Not so sure since that was not my
understanding on Hyper threading, and my lap top that has it is much faster on
mathematical equations than my other computer that does not.
I take it that the page filing
settings on all computers were the same too
Mark
From: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of b
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 1:11
PM
To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [amibroker]
Off-Topic: AMD vs Intel CPU Speed Comparison
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
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