Re: xPC taget CPU - Athlon or Intel

Hello,

With regards to this issue of AMD vs. Intel and XPC Target, I have
two questions:

First, can I use an Athlon 64-equipped machine as my target? I would
like to build a new target box to outperform my old AMD T-Bird
machine, but I didn't want to buy a 64-bit cpu (say socket 939) and
then find out that I couldn't use it except as a desktop.

Second, assuming that I can use the 64-bit cpu, does the 64-bit
behavior handicap the system in any way, as compared to if I was
using an Athlon XP? My purchase choices will be between an Athlon XP
3200+ (333 MHz FSB) and an Athlon 64 3000+ ("scalable?" FSB).

I recognize that you may not be able to provide buying advice; I'm
just looking to see if I first, be able to use an Athlon 64 and
second, if I will be hurting myself by going that route vs. an Athlon
XP.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Regards,

Keith Williams

Gordon Weast wrote:
>
>
> Adam,
>
> Unfortunately, we haven't been able to reproduce the results that
> we found for that one 3 Ghz P4 machine. We borrowed it from our IT
> department, ran the benchmark and then returned it. Now it's in
> use
> by someone as their desktop machine. We're sure we got those
> results,
> but it seems like we have to send it to the journal of
> irreproducible
> results because we can't find another machine that performs as
> well.
>
> It is likely that a machine that performs well for high end gaming
> might also perform well with xPC Target in realtime use. Graphics
> performance is irrelevant to xPC Target but CPU/Cache/memory
> performance is important to both.
>
> I suppose if we got enough results that included CPU speed, FSB
> speed
> and chipset type, we might see some trends. At the present time,
> we
> don't have that information. Do any current machines still use
> that
> configuration where they let the graphics board use part of main
> memory? I would expect that to kill performance by adding wait
> states
> when the CPU needs to fill a cache line.
>
> Gordon Weast
> xPC Target Development
> The Mathworks
>
> Adam Hersbach wrote:
>
>> Gordon,
>>
>> I have recently tested two Intel Pentium4 3.0 GHz CPU's from
>> different manufacturers (using .NET03 compiler). The benchmark
> tests
>> show a 20% difference in performance, and the best machine
> performs
>> at only 75% of what the Mathworks reports in the xpcbench test
> for a
>> P4 3.0 GHz machine.
>>
>> Through our experience with xPC target and recent support from
> the
>> Mathworks, the difference between the two machines that I have
> tested
>> is due to the chipset/motherboard used by the different
>> manufacturers, not the CPU itself, as you have commented.
>>
>> The performance varies so markedly, that we cannot run our
>> simulations on these machines. We need something that performs
at
>> least slightly better than the reported performance of the AMD
> 2800+
>> .NET03 (and if possible as good as the reported performance of
> the P4
>> 3.0 GHz .NET03).
>>
>> Can you suggest anything?
>>
>> Adam
>>
>> Gordon Weast wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>If anyone does have some benchmark results for processors,
please
>>>include the front side bus speed. That will make a
difference.
>>>I would expect the chipset that a given motherboard uses to
make
>>>some difference as well.
>>>
>>>There are just too many combinations for us to test all of
them
>>>so input from users is important to us as well.
>>>
>>>Gordon Weast
>>>xPC Target Development
>>>The Mathworks
>>>
>>>Adam Hersbach wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>Does anyone have xpcbench data for any of the following
CPU's:
>>>>
>>>>Athlon XP 3000+ (2.167 GHz)
>>>>Athlon XP 3200+ (2.200 GHz)
>>>>Athlon 64 4000+ (2.4 GHz)
>>>>Athlon 64 FX-55 (2.6 GHz)
>>>>Athlon 64 FX-57 (2.8 GHz)
>>>>
>>>>Intel Pentium4 > 3.0 GHz
>>>>
>>>>Would greatly appreciate this data as we are trying to
find a
>>
>> CPU
>>
>>>>which is as fast as possible.
>>>>
>>>>Cheers,
>>>>Adam
>>>
>
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: xPC taget CPU - Athlon or Intel
    ... I have ordered an Athlon 64 FX processor and will post the bench test ... >> might also perform well with xPC Target in realtime use. ... >> I suppose if we got enough results that included CPU speed, ... >>> I have recently tested two Intel Pentium4 3.0 GHz CPU's ...
    (comp.soft-sys.matlab)
  • Re: xPc RS232 Serial / Rate Transition
    ... Gordon Weast wrote in message ... the rate transition method works fine in R2007b. ... If the signal is 16 bit int or uint then the first element ... It looks like something in RTW, above the xPC Target layer ...
    (comp.soft-sys.matlab)
  • Re: xpc target and s-functions
    ... xPC Target Development ... Gordon Weast wrote: ... you need to write your whole s-function in C. ... target file to compile for xPC Target. ...
    (comp.soft-sys.matlab)
  • Re: xPC: Bulid error?
    ... The model is configured for xPC Target and not GRT isn't it? ... Gordon Weast wrote in message ... rt_logging.obj: error LNK2001: Nichtaufgeloestes ...
    (comp.soft-sys.matlab)
  • Re: XPC Target.
    ... Gordon Weast wrote: ... > Luis Pantoja wrote: ... >> I have seen that there is a function in the XPC target API ( ... >> DWORD PhysicalAddress; ...
    (comp.soft-sys.matlab)