AMD 64 XP3000+ slower than AMD Barton XP3000?!

[Matt]

Yeah so basically what's going on here?

I am running a sieve on AMD 64 XP3000+ with an average speed of 486kps this is the proth_sieve_sse2 client.

I also run a client on an AMD Barton XP3000+ with an average speed of 542kps that's running the proth_sieve_cmov_static_bsd client.

What's up with that? I thought AMD 64's were supposed to be better?

[maddog1]

Athlons were traditionally very strong at sieving with the cmov client.
I know how strong the XPs were very well, because I have a Barton 3000+ too. Using this one only, I had managed to climb quite high in the stats in a relatively low time frame.
Sorry that I can't give current speeds, since I have moved to double checking since the summer, but if I remember correctly we had done some informal benchmarks back then and the numbers were very close for the regular Athlon and Athlon64. You may be able to find them by browsing through the forum.

In any case, there's no reason really for the 64 to be "better" when the 64bit ability is not utilized, like with the proth sieve clients. They should be close to each other, perhaps the Barton outdoing it slightly like in your case, due to it's higher clock speeds. But I don't see any reason whatsoever for the 64 to be faster and neither does AMD, hence the 3000+ rating in this case ;)
They both have 512K L2 cache and the Barton is clocked slightly higher (2162 vs 2000 MHz for socket 754 or even 1800 MHz for the newer socket 939 processors, if I got my facts right)

[vjs]

Yeah don't expect much from sieve those xp's really rock with cmov.

In addition it still comes down to raw clock speed

The a64 3000+ is a 2000 mhz chip
The barton3000 a 2167 mhz chip (8.35% faster MHz wise)

Although the memory controller and larger cache should make up for a little it doesn't seem to be the case...8.35% clock difference? It's still ~11% slower by your numbers... I can only think that your a64 is actually a socker ?745? without dual channel? Dual channel seemed to help by about 2-3% for the same platform core chip etc etc etc....

[Matt]

It's a socket 939... dunno about dual channel or not.

[maddog1]

Socket 939 A64 3000+ is clocked @ 1800MHz
Oh and the part about larger L2 cache that VJS mentions is wrong, Bartons have 512K L2 too, like this particular A64 (I got the facts from AMD's pages)
So it's not really strange if you ask me.
Looks like you aren't going to retire your Barton anytime soon :)
Same goes for me. I've kept the same CPU for 2 years, which is close to a new personal record and it still doesn't "feel" old or slow at all. One of AMDs best chips if you ask me.

[Matt]

Yeah this is getting on a bit now, still runs ok it's just the motherboard has a few "issues" with FreeBSD.

[vjs]

From the AMD site:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9487^10248,00.html


3700+ 2.4GHz 1MB 754-pin
3700+ 2.2GHz 1MB 939-pin
3500+ 2.2GHz 512KB 939-pin
3400+ 2.4GHz 512KB 754-pin
3200+ 2.0GHz 1MB 754-pin
3200+ 2.0GHz 512KB 939-pin
3000+ 2.0GHz 512KB 754-pin
3000+ 1.8GHz 512KB 939-pin


Depending on which a64 3000+ the clock speeds are infact different as you pointed out.

I can never keep the model number right anyways. As for dual channel or not if it's a 939 it's a dual channel chip but will only function as dual channel if you have two sticks of memory installed.

The numbers make a little more sence now:
2162/1800 is 20% faster Mhz wise but only 11.5% faster in sieve.

I've basically retired all of my other computers except for two a dual barton 512Kb each of them run at ~2.3Ghz on 133 fsb. And a 2.4Ghz at 200fsb.

Like Maddog said tough to retire those, especially the dual. I think I won't upgrade again until the socket M2 comes out.

[GP500]

It's a socket 939... dunno about dual channel or not.

To use that dualchannel you should use 2 or 4 RAM-unit's.
Else it's single channel.

And overclock that baby, it can easily do 20%.
or just do 10%. :idea:

Ps: http://forums.pcper.com/showthread.php?t=299229