bit. Forget it.
                        Code:
                        apt-get install p7zip-full
                        Then try yourself.

                        Btw where are your results without ACC and without OC?
                        Last edited by Kano; 07-11-2012, 05:13 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Kano View Post
                          I do not benchmark wine, thats 32 bit. Forget it.
                          Code:
                          apt-get install p7zip-full
                          Then try yourself.
                          Btw where are your results without ACC and without OC?
                          speed is 280% 14000/280% =50 --> 50*100=5000 speed of 100%
                          You can google the result without tweaks by searching a phenomII x2-550 or 555
                          You can also get the price of a x2-550 on ebay its less than ~50€
                          About 32bit vs 64bit in my tests 32bit is faster than 64bit in 7zip.
                          Native tested in 64bit result is:12800
                          I need to buy 1 more ram dimm to get the full 128bit ram interface then the result is better.

                          Comment


                          • As you need luck to unlock 1 or 2 cores (and i definitely know one Kanotix user who could not even unlock a X3 successfully) better compare it to

                            http://geizhals.de/eu/636703

                            Btw. newer amd cpus are usually slower than phenom, so speed/price ratio is even worse. For OC fans with a bit less money there is always the i5

                            http://geizhals.de/eu/580328

                            or

                            http://geizhals.de/eu/761856

                            About your cpu: you have been lucky, but not everybody buys a x2 or x3 cpu and can use it as x4 (or x6). Of course if you can oc it as well then your speed/price ratio is even better. amd fx cpus are a failure by design, usually even phenom x6 is faster when fpu code is used. the cpu+gpu combos are even slower because of the missing L3 cache. If you want to OC much maybe the older snb intel chips are better because they can be cooled more easyly (if you only look at the max frequency). ivb does not oc that well but the architecture is a bit faster, so basically both are equal. If you want to use the gpu then of course ivb is the best choice. i dont think that 200 is too much for a fast cpu. ok, when you want i7 you pay some bucks extra but you are not forced to, when you just want to play with oc. When you compare the most expensive desktop cpus from amd against intel:

                            http://geizhals.de/eu/733920

                            vs

                            http://geizhals.de/eu/761779

                            I would definitely say you get more for your money when you buy intel.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Kano View Post
                              As you need luck to unlock 1 or 2 cores (and i definitely know one Kanotix user who could not even unlock a X3 successfully) better compare it to
                              No you don't need luck because you just buy it online and send it back to get the money back if the cpu do not run @4cores. This is 100% lawful.

                              Originally posted by Kano View Post
                              Btw. newer amd cpus are usually slower than phenom, so speed/price ratio is even worse.
                              Thats right and in my point of view my B50 is better than a FX8150...
                              AMD sell it cheap 140 but its not worth to upgrade from a B50@3,8ghz
                              You need a new main-board ~50-100 to this means you spend 240 for nothing..

                              Originally posted by Kano View Post
                              About your cpu: you have been lucky, but not everybody buys a x2 or x3 cpu and can use it as x4
                              Thats just wrong I'm not lucky you just need to buy it online and then send it back to get the money Back if the cpu do not run at 4cores and high clockspeed.
                              Sure this is a time consuming process.


                              Originally posted by Kano View Post
                              (or x6). Of course if you can oc it as well then your speed/price ratio is even better.
                              Sure you can buy the 960T and unlock it to a X6.
                              And yes a 960T clocks @4ghz or 4.2ghz.
                              Yes you can get nice result if you are willing for the time consuming process by sending the cpu back.

                              Originally posted by Kano View Post
                              amd fx cpus are a failure by design, usually even phenom x6 is faster when fpu code is used.
                              Right they need to sell it very cheap to become relevance in any rational calculation of hardware buying.
                              Even 140 is to high if you need a mainboard to upgrade.

                              Originally posted by Kano View Post
                              the cpu+gpu combos are even slower because of the missing L3 cache.
                              The APUs are a full joke wen it comes to open-source drivers and the power-management.
                              Nothing to say here.
                              I would not buy such a system.



