4400+ X2 doesnt feel that fast

[ethen]

I'm not a gamer, i use my computer to compile a lot of GTK applications.

I was using A64 4000+, so X2 comes out, i bought it and upgrade to 4400 X2

Plug it in and boot into my penguin. i compiled the application i wrote, with Intel compiler (c++). It compiled in 1 munite and 12 seconds when i was using A64 4000, i got 1 munite and 13 seconds. So basically i only gain 1 second by upgrading to 4400 X2

I'm pretty dissapointed, so i recompile again with all window closed (only leaving shell open) and same result.

i was just wondering if c+= compiler like Intel take advantage of X2 or i'm just wasting my money

 

[Markfw]

Its faster in multi-threadded apps, or multitasking. Your upgrade didn;t buy you squat for single thread and one app at a time.

 

[Duvie]

Well you do realize you are 200mhz slower per core and perhaps you are not using an application well suited for multi-threading...YOu update the Linux to see the dual cores of the X2 properly??? I ask cause it is conceivable even in single threaded apps for the slow Z2 to beat and older 4000+ based on revision E enhancements.

 

[ethen]

i did, i upgraded to SMP kernel, so it should operate in threaded style

 

[Duvie]

Unless the app itself is not multitheaded, right??

If you look at the reviews in most applications they were not multithreaded and therefore a 2.4ghz 4000+ will likely hold on and beat a 4400+ at 2.2ghz...The question is why was it actually 1 sec faster...Nothing else change but the cpu...ram timings the same, etc...

 

[TankGuys]

Where you will see a vast improvement is if you compile WHILE doing other apps. With the X2, you don't have to close out all the windows aside from the shell.

Often, your progams will not run faster on an individual basis (unless they are optimized for mult-threading). However, when you are running multiple applications at the same time, you should see a very nice improvement.

 

[imported_Starman]

Well you did move from a 2.4Ghz processor to one that's 200Mhz slower (per core). It's as though you dropped from an AMD 4000+ to a 3700+, if you're running software that doesn't adequately take advantage of the second processing core. As has been said, you'll notice the most obvious differences with X2 when you're multi-tasking. Running several things at once on an X2 will seem like the performance you experienced when a single application on your old 4000+.

The X2 becomes awesome when you really begin to understand the power lying under the hood. I have an X2 and I love it because I never used to be able to even conceive of truly running many things at once. Sure, it was technically possible, given the operating system support for multi-tasking, but it was never pretty. With X2 I'm computing like never before, like I always thought I should've been able to on a personal computer. I do anything I want and as much of it as I want. If I'm running some game and want to hop on the web or do something else - I don't have to quit the game for fear my system will be slow. I leave different applications running all the time, simultaneously, and the X2 just begs for more. As far as system resources are concerned, it's as though every application just became an instance of Notepad

 

[Duvie]

Yeah...why dont you compile 2 things since obviously the second core is vastly idle....Then lets see if you could have done that with the other chip....

 

[Shimmishim]

Originally posted by: Duvie
Yeah...why dont you compile 2 things since obviously the second core is vastly idle....Then lets see if you could have done that with the other chip....

lol... VASTLY

i agree... instead of being able to compile one at a time... now you can do twice the work at or around the same speed!

 

[fatty4ksu]

You shouldn't have bought it if you don't multitask.

They thing is God when it comes to that.

God.

 

[Duvie]

You dont need to multitask to make it worth buying a dual core....

If you use apps that are multithreaded you dont need to multitask to get the power of dual core...CAD apps like 3dmax do quite nicely all by themselves..In the TMPGenc test of Jpeyton they cut the time in nearly half and used 85+% of the 2nd core effectively....

Like Shim and I stated you can run multiple instances yourself and get more work done...That is really not multitasking...

 

[imported_wyrmrider]

hi
did you upgrade and configure your bios for x2
does your hardware recognise x2
does os recognise x2
what os did you say you were using?

wyrmrider

 

[Vishruth]

Originally posted by: ethen
I'm not a gamer, i use my computer to compile a lot of GTK applications.

