VOGONS


The All-amazing super-de-douper SuperPi thread!

Topic actions

Reply 320 of 328, by underjack

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
Tommaso72 wrote on 2020-06-05, 07:01:
I have a question about Multicore SuperPi. I ran it on a P4 Northwood 3.06 Ghz cpu and set it to 32 with two threads for the hy […]
Show full quote

I have a question about Multicore SuperPi. I ran it on a P4 Northwood 3.06 Ghz cpu and set it to 32 with two threads for the hyperthreading . It finished at 72 seconds. Then ran it with one thread and got 111 seconds. This seems normal to me., but then I wanted to compare my P4 Prescot 3.2 Ghz. with hyperthreading and got the same as the Northwoods time of 72 seconds with 2 threads. What confuses me is I did it again with one thread and it was finished at 52 seconds? Why would it be faster with one thread? I thought the HT would boost it a bit like it did with the Northwood CPU.

The Prescott system is the newer model with 2 gigs cache, and it currently is running with one RAM stick of 1 gig, and the Northwood had 2 sticks of 512 megs each being dual channel. May be the longer pipeline of the Prescott is not liking the single channel RAM when using 2 threads?

Hope I wrote this clear enough to make sense, I worked all night and I smoked a fatty. Hope someone can shead some light on the subject, thanks in advance.

Tommaso

A hyperthreaded CPU isn't truly multicore. What's going on is you have one set of execution hardware, and two sets of registers and control hardware, so that two threads of execution can share the ALU. The idea when one thread isn't using the one or more of the execution units, the other can.

So your speed up will never be 100%, and in this case, since SuperPi has pretty good utilization, it will be much lesss, since the threads will do a lot of waiting for the other thread to free the ALU resources.

(A CPU is a guy with a calculator, some scratchpads, and a list of instructions. A HT CPU is two guys each with their own instructions and scratchpads, but only one calculator that they have to share.)

Reply 321 of 328, by Tommaso72

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

I understand what your saying and appreciate your response, but I have found with multiple systems that I have checked, most often the HT increases the times by 50 percent, but 2 real threads most often increases by 100. With the comparison with the 3.06 GHz Northwood was like I described,and the p4 640 Prescott actually decreased with HT on by 20 seconds. Why the difference between the Northwood and the Prescott? I thought HT should usually increase the times, even slightly, but something at the least. I find it strange both with HT on the times are similar, with the Prescott being faster in MHz, faster ddr2 ram as apose to see ram of the Northwood, way more cache and being much newer. Something seems off, probably something I am doing. I might not have comprehended what you wrote fully, happens occationally 🤣.

Tommaso

Reply 322 of 328, by underjack

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
Tommaso72 wrote on 2020-06-05, 17:27:

I understand what your saying and appreciate your response, but I have found with multiple systems that I have checked, most often the HT increases the times by 50 percent, but 2 real threads most often increases by 100. With the comparison with the 3.06 GHz Northwood was like I described,and the p4 640 Prescott actually decreased with HT on by 20 seconds. Why the difference between the Northwood and the Prescott? I thought HT should usually increase the times, even slightly, but something at the least. I find it strange both with HT on the times are similar, with the Prescott being faster in MHz, faster ddr2 ram as apose to see ram of the Northwood, way more cache and being much newer. Something seems off, probably something I am doing. I might not have comprehended what you wrote fully, happens occationally 🤣.

Tommaso

I know that the Prescott is a significantly different beast that earlier Pentium 4s. It was the penultimate NetBurst, before Intel went back to the P-Pro roots with the Pentium M and Core.

I'm not sure if the architectural differences are to blame, but two things that come to mind is Prescott has a 31 stage pipeline (vrs 21 in Northwood), and they were running much closer to their thermal limits than earlier P4s. The thermal issues are particularly interesting, because SuperPi is practically a synthetic benchmark in its ability to saturate a processor. Hitting both thread paths in a Northwood that heavily, if your cooling isn't up to snuff, may over stress the processor and cause it to thermal throttle, erasing any benefit of multi-threading with room to spare.

