| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SuperHero
Joined: 10 Dec 2003
Location: Superhero Hideout
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 4:52 pm Post subject: Benchmarking - this is just wrong! |
 |
|
So I did a reinstall of my current system (2.4celeron overclocked to 2.77 and 1gb of ram) and wanted to compare processing times etc with the new computer I'm getting tomorrow.
Anyhow - installing office 2007 (excel, ppt, pub, word, shared files & tools) took 7:29
Premiere Pro took 4:28
other than that I installed adaware, ccleaner, avg and all updates.
I then took a short video I made of my daughter and added a title to it in premier and exported to wmv at 640x480 1173kbps and rendering took 1:04:13 - unbelievably long. The entire clip is only 4:16 so the render took 1 hour longer than the actual clip. I'm looking forward to seeing what the Q6600 and 4gbs of ram can do to this time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ttompatz
Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 5:42 pm Post subject: Re: Benchmarking - this is just wrong! |
|
|
| SuperHero wrote: |
So I did a reinstall of my current system (2.4celeron overclocked to 2.77 and 1gb of ram) and wanted to compare processing times etc with the new computer I'm getting tomorrow.
Anyhow - installing office 2007 (excel, ppt, pub, word, shared files & tools) took 7:29
Premiere Pro took 4:28
other than that I installed adaware, ccleaner, avg and all updates.
I then took a short video I made of my daughter and added a title to it in premier and exported to wmv at 640x480 1173kbps and rendering took 1:04:13 - unbelievably long. The entire clip is only 4:16 so the render took 1 hour longer than the actual clip. I'm looking forward to seeing what the Q6600 and 4gbs of ram can do to this time. |
Will you be using a 64 bit O/S? IF you are NOT planning to use a 64 bit o/s (vista 64 or xp64 bit, you can't use 4 GB of RAM.
The system will only address just over 3 GB. (3668396k bytes to be more precise).
Also,
I think that you may be a bit disappointed in the performance if that is your comparason basis. The quad cores do not outperform single cores or even dual cores with the same processing speeds when using individual 32bit single threaded applications.
The advantage is that you can do that AND play your favorite game (or watch a movie) AND run your other software at the same time with no appreciable loss in time for the rendering.
Quads are excellent at multi-tasking when running different apps on different cores or by using multi-threaded applications that can split the work amongst the cores.
This has been my personal experience.
Last edited by ttompatz on Sat Dec 15, 2007 7:41 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I do a lot of video conversion and the software I use (Nero Recode) utilizes all 4 cores so I have seen a drastic improvement in conversion times (despite the fact that CPU usage remains only at 50%, have yet to figure out why that is.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuperHero
Joined: 10 Dec 2003
Location: Superhero Hideout
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Will be using 64bit and premeire pro is a multi-threaded app so there should be a major improvement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 3:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
18,446,744,073,709,551K of RAM ought to be enough for anybody.
/pae switching works for many...a cool MS-supported 36 bit workaround. But those darn cheap=o driver writers keep bluescreening me, so we are left with 32 bit addresses.
Enable at your own risk, but get your RAM back.
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition...for all your 32-bit and 64-bit fun. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jeffkim1972
Joined: 10 Jan 2007
Location: Mokpo
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Unfortunately, even if you throw the world's supply of RAM at the problem, your performance will not improve since you have a Celeron.
The two rules in buying computers should be :
1. Don't buy a Celeron (and AMD's clone)
2. Stay away from Windows Home version OS.
The reason the Celeron is so slow is because of it's L2 cache. It hardly has any of it. So there is a huge bottle neck between the processor and the memory available to it (the RAM) because of this L2 cache.
The Celeron is deliberately slow so it can be sold at the low end of the market. And the only way to make them slow is to disable the L2 cache or at least minimize it. The actually core of the processor is the same.
There is also a level of cache memory, the L1.
All the fast processors have a TON of L2 and L1 cache.
Nothing to do with the clocking or whether you are using a 32-bit or 64-bit processor.
Accessing RAM memory is actually a slow process and processors don't like to do it at all The more the CPU can access it's commands from the L2 and L1 cache, the faster your computer will appear.
That's why video cards with their own memory versus using a shared memory system with RAM are much better.
Imagine this analogy.
L1 cache is the stuff you have sitting right in front of you.
L2 is the stuff in your house.
RAM is in the nearby stores.
Hard Drive memory you have to order and wait for delivery the next day.
Compare the amount of L2 cache among all of the Intel processors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Celeron_microprocessors
Scroll down and at the bottom of the page you can go to the lists for the other Intel processors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jeffkim1972 wrote: |
Unfortunately, even if you throw the world's supply of RAM at the problem, your performance will not improve since you have a Celeron.
