Desktop Performance Benchmarks

Desktop Performance Benchmarks

Post by schwarzgro » Thu, 17 Feb 2005 04:50:04


Does anyone out there have any links to performance benchmarks with
SAS? I'm going to upgrade my machine and was curious with processors
work the best.

Thanks,
Chris
 
 
 

Desktop Performance Benchmarks

Post by ben.powel » Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:11:50

Chris

While I can't offer any specific benchmarks I can give the benefit of
limited wisdom harvested from the media with a view to speccing my own
machine around April this year. I think the tradeoff as regards CPU you
will mostly face is as follows, and by desktop I am assuming you mean
single processor:

Pentium 4 - Pros - Hyperthreading - moot point? Unless the application is
very well tuned, and SAS perhaps is not to HT (more to MultipleCPU), HT can
infact lead to a loss of performance on account of additional OS overhead
required to determine which thread should be used. HT is best for running
multiple apps simultaneously, ie. multiple instances of SAS, but not
necessarily the single instance faster.
http://www.yqcomputer.com/
http://www.yqcomputer.com/

..........- Cons - Heat - anything over 3Ghz and you'll need industrial
cooling to prevent the CPU from melting ;-) Indeed heat disipation is the
main reason why Intel have jacked in the Netburst Architecture behind the
P4 as it simply would not scale at the 9nm scale without producing huge
heat inefficiencies. Note AMD are yet to push a 9nm chip over 2.5Ghz, with
good reason.
http://www.yqcomputer.com/


AMD64 - Pros - Bang per buck is generally higher, and the top end chips, as
they don't have cooling problems, meaning the machine is much quieter,
represent a genuine quality product. It is possible the generally acclaimed
FPU qualities of AMD64 processors may aid some SAS operations, plus with
Win64 due this year in Beta, additional addressable RAM as a benefit of the
64 bit instruction set is a potential boon. Socket 939 supports the current
pick of the bunch, FX-55, though the price point of this chip makes it
dubious value for money in performance terms. However, the AMD64
architecture is due to run on 939 through 2005 so the platform has upgrade
potential.

......- Cons - Like Intel, AMD are due to release a dual core 64 bit CPU
later this year. Undoubtably there will be performance gains to be had, and
the early chips may run on 939. Can you stand the wait? Video encoding is a
notorious weakness born of the lack of HT in AMD chips though that is not
really relevent here. Application switching may also be marginally slower
than with an HT chip.
http://www.yqcomputer.com/


Hence, and I will put my money where my mouth is, I think you should go
with an AMD64 3500+ *Winchester Core* (or better), 1-2 gig DDR3200 in dual
channel mode, and perhaps most important of all, at least two SATA disks,
so that your work lib can be on a separate volume to the system disk.


HTH.

Ben.

ps. I'm putting mine in a Shuttle SN95G5 :-0)

 
 
 

Desktop Performance Benchmarks

Post by ben.powel » Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:17:57

"Shock and Awe" for Intel...

"Although there were only a few new products at ASUS, they were very
e *** d to announce to us that they are working on a dual socket 940
solution to finally give MSI's Master series a run for its money.

AMD's dual core socket 939 processors were also running in a back room on
ASUS' A8N-SLI Deluxe motherboards - without modification. Although we had
known for some time that dual core would only require a BIOS update on AMD
motherboards (at worst), the knowledge that off-the-shelf motherboards
running AMD's newest gave us a further boost of confidence for the future.
This is also in stark contrast to Anand's report that Intel dual-core will
not run on current 915/925 chipset motherboards."

http://www.yqcomputer.com/
 
 
 

Desktop Performance Benchmarks

Post by ben.powel » Fri, 18 Feb 2005 22:35:39

ote Shuttle have pencilled in a P chasis socket 939 variant running on
nForce4 for mid feb, while biostar have responded with a similar package
due mid-march. I'm not holding on as I suspect they will be at a premium,

HTH.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 06:11:50 -0500, XXXX@XXXXX.COM wrote: