If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Very interesting is the Parallel BZIP2 Compression test which is much faster on my test system. The kernel is basically the same, just the basesystem is Debian 5.0.
Seams to be one of the cases, where the i7 really sucks. Another extreme example of this is the Windows game "Bioshock", where the 3 GHz i7 gets beaten by an 2,33 GHz C2Q. Overall for gaming the 220? Phenom II 940 isn't slower than the 560? Core i7 940...
People, you are missing the idea. What Michael wants you to do is post YOUR results from YOUR setup.
That way, when someone post his from a Q9XXX, you will know. You can't expect Michael to have all those processors.
As soon as I get Phoronix Test Suite installed, I will post.
I agree in the sense of the community generating meaningful results itself; results which can then be compared against each other. But, I think most people here, myself included, were hoping for something in the article to compare it against. After all, not everyone has the same OS configuration, nor Phoronix Test Suite, nor Linux for that matter. What about the audience looking for i7 Linux performance who 1) have never used it, and 2) don't have an i7 but may be considering buying one & installing Linux on that rig (or any single part of that)?
Don't get me wrong. I love the Phoronix Test Suite for what it is, and I'm very grateful to Michael for providing this critical piece of software for free. Also, I have no reason to believe Michael isn't acting with his best intentions. However, I'm with everyone else on this issue: It's hard to make a judgment call with just one chip that's been overclocked.
(tl;dr) Put shortly: Perhaps a follow-up article with community-submitted benches of comparable systems would be something Michael could consider.
just my 2c.
(btw, didn't mean to single you out, gtrawoger. nothing personal!)
meh ... no offense taken. I just thought I'd point out the intent of Michael's providing the command for the test. I actually thought it would be a pretty neat idea to have the community provide some benchmarks from their rigs and have larger pool of stats to pull from.
Now, all we'd need now is a way to make something out of that data.
Also is there a way of disabling HT and trying again? I would love to see the performance gains from this new generation of hyperthreading.
Assuming there is one...
The problem with Hyperthreading on multi-core is the scheduler needs to know which cores are virtual and which are not. As the whole point of hyperthreading is to hide such information...
Virtual cores sounds great in theory, but don't always work out. It is possible to get a scenario where the schedulers mess up and load 4 threads on 2 cores, and the two virtual cores, and leave the other two cores unloaded. This is not a problem once you hit 8+ threads (strictly speaking 7+), or when you only have one seriously heavy load thread, but any where in between there is scope to get it wrong. On a single core system, this is, of course, totally irrelevant as it isn't actually possible to assign processes to the "wrong" core.
If anything, the global test results database is a PITA to navigate. I tend to agree with most folks on here. Benchmarking a single platform is about useless. An existing frame of reference...*some* frame of reference would be nice.