| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Retired Forums
Forum: Member-to-Member Support [Read Only]
Thread: AMD users have an advantage |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 14
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Comparisons:
----------------------------------------Intel P4 1.5 GHz : Processor index 100 (reference computer) AMD at 1.2GHz : Processor index 100 (my home computer, runs all the time in the evenings) Intel P4 2.4 GHz : Processor index: 156 (my work computer, runs around the clock) AMD at 2.1 GHz : Processor index 197 (my colleagues computer, runs only as screen saver) Hmm... Accumulated points will be very different on these machines for the same work load? Maybe the reason is that the "Run as screen saver" means that the program gets 100% power when it actually can work. Whereas running the program all the time, the user consumes some (or all) of the CPU potential just by doing normal work for periods of time. "CPU power per hour", which is probably the basis for calculating the processing power, will be better on the machines running the program as a screen saver only. OR... Is an AMD processor just better equipped for the folding task? [Edit 15 times, last edit by Former Member at Dec 3, 2004 8:44:25 PM] |
||
|
|
David Autumns
Ace Cruncher UK Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Post Count: 11062 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Athlon Users have always known this
----------------------------------------That's because for a given core clock speed the AMD processor is simply more efficient than the intel processor This is why a 3200+ Athlon (meaning equivalent to a 3.2 Ghz P4) only really runs at 2.2Ghz It just gets the same amount of work done as a 3.2 Ghz P4 so the marketing men at AMD call it a 3200+ For us crunchers the CPU battle betwen AMD and Intel is good news Cheers Dave  |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Dave,
I agree with you, but I have my own take on the subject. Instead of looking at throughput efficiency per Ghz, this decade I am most interested in throughput efficiency per Watt. I have long since yawned and stopped paying attention to 'megahurts madness'. Which is why, when I got a niece a computer this year, I equipped it with a graphics card that was really only good enough for the old DX8.0 games. Anything faster required more fans on the card / power connectors. All of which is anathema to me. For home computing, I want a quiet machine that does not interfere with anything else. In fact, I wish that the reviews in my computer magazines would rate graphics cards by power consumption right at the top of the article, so that I could easily rank boards in inverse order of power consumption, with associated price and graphics speed rating. This year I have been recommending Pentium M to my relatives, though my own computer is AMD. |
|||
|
||||
|
David Autumns
Ace Cruncher UK Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Post Count: 11062 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Hi Lawrence
----------------------------------------Yes you're right I don't need a 3200+ to perform day to day tasks even sound recording and video editing are not that demanding. So Word and it ilk there's probably not much difference between a p133 and a 3200+ Oh no I've stated the truth about pc's My only reason for having it is to contribute to a project like this. As I've said in very early posts during the abandoning work units episode we'll probably have to work on Global Warming once we get HPF out of the way. Yesterday the equivalent of 16666 PC's were left on all day if they average out at ~300W's per hour that's 119,995 KWH's just for yesterday. I had to work this out twice because I was alarmed by the result. I hope this is on the high side. Have you seen my answer to this thread http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/forums/wcg/viewthread?thread=788 Toms Harware Guide is a good place to go if you are interested in power usage of the various bit of hardware in your PC. They always publish these kind of figures for CPU's and Graphics Card. They also rate Graphics Cards by for example by frames per second/$ Its a good site All the best Dave |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Thanks, Dave. I have added the site to my Computer Favorites. If it continues to look interesting after I have gone through the site, I will subscribe to the newsletter. [Grin] you know I have piles of paper mags all abaout computers.
Yes, I read your post when it first came out. My own idea is that we need more complete FAQs on the site that can answer the sort of questions people repeatedly ask. The latest issue of New Scientist had a short news entry about the World Community Grid WITHOUT the URL. I assume that the project officials can get a lot of similar publicity out quickly when they want to (only EMPHASIZING that the article should include the URL). I only hope they delay it until we have fairly complete FAQs so that we will not be overwhelmed trying to deal with simple questions. We have a good test sample of the sorts of questions that need answering right now. |
|||
|
||||
|
UNiRAC
Advanced Cruncher US Joined: Dec 2, 2004 Post Count: 134 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Unfortunitly the Powers to be have disabled GOOGle search {of the FORAMZ} [ to save Private info] like, they should not discuss www.grid.org or FoLdInG.StAnFoRd.EdU or even GOOGle-labc-F@H 'Toolbar'.....
----------------------------------------where were we?!?!?!!??!?!?! I want to know when a Wintel effectionado and a LINUX Newbie can get my cheapo WALMART machines to run this <*stuff*> But as far as Freq.AskedQuestions [FAQ for NEWBIES] ... I suggest installing on a EXPENDIBLE FLASH-STICKz[Flash-DRIVE] ,,,, but IF I upgrade to an expensive 2 GiG ram upgrade [$$$$] , then I will deffinaty create a Ram-Drive for a 'Swap/Page'file/drive ,,,, because this app runs less efficient than f@h at Stanford U's protein folding ! opps- sorry for the pizzy-fit   Are You REALLY Computing?  |
|||
|
||||
|
UNiRAC
Advanced Cruncher US Joined: Dec 2, 2004 Post Count: 134 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
WTF! is A.M.D. or H.A.L. the bottleneck or Y'all ' z Mustang vs Camero affectionadoez da PROBLEM!!!! see Tune-up yer PC /Ram drive / flash stick in the 'search / FAQ ' box
----------------------------------------HEeHeehEehee  Are You REALLY Computing? |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I haven't heard my hard drive spinning up while crunching these units so - other than saving 2 or 3 seconds on the initial read per 7 to 10 hour crunching session - I don't see where installing this prog to a flash drive would enhance performance.
----------------------------------------To the guy who's recommending the M to his relatives... have you looked at AMD's 35 W mobile cpu? Near as I recall, the M diminishes power draw by shutting down unused pathways. This program would likely use all the pathways. All other things being equal - AMD is generally better. I think the idea of calculations/watt is a great one. I was thinking about this the other day for the sake of saving power more than for the sake of a quiet machine. The power consumed in charitable projects like this are tax deductible. [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Dec 4, 2004 3:47:51 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Running several machines here, I've found power usage pretty simular between AMD and older intels. However new prescott core P4's, damn they like to chew the juice. A64 3800+ Newcastle consumes 2/3 the power of the LGA 3.2P4 prescott!, although my 'older' Northwood 3.2 P4 seems on par with most AMD cores.
Really think Intel made a mistake with the prescott, thing runs slow and pumps out more heat per mm3 than a jet engine. |
||
|
|
David Autumns
Ace Cruncher UK Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Post Count: 11062 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
For completeness I've found this page http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/cpu_charts-32.html#comparison_table over at Tom's Hardware Guide. Underneath the performance graph is a gif image with all the power consumptions of CPU up to about 6 months ago. THG wouldn't let me link directly to the gif!
----------------------------------------[Edit 1 times, last edit by David Autumns at Dec 4, 2004 8:46:56 PM] |
||
|
|
|