|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
My test P4 was a non- Hyperthread model (516J or 519J, I
can remember which).
I would expect a P4 with HyperThreading turned ON to be
about 1/2 the speed.
My understanding is that unless an application is optimized
for HyperTreading, the application will run at half speed
since Windows will assign that application to 1 of the 2
virtual CPU cores that exist when HyperThreading is ON.
The advantage of the 2 virtual CPU cores is that a single
application can not "hog" all the CPU cycles. Thus a
HyperThread CPU is appears to be a lot more responsive to
the user when running multiple applications (at the cost of
doing individual jobs at half speed).
So my guess would be that a P4 (2.93 MHz) with
HyperTreading would take twice as long to run my AB test
code. That would mean it would be 30% slower than my four
year old Athlon 1.4 GHz computer.
b
--- Mark Keitel <mkeitel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Curious if you used a Hyperthread P4 on how it would
> compare in that test
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
<file:///C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Owner\Application%20Data\Microsoft\Si
> gnatures\www.aajonahfish.com\astronomyhaven.htm>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of b
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 12:37 PM
> To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [amibroker] Off-Topic: AMD vs Intel CPU Speed
> Comparison
>
>
>
>
> Due to recent purchases at work (where Intel reigns) and
> at
> home (where AMD has a fighting chance), I had the
> opportunity to do a side by side comparisons of how fast
> each is for doing long optimization runs in Amibroker.
>
> For a baseline, I used my four year old "workhorse"
> computer with an Athlon CPU.
>
> As best as I can tell all three computers are about the
> same except for the CPU and RAM. All are running Windows
> XP
> with SP2. All three use 7,200 hard drives.
>
> They differ in ram size: my workhouse has 1.5 GB of DDR
> running at 266 MHz; the new Athlon 64 has 1 GB of 400 MHz
> DDR in a dual channel set up; and the P4 at work has just
> 512 MB of DDR. To make sure the size of RAM is not an
> issue, I made a special test database with just 30 stocks
> in it. That way all the stock data would fit into RAM
> cache.
>
> My test AFL code contained items usually found in the
> type
> of code I use. In particular:
>
> 3 - IIF statements
> 1 - Foreign call (I use an index for timing)
> 20 - EMA formulas (a bit more than my typical code)
> 10 - AND calls
> 3 - comparisons "<" or ">".
> 15 - Portfolio size
> 1 - Positionscore
> plus a few "SETOPTION" statements
> 0 - ApplyStops
>
> For those still reading, here are the times in minutes
> for
> a 4,000 cycle optimization run.
>
> Athlon.......(1.4 GHz)....65 minutes..... 1.00x
> Pentium 4....(2.93 GHz)...35 minutes..... 1.86x
> Athlon 64....(2.0 GHz)....28 minutes..... 2.32x
>
> Notes:
>
> - The final column gives a score to each with the Athlon
> 1.4 GHz being the baseline of 1.0x
>
> - To make sure hard drive speed was not a factor, the
> optimization was started and stopped after a couple of
> cycles. That gets all the stock data into RAM cache so
> hard
> drive speed no longer matters. Then the optimization was
> restarted and the time remaining was recorded after 100
> cycles were completed.
>
> Observations:
>
> For my type of AFL code, the Athlon 64 is about 25%
> faster
> than the P4.
>
> AMD continues to give the most bang for buck. Both the
> new
> P4 and new AMD computers were within a few dollars of
> each
> other with virtually identical features except for the
> CPU.
>
> Moore's law (processing power doubles very 18 to 24
> months)
> appears to no longer be working. If it were, the Athlon
> 64
> would be 4 to 5 times faster than my four year old
> Althon.
> However, maybe Moore's law still is working: the new
> Athlon
> 64 computer cost about half what my four year old one
> did:
> Twice the speed for half the cost is the equivalent of
> two
> doubles in four years.
>
> AMD's model numbering appears to understate its power.
> The
> Athlon 64 (2.0 GHz) has a model number of 3200+ which is
> supposed to indicate it is approximately equal to a
> Pentium
> 4 running at 3.2 GHz. However, since the Athlon 64 is 25%
> faster than the 2.93 GHz Pentium, the AMD model number
> could have been 3660 (at least when running my type of
> AFL
> code).
>
> Conclusions:
>
> - AMD is still the best deal for for number crunching
> work
> (like AFL code).
>
> - AMD is not as far ahead as expected in number
> crunching(I was expecting more like 33% or 40% faster
> instead of "just" 25%).
>
> - If someone were planning to use a computer for a lot of
> multi-media and video work (as well as running
> Amibroker),
> they might consider Intel. Giving up 25% on AFL code
> might
> be a reasonable trade off to get 25% faster video
> rendering. Tests by Tom's Hardware seem to give about a
> 25%
> edge to Intel CPUs over AMD: in a test using DviX5.2 to
> encode MPEG video, a P4 at 2.4GHz was about equal to an
> Athlon 64 "3000" at 2.0GHz. But the speed for price
> ratio
> for multimedia still might put AMD on top.
>
> - AMD is still my favorite.
>
> b
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection
> around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
> Please note that this group is for discussion between
> users only.
>
> To get support from AmiBroker please send an e-mail
> directly to
> SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com
>
> For other support material please check also:
> http://www.amibroker.com/support.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
>
>
> Investment
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Investment+management+software&w1=Inves
>
tment+management+software&w2=Investment+property+software&w3=Investment+soft
>
ware&w4=Investment+tracking+software&w5=Return+on+investment+software&w6=Sto
>
ck+investment+software&c=6&s=195&.sig=f7GzIv9NJMWrH8f5eIxZQQ>
> management
> software
>
> Investment
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Investment+property+software&w1=Investm
>
ent+management+software&w2=Investment+property+software&w3=Investment+softwa
>
re&w4=Investment+tracking+software&w5=Return+on+investment+software&w6=Stock
>
+investment+software&c=6&s=195&.sig=fBbyjQAf07KrkKtKejJqSg>
> property
> software
>
> Investment
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Investment+software&w1=Investment+manag
>
ement+software&w2=Investment+property+software&w3=Investment+software&w4=Inv
>
estment+tracking+software&w5=Return+on+investment+software&w6=Stock+investme
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/GHeqlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Please note that this group is for discussion between users only.
To get support from AmiBroker please send an e-mail directly to
SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com
For other support material please check also:
http://www.amibroker.com/support.html
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
amibroker-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|