[K12OSN] [OT?] Testing CPU's throughput

["Terrell Prudé, Jr."]

Sudev Barar wrote:

>Reading various posts on the list I was wondering how to test the
>processing power of 64 bit vs 32 bit CPU with 64/32 bit OS. To eliminate
>disk IO as influencing factor I ran the attached script that makes
>intensive use of CPU without any IO from disk. There was no other
>processing. The results were:
>1.      64 bit CPU AMD 32 bit 1.8Mhz k12LTSP 4.2       4m 43s
>2.      64 bit CPU AMD 64 bit 1.8Mhz FC3               3m 55s
>3.      32 bit CPU Intel 32 bit 1.8Mhz k12LTSP 3.12    7m 13s
>4.      32 bit CPU Intel 32 bit 2.6Mhz k12LTSP 3.12    5m 1s
>
>Is the conclusion that all things being equal AMD running under 64 bit
>OS would out perform? Definitely cost wise I could buy AMD64 with MSI
>MoBo board cheaper than Intel MoBo with P-IV 2.6. I agree that this may
>not be best bench marking but that is all I could think up.
>Any gurus' with any suggestions.
>  
>

I'm no guru, but over at Tom's Hardware Guide 
(http://www.tomshardware.com/), they ran a rather extensive set of 
tests, both with 64-bit SuSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES) v8 and its 
32-bit counterpart on both single- and dual-Opteron 1.8GHz systems.  
They then ran the same benchmarks on 32-bit SLES v8 on both single- and 
dual-Xeon 2.8 GHz systems.  Then they did their "standard" workstation 
benchmarks under Windows XP Pro.

Running Windows XP, the Xeon systems pulled somewhat ahead, due to 
Intel-specific optimizations in certain proprietary apps.  Running SLES, 
however, produced a far different story.  In 32-bit mode, the Opterons 
pulled a little bit ahead of the Xeons nearly every time.  In 64-bit 
mode, things changed somewhat; the Opterons *demolished* their Xeon 
competitors.  I mean, they just walked all over the Xeons, and remember, 
this is with a 1GHz clock-speed disadvantage.  Since their results and 
yours seem to corroborate each other, this review would be well worth 
your reading; it's under the Processor section.

I am definitely a fan of certain AMD chips, specifically, the Athlon XP 
and the Opteron.  The reason for this is that they just provide better 
bang for your buck.  The Athlon 64 (except the incredibly overpriced FX 
series) doesn't impress me so much, though; I'd rather have an Opteron.  
Intel really should've kept going with their Pentium III Tualatin line; 
that was a really nice, well-performing design, such that even the 
Celeron Tualatins were fast.  Imagine one of *those* at 2+ GHz!

--TP
_____________________
Do you GNU!? <http://www.gnu.org>
Be virus- and spam-free with Free/Open Source Software (FOSS). Check it 
out! <http://www.mozilla.org/thunderbird>