Some interesting Altivec figures

[Hammer]

RC5 isn't a general benchmark, let's get that straight first off. It's not even a particularly useful one. It takes no account of system speed, and only uses raw number-crunching abilities of the CPU and its internal cache and registers.

RC5 is not the only benchmark to test for raw number-crunching abilities of the CPU and its internal cache and registers.

Why not OpenSSL benchmarks (it should fit within full size L2 cache)?

But anyway, my Pegasos G3/600 can do around 2 million keys per second. My Athlon 1.3GHz PC can do around 4 million. Pentiums are considerably weaker,

Why not try it with Intel "Pentium M @1.3Ghz"?...

and maybe more modern Athlons are too.

In general terms, the Thunderbird  core (Model 4)  is considered weaker than Barton core (Model 10).

My old AMD K7 AThlon XP (Palomino Core) @1.5Ghz/FSB266/NT5.1, yields
 RC5-72: [5,640,341 keys/sec]

I may try it on the other Athlon XP 2.2Ghz/400FSB/nForce2 400 Ultra and/or HP’s spec Athlon XP 2.33Ghz later…

[Hammer]

More precise benchmarks.

Some minor issues;

How does one get an AMD Athlon XP with "Palomino" core at 3200MHz?

My "Palomino" core max'ed out at 1.7Ghz with 1.8 core volts.

Some minor issues;

AMD Athlon XP (Barton)@ 2500MHz doesn't exist.
AMD Athlon MP (Core??)@ 2600MHz doesn't exist.
AMD Athlon XP (Barton)@ 2400MHz doesn't exist. The fastest Athlon XP with a Barton core is HP's Athlon XP 3200+ @2.33Ghz.
AMD Athlon XP (Thoroughbred) 2600MHz doesn't exist.

AMD Athlon's so-called rating is just model numbers.

I use dnetc v2.9003-481-GTR-03030111 for Win32.

PS; My AMD K7 Athlon XP 2600+ @ 2.08Ghz with Thoroughbred-B (256KB L2) core yields ~7,900,000 (with other server applications in operation).

Please note that there are several “Athlon XP 2600+” types in the market i.e.
1. Thoroughbred-A/B @ 2.16 Ghz 266FSB.
2. Thoroughbred-B @ 2.08Ghz 333FSB.
3. I’m not aware of a Barton core with a “2600+. model” number. Who knows what AMD can think of next?
4. Barton @ 1.8Ghz has a model 2500+.

[Hammer]

On the vast majority of tasks a modern x86 processor will crush a G4, if only because PPC systems tend to have poor infrastructure surrounding the CPU (PC133 memory, slow busses, etc).

One could compare G5 vs K8 vs K7 vs PIV EE vs PIV-C 3.2Ghz.

Note that AMD Athlons XP 2600+ can be still be installed on MSI-6330 V5 (i.e. VIA KT133A/PC133 based).

[Hammer]

KennyR wrote:

Bloodline wrote:
It is implemented in x86 CPUs, it's called MMX, MMX2, 3DNow!, SSE, and SSE2...

Boo, they were marketing gimmicks that only slowed the CPU down by adding more instructions to increase the instruction decode time per cycle. Their effect was negligible. Altivec's obviously isn't.

Actually, it does make a difference IF it done right for a certain X86 processor i.e. to remain competitive with AMD Athlon XP, Intel’s Pentium IV have rely on SSE2 code more than X87 code.

Note that PowerPC 970 has to decode or “crush” its PowerPC instructions for the relatively  new out-of-order post-RISC core.  

Pentium MMX’s design has almost zero relation to the modern  RISC86 cores.

[Hammer]

This isn't really an exercise to prove any magical superiority of PPC over x86, simply to show how powerful Altivec was in its element

One could also use PPC optimised CineBench (Beta)(MacOS) for such things.

they had many normally obscure instructions like those used for rc5 removed for better overall speed.

They could be saving on the transistor count...

Oh, and isn't L2 cache external?

Ever since Celeron 300A and most modern X86 cores has integrated L2 cache and these are;
- Pentium III
- Pentium M
- Pentium IV
- K8 Opteron/AthlonFX/Athlon64
- K7 Athlon Thunderbird (not Athlon Classic)
- K7 Athlon XP
- K7 Duron
- K6-III

One could include Intel’s Pentium Pro since it has full speed L2 cache but with two dies.  

[Hammer]

Aragorn wrote:
3. I’m not aware of a Barton core with a “2600+. model” number. Who knows what AMD can think of next?

My Athlon XP Barton is a 2600+
it runs at 1.92GHz

Sounds logical enough...

[Hammer]

Blitter wrote:
It sure seems logical.  Heck my Athlon 64 FX-51 3200+ runs at a cool 2.0Ghz.

Note that "Athlon FX-51" (Sledge Hammer core) runs at 2.2Ghz, while "Athlon 64 3200+"/"3000+"(Claw Hammer core) runs at 2.0Ghz.

[Hammer]

Hell M$ of all ppl won't even embrace it and told Intel to change or suck it, basically.

MS Windows Anvil (AMD64 edition) is not quite ready (currently at Beta stage) for RTM status.

MS Windows Anvil is quite different to MS Windows XP Itanium Edition since Anvil is geared towards legacy and high performance gaming. MS Windows XP Itanium Edition is just geared towards PC workstations (e.g.  Itanium Deerfield base systems) type activities.

[Hammer]

Yes it's definitly as fast as a Barton core Athlon running at 3.2Ghz like the name would describe. but that's just in 32bit operations

Careful with generalisations e.g. in bandwidth bias apps, games and SSE2 type activities the Athlon FX-51 is rivals P4 EE, while Athlon 64 3200+ rivals P4-C 3.2Ghz .

The fastest Athlon XP 3200+ @ 2.33Ghz variant, can still win some non-gaming benchmarks against Athlon FX51 @2.2Ghz.  

[Hammer]

but I stil stand buy the architecture of the Itanium being ####e!

I didn’t say Itanium was a “cost effective” workstation PC btw. In relation to Itanium and for "bang for buck" cases; even Apple’s PowerMac G5 has a chance**

PS; Tweaking for legacy and high performance gaming may require more development time btw...