The two rules in buying computers should be :
1. Don't buy a Celeron (and AMD's clone)
2. Stay away from Windows Home version OS.
The reason the Celeron is so slow is because of it's L2 cache. It hardly has any of it. So there is a huge bottle neck between the processor and the memory available to it (the RAM) because of this L2 cache.
The Celeron is deliberately slow so it can be sold at the low end of the market. And the only way to make them slow is to disable the L2 cache or at least minimize it. The actually core of the processor is the same.
There is also a level of cache memory, the L1.
All the fast processors have a TON of L2 and L1 cache.
Nothing to do with the clocking or whether you are using a 32-bit or 64-bit processor.
Accessing RAM memory is actually a slow process and processors don't like to do it at all The more the CPU can access it's commands from the L2 and L1 cache, the faster your computer will appear.
That's why video cards with their own memory versus using a shared memory system with RAM are much better.
Imagine this analogy.
L1 cache is the stuff you have sitting right in front of you.
L2 is the stuff in your house.
RAM is in the nearby stores.
Hard Drive memory you have to order and wait for delivery the next day.
Compare the amount of L2 cache among all of the Intel processors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Celeron_microprocessors
Scroll down and at the bottom of the page you can go to the lists for the other Intel processors. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jeffkim1972 wrote: |
Unfortunately, even if you throw the world's supply of RAM at the problem, your performance will not improve since you have a Celeron.
The two rules in buying computers should be :
1. Don't buy a Celeron (and AMD's clone)
2. Stay away from Windows Home version OS.
The reason the Celeron is so slow is because of it's L2 cache. It hardly has any of it. So there is a huge bottle neck between the processor and the memory available to it (the RAM) because of this L2 cache.
The Celeron is deliberately slow so it can be sold at the low end of the market. And the only way to make them slow is to disable the L2 cache or at least minimize it. The actually core of the processor is the same.
There is also a level of cache memory, the L1.
All the fast processors have a TON of L2 and L1 cache.
Nothing to do with the clocking or whether you are using a 32-bit or 64-bit processor.
Accessing RAM memory is actually a slow process and processors don't like to do it at all The more the CPU can access it's commands from the L2 and L1 cache, the faster your computer will appear.
That's why video cards with their own memory versus using a shared memory system with RAM are much better.
Imagine this analogy.
L1 cache is the stuff you have sitting right in front of you.
L2 is the stuff in your house.
RAM is in the nearby stores.
Hard Drive memory you have to order and wait for delivery the next day.
Compare the amount of L2 cache among all of the Intel processors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Celeron_microprocessors
Scroll down and at the bottom of the page you can go to the lists for the other Intel processors. |
| Superhero wrote: |
So I did a reinstall of my current system (2.4celeron overclocked to 2.77 and 1gb of ram) and wanted to compare processing times etc with the new computer I'm getting tomorrow.
Anyhow - installing office 2007 (excel, ppt, pub, word, shared files & tools) took 7:29
Premiere Pro took 4:28
other than that I installed adaware, ccleaner, avg and all updates.
I then took a short video I made of my daughter and added a title to it in premier and exported to wmv at 640x480 1173kbps and rendering took 1:04:13 - unbelievably long. The entire clip is only 4:16 so the render took 1 hour longer than the actual clip. I'm looking forward to seeing what the Q6600 and 4gbs of ram can do to this time. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuperHero
Joined: 10 Dec 2003
Location: Superhero Hideout
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Unfortunately fate has stepped in and said wait until Tuesday. My daughter is really sick - so I'm staying home today watching Elmo and Dora the Explorer DVDs and playing games all day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuperHero
Joined: 10 Dec 2003
Location: Superhero Hideout
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 5:25 pm Post subject: Re: Benchmarking - this is just wrong! |
|
|
| SuperHero wrote: |
| I then took a short video I made of my daughter and added a title to it in premier and exported to wmv at 640x480 1173kbps and rendering took 1:04:13 - unbelievably long. The entire clip is only 4:16 so the render took 1 hour longer than the actual clip. I'm looking forward to seeing what the Q6600 and 4gbs of ram can do to this time. |
Well I re-rendered this project on my new rig while moving 20gb of data across drives, surfing and installing MS Office.
Render time: 00:11:43! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ttompatz
Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:43 pm Post subject: Re: Benchmarking - this is just wrong! |
|
|
| SuperHero wrote: |
| SuperHero wrote: |
| I then took a short video I made of my daughter and added a title to it in premier and exported to wmv at 640x480 1173kbps and rendering took 1:04:13 - unbelievably long. The entire clip is only 4:16 so the render took 1 hour longer than the actual clip. I'm looking forward to seeing what the Q6600 and 4gbs of ram can do to this time. |
Well I re-rendered this project on my new rig while moving 20gb of data across drives, surfing and installing MS Office.
Render time: 00:11:43! |
Yup... quads kick axx when you are multi-tasking.... gotta love em.
Welcome to the quad club. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