An interesting idea is to try to find a similar Cedar Mill chip. A Pentium 4 HT 641 is basically your 640 only built on 65 nm instead of 90 nm. They were known to run much cooler than Prescotts...

In any event, edge cases of workloads that run worse overall with HT (or other SMT schemes) are not a mystery. Chip designers have known about them from beginning, and I believe modern OS will actually adjust scheduling to mitigate when they can.

Last edited by underjack on 2020-06-20, 03:41. Edited 1 time in total.

Reply 323 of 328, by underjack

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

I don't know if it's been done, but I just replaced my i5-4460 with an i7-4790K (fastest proc that'll fit in my board).

i7-4790K at stock speed (4.0 GHz boosting to 4.4), Maximus VII Gene, 16 GB DDR3-1866

8.594s

(I don't think I ever posted the speed from the 4460, oh well. Also, I'm using the stock cooler, but a Hyper 212 Evo is on it's way from NewEgg. Once it's installed, I might do a mild overclock. I've seen an i9-9900 on here, and it's only about 1 second faster...I wonder how close I can get...if it'll get the same speed if I get it to 5.0 GHz)

Attachments

Reply 324 of 328, by Tommaso72

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
underjack wrote on 2020-06-19, 22:06:
I don't know if it's been done, but I just replaced my i5-4460 with an i7-4790K (fastest proc that'll fit in my board). […]
Show full quote

I don't know if it's been done, but I just replaced my i5-4460 with an i7-4790K (fastest proc that'll fit in my board).

i7-4790K at stock speed (4.0 GHz boosting to 4.4), Maximus VII Gene, 16 GB DDR3-1866

8.594s

(I don't think I ever posted the speed from the 4460, oh well. Also, I'm using the stock cooler, but a Hyper 212 Evo is on it's way from NewEgg. Once it's installed, I might do a mild overclock. I've seen an i9-9900 on here, and it's only about 1 second faster...I wonder how close I can get...if it'll get the same speed if I get it to 5.0 GHz)

Thanks for the response! I believe you have a good point, thermal throttling could be the reason, i never thought of that. Im a going to look into it and see. I will report back with my findings.

Tommaso

Reply 325 of 328, by overdrive333

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Celeron tualatin 1300mhz @ 133mhz FSB = 1733mhz
128mb 2-2-2-5/7 ram
asus cusl2-c
winXP

1 m 32.923 sec

Attachments

Reply 326 of 328, by Warlord

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
overdrive333 wrote on 2021-03-11, 17:53:
Celeron tualatin 1300mhz @ 133mhz FSB = 1733mhz 128mb 2-2-2-5/7 ram asus cusl2-c winXP […]
Show full quote

Celeron tualatin 1300mhz @ 133mhz FSB = 1733mhz
128mb 2-2-2-5/7 ram
asus cusl2-c
winXP

1 m 32.923 sec

good performance.

Pentium M 1.82@2.4GHZ CT-479 Asus 865 Chipset 2gb Ram.
file.php?id=103921&mode=view

Reply 328 of 328, by serenitatis

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Here is my results from this PCs.

tusl.png
Filename
tusl.png
File size
53.91 KiB
Views
484 views
File comment
Intel Pentium III-S 1133 and Asus TUSL2-C
File license
CC-BY-4.0
p1.png
Filename
p1.png
File size
30.19 KiB
Views
484 views
File comment
Intel Pentium 200 MMX and Gigabyte GA-586ATX2
File license
CC-BY-4.0
p4.png
Filename
p4.png
File size
218.45 KiB
Views
484 views
File comment
Intel Pentium 4 2.4 and Albatron PM845GE
File license
CC-BY-4.0
p2b.png
Filename
p2b.png
File size
53.31 KiB
Views
484 views
File comment
Intel Pentium II 400 and Asus P2B
File license
CC-BY-4.0

Just for fun my modern PC with Core i7 6700K.

modern.png
Filename
modern.png
File size
393.57 KiB
Views
484 views
File license
CC-BY-4.0