Preliminary Pentium 4 numbers are here. Scott R. Ladd extended the tables, keeping the Pentium III numbers for comparison purposes. You'll find specifications for both test systems. The new tests show that ICC is the choice if you need Pentium4 optimizations for your applications, while GCC is a good free alternative for the rest of the CPUs. ICC seems to compile up to twice faster in most cases.
"The latest gcc holds it own against Intel C++, winning some benchmarks it lost previously. There are still applications where Intel shines, but the differences between the compilers have narrowed. So which compiler is better? Like Einstein, I have to say the answer is relative." Read the article here.
After almost five years and with over 330,000 participants Distributed.net has finally solved the RC5-64 64-bit encrypted key Challenge. The best day was equivalent to the power of "32,504 800MHz Apple PowerBook G4 laptops or 45,998 2GHz AMD Athlon XP machines"! To solve this challenge huge teams were formed, the most powerful team was assembled by the Dutch Tweakers.net website, while my personal favorite, Team RC5 Amiga, earned a honorable 7th place.
We reported on this a few days ago, but now the article is updated 8/17/02 with 'streamlined' graphs, tweaked verbiage, and addition of a very interesting Memory Speed Graph. Page Two added on 8/20/02 with additional tests. Updated 8/21/02 with another bottleneck theory and Memory Speed Graph interpretation. Read the updated benchmarks here and here. What will it take to fix the bottleneck, the conclusion asks? The author replies: A CPU than can handle the full speed of DDR memory (like the fabled PPC 7470) and a redesigned motherboard with separate bus for each CPU.
Developer Jean-Baptiste Queru wrote a short editorial regarding the SPEC benchmarks and how modern CPUs are competing these days based on the specific benchmarks. JBQ talks about the Pentium4, AthlonXPs, Itanium and especially about the G4. Update: JBQ just wrote a redux article.
"The dual Athlon is still the fastest PC we've tested, but the single Intel P4 2.53 GHz machine runs a close second, and even beats the dual Athlon on some of the tests. And, as expected, the Mac dual 1GHz G4 could not even come close to keeping up with these two PCs. Even though the P4 machine has only a single processor, it was easy for it to leave the dual-processor Mac far behind." Read the benchmarks at DigitalVideoEditing.
Scott Robert Ladd has updated his GCC versus Intel C++ compiler benchmarks. This time round he includes updated results of the recently released GCC 3.1. The new version of GCC seems to be much better than its 3.0.4 predecessor, and GCC 3.1 even wins some benchmarks it lost previously over ICC. Overall, ICC remains a much faster C/C++ compiler, but GCC has successfully narrowed the gap. Read Scott's interesting conclusion at the end of the article too.
"After seeing the results of these tests, we can only conclude that Apple's fastest G4 workstations are certainly not faster than dual 1.533MHz Athlon MP-equipped systems, at least as far as After Effects is concerned. Not one of the objective tests we conducted using After Effects showed Apple's flagship machine to be superior. In fact, in most of the tests, the Mac was left lagging far behind. And, this was when we were using a PC whose chips are now three steps below the fastest Athlons available (now the fastest Athlon XP is the 2100+ running at 1.73GHz), and far slower than benchmarks have shown the latest Intel Xeon chips to be, now shipping at 2.4 GHz." The benchmark is held at DigitalVideoEditing. Our Take: We would like to see the benchmarks with dual Athlon MPs or dual PIIIs at 1 Ghz, so it would be more fair, Mhz-wise. On the other hand, Mhz doesn't matter. Right Steve? And at the end of the day, this was the fastest G4 available. The Dual AthlonMP 1.5 is not the fastest available anymore in the PC world (dual SMT Xeon 2.4 Ghz at the same price as the dual G4 1 Ghz anyone?). BTW, it seems that the Mac users feel left behind these days.
"This January not only brought new Apple systems, but also a MAC OS X-adapted benchmark suite by the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation (SPEC) entitled CPU2000. On the one hand, this suite allows comparisons to be made within a certain framework with the Intel competition and, on the other, it shows that Motorola and Apple were able to get more out of the new gigahertz processor than might have been expected by simply taking the pure clock frequency difference to the 866 MHz predecessor model into account." Apple G4 Dual 1 Ghz against a single PIII at 1 Ghz. Which is faster? Heise has the SPEC benchmark results. SPEC is known to be very precise when comparing the CPUs themselves without having major interference from the rest of the system or surrounded hardware. Our Take: AFAIK, the MacOSX license specifically states that no benchmarks results of any kind are allowed to be published. Coolio. UPDATE: Read more for some commentary on the results.
"Partha Narayanan, from IBM, recently posted some benchmark perfomance results for Ingo's O(1) Scheduler. The tests were run on an 8-way 700Mhz Pentium III, with several comparisons. The end result is around an 18% improvement with a single CPU, around a 45% improvement with 4 CPUs, and around a 187% improvement with 8 CPUs. Pretty impressive!" Read the rest of the article and see the benchmark results at KernelTrap.
"In my October, Byte.com column I described the new VM written by kernel hacker Andrea Arcangeli. In that article, I promised I would come back to my FreeBSD versus Linux comparison that I ran in my February 2001 column. Many people say FreeBSD has a very good virtual memory manager. As it turns out, I pretty much proved them right in that article. Now, with the new VM engine in Linux as of 2.4.10, things might look different, so I prepared a new test environment for the benchmark." Moshe Bar benchmarks the VMs between Linux and the previous FreeBSD, version 4.3.
Tom's Hardware has setuped a match between the two most powerful 3D graphics card models, the ATi Radeon 8500 and the nVidia GeForce3 Ti500. To cut the (long) story short, ATi shows that it has a much more impressive hardware than nVidia has, but also much (also impressively) worse drivers. So, while it takes a small lead to only some tests under Win98, under WindowsXP, the ATi card completely fails to perform adequately, plus the drivers are unstable and even exiting or crashing randomly some of Tom's tests.
"We've already posted our (WindowsXP) review, and we've already posted some tweaks you can do to get your new XP system up and going. Now we're finally posting the one thing you guys probably wanted to see first - the numbers. Raw data on how this puppy performs." FiringSquad is up to the task to measure XP's performance on games, productivity and more.