- Mar 11, 2000
- 24,167
- 1,812
- 126
See here. Some excerpts:
dual G4-1GHz Xserve (single CPU only): 105
dual G4-1GHz Xserve (both CPUs): 207
dual G4-1.25GHz PowerMac (single CPU only): 129
dual G4-1.25GHz PowerMac (both CPUs): 256
dual G5-2GHz PowerMac (single CPU only): 254
dual G5-2GHz PowerMac (both CPUs): 498
single P4 2GHz: 192
single P4 2.66GHz: 255
single P4 3.2GHz (extrapolated): 307
As stated in the report, these tests are for technical government purposes only, and I was not trying to do comprehensive public benchmarking. The main goal was to evaluate the G5, and use some of our existing G4 (1GHz and 1.25GHz) and P4 (2GHz and 2.66GHz) systems as reference. I was testing on machines used in my work and comparing to a new system that was the focus of the report. The G4 and P4 machines in my study are 1-2 year old technology, but that's what we have to compare against.
As stated in the report, results were optimized on each platform (except for the G5). I tried several compilers on the P4 systems, including those known to give faster performance. The results I published are from the fastest performing executable I could compile that provided correct output. Higher levels of optimization and tuning either degraded performance or resulted in bogus output (or both), so these were not used. The results published in the report come from many hours of careful testing and optimization on each platform (except the G5).
G4/OSX: Absoft, NAG
I like them both. NAG catches bugs that compilers on many other platforms have missed. Performance varies from app to app, but generally, Absoft and NAG are close. We only have these two FORTRAN compilers on OS X, but I think G5 will bring more companies into this platform.
P4/Linux: Portland Group, Lahey, Intel (ifc)
P4/Windows: Compaq Visual Fortran
In general, these are all good compilers, but performance varies from app to app. In some cases, I have seen bogus output come out of executables compiled with more than one of these compilers, so you really have to examine output carefully. I think this is true on any platform really, but it's bit me more often on the P4. I'd rather not say which ones were the worst in public!
The latest version of Portland is very fast, but ifc is faster in some cases (25-50%). I think ifc uses more agressive optimization, and this can cause problems with some codes (including Jet3D). I'm still working on an ifc-compiled Jet3D.
The G5 was a machine in the developer lab at WWDC, and the benchmarks were run by a friend of mine at the conference. So, I have yet to lay hands on a G5. Looks like it would make a nice workstation, however.
dual G4-1GHz Xserve (single CPU only): 105
dual G4-1GHz Xserve (both CPUs): 207
dual G4-1.25GHz PowerMac (single CPU only): 129
dual G4-1.25GHz PowerMac (both CPUs): 256
dual G5-2GHz PowerMac (single CPU only): 254
dual G5-2GHz PowerMac (both CPUs): 498
single P4 2GHz: 192
single P4 2.66GHz: 255
single P4 3.2GHz (extrapolated): 307
As stated in the report, these tests are for technical government purposes only, and I was not trying to do comprehensive public benchmarking. The main goal was to evaluate the G5, and use some of our existing G4 (1GHz and 1.25GHz) and P4 (2GHz and 2.66GHz) systems as reference. I was testing on machines used in my work and comparing to a new system that was the focus of the report. The G4 and P4 machines in my study are 1-2 year old technology, but that's what we have to compare against.
As stated in the report, results were optimized on each platform (except for the G5). I tried several compilers on the P4 systems, including those known to give faster performance. The results I published are from the fastest performing executable I could compile that provided correct output. Higher levels of optimization and tuning either degraded performance or resulted in bogus output (or both), so these were not used. The results published in the report come from many hours of careful testing and optimization on each platform (except the G5).
G4/OSX: Absoft, NAG
I like them both. NAG catches bugs that compilers on many other platforms have missed. Performance varies from app to app, but generally, Absoft and NAG are close. We only have these two FORTRAN compilers on OS X, but I think G5 will bring more companies into this platform.
P4/Linux: Portland Group, Lahey, Intel (ifc)
P4/Windows: Compaq Visual Fortran
In general, these are all good compilers, but performance varies from app to app. In some cases, I have seen bogus output come out of executables compiled with more than one of these compilers, so you really have to examine output carefully. I think this is true on any platform really, but it's bit me more often on the P4. I'd rather not say which ones were the worst in public!
The latest version of Portland is very fast, but ifc is faster in some cases (25-50%). I think ifc uses more agressive optimization, and this can cause problems with some codes (including Jet3D). I'm still working on an ifc-compiled Jet3D.
The G5 was a machine in the developer lab at WWDC, and the benchmarks were run by a friend of mine at the conference. So, I have yet to lay hands on a G5. Looks like it would make a nice workstation, however.
Facebook
Twitter