                              Originally posted by Kano View Post
                              If you want to OC much maybe the older snb intel chips are better because they can be cooled more easyly (if you only look at the max frequency). ivb does not oc that well but the architecture is a bit faster, so basically both are equal. If you want to use the gpu then of course ivb is the best choice. i dont think that 200 is too much for a fast cpu. ok, when you want i7 you pay some bucks extra but you are not forced to, when you just want to play with oc. When you compare the most expensive desktop cpus from amd against intel:
                              "ivb" is right for linux users who not want to buy a extra graphic card but only if they do some special work they have to remove the heat-spreader and you need (need means its not worth it if you don't do it) a water-cooling system or better then you overclock it to ~6ghz.
                              then the 200 for the cpu is "cheap"

                              But if you don't want to fight hardcore with the hardware to kill the heat-spreader and if you don't want a water cooling system and if you want a extra graphic card its not worth it.

                              Originally posted by Kano View Post
                              I would definitely say you get more for your money when you buy intel.
                              I don't get your argument you picket the worst example for a AMD CPU ever!!!
                              You get the same result if you pick AMD FX-Series FX-8120, 8x 3.10GHz for 140 and over-clock it.
                              Also you cheat because the FX-8150 is much cheaper: http://geizhals.de/eu/689396 only 172,80
                              Thats a complex question and its only valid to check it if you only count 100% multi-core software.
                              Because the AMD "Bulldozer" CPU lose all single-core benchmarks...
                              If multi-core applications are in use then you can get 4,8ghz with a "bulldozer"
                              The Intel Intel Core i7-3770K run @4,5ghz
                              I think the FX-8120 will get a better performance per euro rating but only for multi-core applications.

                              Anyway the comparison do not have any relevance for me because I would not buy a TPM/Trusted-Computing-System.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by maldorordiscord View Post
                                No you don't need luck because you just buy it online and send it back to get the money back if the cpu do not run @4cores. This is 100% lawful.



                                Thats right and in my point of view my B50 is better than a FX8150...
                                AMD sell it cheap 140 but its not worth to upgrade from a B50@3,8ghz
                                You need a new main-board ~50-100 to this means you spend 240 for nothing..



                                Thats just wrong I'm not lucky you just need to buy it online and then send it back to get the money Back if the cpu do not run at 4cores and high clockspeed.
                                Sure this is a time consuming process.




                                Sure you can buy the 960T and unlock it to a X6.
                                And yes a 960T clocks @4ghz or 4.2ghz.
                                Yes you can get nice result if you are willing for the time consuming process by sending the cpu back.



                                Right they need to sell it very cheap to become relevance in any rational calculation of hardware buying.
                                Even 140 is to high if you need a mainboard to upgrade.



                                The APUs are a full joke wen it comes to open-source drivers and the power-management.
                                Nothing to say here.
                                I would not buy such a system.





                                "ivb" is right for linux users who not want to buy a extra graphic card but only if they do some special work they have to remove the heat-spreader and you need (need means its not worth it if you don't do it) a water-cooling system or better then you overclock it to ~6ghz.
                                then the 200 for the cpu is "cheap"

                                But if you don't want to fight hardcore with the hardware to kill the heat-spreader and if you don't want a water cooling system and if you want a extra graphic card its not worth it.



                                I don't get your argument you picket the worst example for a AMD CPU ever!!!
                                You get the same result if you pick AMD FX-Series FX-8120, 8x 3.10GHz for 140 and over-clock it.
                                Also you cheat because the FX-8150 is much cheaper: http://geizhals.de/eu/689396 only 172,80
                                Thats a complex question and its only valid to check it if you only count 100% multi-core software.
                                Because the AMD "Bulldozer" CPU lose all single-core benchmarks...
                                If multi-core applications are in use then you can get 4,8ghz with a "bulldozer"
                                The Intel Intel Core i7-3770K run @4,5ghz
                                I think the FX-8120 will get a better performance per euro rating but only for multi-core applications.

                                Anyway the comparison do not have any relevance for me because I would not buy a TPM/Trusted-Computing-System.
                                Wrong. Bulldozer is not an 8core Cpu, it's a 4core-2face Cpu. Bulldozer has the same or little more power than a 4core Sandybridge, but also has 80-90% the single thread performance (instead of 50-60% that many think). Thats because the FMA4 and other techniques allow the 8cores to be used by 4treads, so the FMA4 of core1 steals vectors from core2. If I was AMD, I would do 4coresHT instead of 8, with 2*integer and 4*128bit-FMA-vectors instead of 1* and 2* that Bulldozer has (2*logic), that was the original AMD plan with 250 million transistor per Core Instead of 100m/C. Any way the thinking its close to Godson-T.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X