I was using A64 4000+, so X2 comes out, i bought it and upgrade to 4400 X2

Plug it in and boot into my penguin. i compiled the application i wrote, with Intel compiler (c++). It compiled in 1 munite and 12 seconds when i was using A64 4000, i got 1 munite and 13 seconds. So basically i only gain 1 second by upgrading to 4400 X2

I'm pretty dissapointed, so i recompile again with all window closed (only leaving shell open) and same result.

i was just wondering if c+= compiler like Intel take advantage of X2 or i'm just wasting my money

I don't know about intel compiler, I have zero experience with it. But if you were to use gcc, you ought to check out the man page for 'make'. It will tell you of '-j' option. It lets you specify the number of jobs that gcc runs simultaneously. If you have 2 physical processors (or a dual core cpu ), you could set up gcc to run three jobs simultaneously (i.e. '-j 3'). That ought to speed things up considerably while at the same time you will probably be able to run other apps without a hitch. You really ought to try to increase the number of jobs and find your sweet spot by trial and error method. You may have already known about all of this, but I'm just throwing in a little bit of info that I think might be useful to you, that's all.

I need to get my hands on one of these X2 4400+ CPUs!

 

[bersl2]

um... RTFMP for make?

(hint: option is -j#)

A compiler is single-threaded for simplicity's sake. The speed-up comes with being able to compile two files at the same time. You need to parallelize the build in order for this to take place. GNU make can do this automatically. RTFMP. Seriously.

 

[ethen]

i'll try gcc when i got home, i'm used to intel compiler, thx guys

 

[clarkey01]

If an X2 isnt to your needs :clock: jump a bridge

 

[Dewey]

It's a little scary to be explaining multithreading to someone developing software. Eeks...

 

[Vishruth]

Originally posted by: ethen
i'll try gcc when i got home, i'm used to intel compiler, thx guys

And don't forget to share the results. Good luck.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Dewey
It's a little scary to be explaining multithreading to someone developing software. Eeks...

I was thinking the same thing. Also the Intel compiler will SLOW down the AMD CPU's code path. I just read that in the AMD court case sheet. Besides this, GCC isn't multithreaded. Don't expect miracles. Use pthread to make your own app multi-threaded.

 

[imported_Kensai]

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: Dewey
It's a little scary to be explaining multithreading to someone developing software. Eeks...

I was thinking the same thing.

Me three. :shocked:

 

[Duvie]

_____o Intel designed its compilers, which translate software programs into machine-readable language, to degrade a program's performance if operated on a computer powered by an AMD microprocessor.

Does this give credence to this claim???

 

[imported_Technomancer]

Originally posted by: ethen
I'm not a gamer, i use my computer to compile a lot of GTK applications.

I was using A64 4000+, so X2 comes out, i bought it and upgrade to 4400 X2

Plug it in and boot into my penguin. i compiled the application i wrote, with Intel compiler (c++). It compiled in 1 munite and 12 seconds when i was using A64 4000, i got 1 munite and 13 seconds. So basically i only gain 1 second by upgrading to 4400 X2

I'm pretty dissapointed, so i recompile again with all window closed (only leaving shell open) and same result.

i was just wondering if c+= compiler like Intel take advantage of X2 or i'm just wasting my money

Well, if AMD's suit claim can be beleived, then Intel's compiler creates two code paths, one that is optimized for Intel processors or certain Intel processors, and one deliberately designed to run poorly on the AMD-based system. Personally, I'm not sure how that could be done, as I'd think it would end up bloating the code. But if they ARE doing that, then all the worse for them.

 

[ethen]

guys, GCC 4 shows different result, it's 13 seconds faster with X2, btw i design my application in threaded object, so it should run faster on X2, However, i'm talking about the compiler and has nothing to do with my codes . i checked with intel support, yes it have threaded support.

so i'm not sure why it's slow, maybe it has to do with intel compiler implementation on how thread is queued.

 

[Duvie]

Ok so where did you buy your X2...Did you build it yourself?? If so are you sure you configured it correctly? Have correct drivers?? Using mobo and hardware with dual core drivers?? OS and bios is recognizing dual cores??

Go into task manager and make sure there are 2 charts and then run the compiler and give us a screenie of what it is doing...the proof is in the pudding and if it is truly multithreaded we should see that in the charts....

 

[Duvie]

OK...you are in Linux right??? Do what ever is equivalent to waht I said above in theat OS.....So Intel compilers work fine in Linux environment??

If you have a dual boot with windows I would try it on that software as well...