Re: xPC taget CPU - Athlon or Intel
- From: "Keith Williams" <kwilliams@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 11:46:51 -0400
With regards to this issue of AMD vs. Intel and XPC Target, I have
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
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Gordon Weast wrote:
> 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
> by someone as their desktop machine. We're sure we got those
> but it seems like we have to send it to the journal of
> results because we can't find another machine that performs as
> 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
> and chipset type, we might see some trends. At the present time,
> don't have that information. Do any current machines still use
> configuration where they let the graphics board use part of main
> memory? I would expect that to kill performance by adding wait
> when the CPU needs to fill a cache line.
> Gordon Weast
> xPC Target Development
> The Mathworks
> Adam Hersbach wrote:
>> I have recently tested two Intel Pentium4 3.0 GHz CPU's from
>> different manufacturers (using .NET03 compiler). The benchmark
>> show a 20% difference in performance, and the best machine
>> 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
>> Mathworks, the difference between the two machines that I have
>> 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
>> least slightly better than the reported performance of the AMD
>> .NET03 (and if possible as good as the reported performance of
> the P4
>> 3.0 GHz .NET03).
>> Can you suggest anything?
>> Gordon Weast wrote:
>>>If anyone does have some benchmark results for processors,
>>>include the front side bus speed. That will make a
>>>I would expect the chipset that a given motherboard uses to
>>>some difference as well.
>>>There are just too many combinations for us to test all of
>>>so input from users is important to us as well.
>>>xPC Target Development
>>>Adam Hersbach wrote:
>>>>Does anyone have xpcbench data for any of the following
>>>>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
>>>>which is as fast as possible.
- Re: xPC taget CPU - Athlon or Intel
- From: Adam Hersbach
- Re: xPC taget CPU - Athlon or Intel
- Prev by Date: Re: how to get the area of a rectangle picture
- Next by Date: Re: how to get the area of a rectangle picture
- Previous by thread: how to get the area of a rectangle picture
- Next by thread: Re: xPC taget CPU - Athlon or Intel