| 1 |
On Wednesday 08 November 2006 19:00, Mark Knecht wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> The problem with running the neural network app is that it's a huge |
| 4 |
> install under Windows. It requires Internet access as it has a |
| 5 |
> hardware key that has to be validated against the specific machine. |
| 6 |
> Probably takes 1 hour just to set up. Then, once it's set up it takes |
| 7 |
> maybe 15 minutes to run a single solution on my older Athlon XP |
| 8 |
> 1600+. With that as background I'm sure you can understand that I'm |
| 9 |
> not anxious to do it more than once or twice. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
OK, scrap that idea |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> What I was hoping to do was find some basic way of comparing the |
| 14 |
> BogoMIPS on my old Athlon XP machine with BogoMIPS on some new |
| 15 |
> machines at the dealer. They haven't had any problems in the past |
| 16 |
> with me bringing in a LiveCD and booting Linux. If I could do this |
| 17 |
> then I might estimate that the new machine will run the same speed or |
| 18 |
> will run 3X the speed when doing these neural network jobs? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
For this purpose bogomips is meaningless - it's simply a measure of how |
| 21 |
fast the cpu can execute a very specific and very tight loop and is |
| 22 |
used for some timing setting or other during kernel initialization. |
| 23 |
Bears almost no resemblance to real life operation, other than it's |
| 24 |
safe to say that bogomips goes up as cpu freq goes up |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
[snip] |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> 5) The current Athlon XP Windows machine is busy running Trading |
| 29 |
> Solutions but when in Linux I *think* it has a BogoMIPS spec around |
| 30 |
> 2800. No way to verify that right now. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> It's pretty boring but it seems that you can sort of double the CPU |
| 33 |
> MHz spec and come pretty close to the BogoMIPS numbers. However that |
| 34 |
> doesn't take cache size into account so maybe BogoMIPS isn't even the |
| 35 |
> right thing to be looking at. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
bogomips is usually about double the cpu speed, but you can't count on |
| 38 |
that. I would imagine that cache size and fpu performance were |
| 39 |
significant factors. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Let's assume this app of your is floating point intensive (fairly safe |
| 42 |
assumption), and doesn't use a heck of a lot of RAM or disk (already |
| 43 |
shown to be true). So now you need to rate the fpu of the various |
| 44 |
processors and machines around. So I would read reviews of various |
| 45 |
machines in computer performance mags where they publish sane |
| 46 |
benchmarks, to get an idea of what would be best |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
alan |
| 49 |
-- |
| 50 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives