SuperPI itself is actually not a very good program at all; it's only popular because so many stupid people use it. But you people can use superpi all you want... my posted app can calculate pi faster; so my computer must be faster
Computer Science Canada Super PI |
| Author: | BenLi [ Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Super PI |
There's a benchmark called Super PI, I ran it for 2M digits of pi to calculate, the result came back like 17 seconds. My computer runs at 667 mhz with 256 mb of ram... I looked at the scores of others (that are all machines over 1.5 Ghz) and none of them are under a minute. I'm just wondering whats going on? Oh and i was going to upload the screen shot, but my upload quota ran out |
|
| Author: | md [ Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Definitely seems wrong to me... Here's what superpi gives me (P4 @ 2.8, Gentoo Linux) superpi wrote: [john@saxifrage superpi]$ sh super_pi 21
Version 2.0 of the super_pi for Linux OS Fortran source program was translated into C program with version 19981204 of f2c, then generated C source program was optimized manually. pgcc 3.2-3 with compile option of "-fast -tp px -Mbuiltin -Minline=size:1000 -Mnoframe -Mnobounds -Mcache_align -Mdalign -Mnoreentrant" was used for the compilation. ------ Started super_pi run : Mon Dec 4 17:26:31 EST 2006 Start of PI calculation up to 2097152 decimal digits End of initialization. Time= 1.628 Sec. I= 1 L= 0 Time= 4.908 Sec. I= 2 L= 0 Time= 5.632 Sec. I= 3 L= 1 Time= 5.646 Sec. I= 4 L= 2 Time= 5.668 Sec. I= 5 L= 5 Time= 5.711 Sec. I= 6 L= 10 Time= 5.636 Sec. I= 7 L= 21 Time= 5.658 Sec. I= 8 L= 43 Time= 5.666 Sec. I= 9 L= 87 Time= 5.664 Sec. I=10 L= 174 Time= 5.654 Sec. I=11 L= 349 Time= 5.632 Sec. I=12 L= 698 Time= 5.714 Sec. I=13 L= 1396 Time= 5.648 Sec. I=14 L= 2794 Time= 5.675 Sec. I=15 L= 5588 Time= 5.627 Sec. I=16 L= 11176 Time= 5.671 Sec. I=17 L= 22353 Time= 5.603 Sec. I=18 L= 44707 Time= 5.523 Sec. I=19 L= 89415 Time= 5.380 Sec. I=20 L= 178831 Time= 4.950 Sec. End of main loop End of calculation. Time= 117.162 Sec. End of data output. Time= 0.440 Sec. Total calculation(I/O) time= 117.602( 6.921) Sec. ------ Ended super_pi run : Mon Dec 4 17:28:30 EST 2006 |
|
| Author: | TheFerret [ Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Something defiently does seem wrong since me duel core amd x2 @ 2.2 GHz takes 98.625s to complete it... So, I think you ran yours wrong or misintereped the results... |
|
| Author: | md [ Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:59 pm ] | ||||||
| Post subject: | |||||||
Something better for calculating pi that I found and modified a wee bit get from http://nxor.org/media/calc_pi.c.bz2 (bzip2 compressed file) extract with
compile with
rum with
mine: Quote: [john@saxifrage superpi]$ ./pi.exec 2000000
[john@saxifrage superpi]$ ./pi.exec 8000000 digits=8000000, #terms=564109, depth=21 sieve ................................................... total time = 120.380s |
|||||||
| Author: | timmytheturtle [ Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
For anyone trying to use md's program, make sure you have the GNU Multiple Precision Arithmetic Library installed. Mine: Quote: chris@melchior:~$ ./pi.exec 8000000
digits=8000000, #terms=564109, depth=21 sieve ................................................... total time = 119.660s |
|
| Author: | War_Caymore [ Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
can someone make a link for the super PI benchmark program, i wish to try it out on my computr so see how it performs. anyone wanna take a guess how long a P4 2.93Ghz 512 DDR RAM will perform? |
|
| Author: | Clayton [ Tue Dec 05, 2006 4:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
why don't you google it? This is what I got with "superPI Benchmark"... click here |
|
| Author: | md [ Tue Dec 05, 2006 4:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
SuperPI itself is actually not a very good program at all; it's only popular because so many stupid people use it. But you people can use superpi all you want... my posted app can calculate pi faster; so my computer must be faster |
|
| Author: | BenLi [ Tue Dec 05, 2006 4:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
yeah i see, I only counted the "initial value found thing" i didn't wait around to see what does after. My computer ended up being around 9 minutes...haha. But to what someone said, it doesn't matter if you're dual core. The application isn't. And md, it doesn't matter if its not efficient. The point is that its standarized, so you can conpare different configurations. However, calculating pi is probably not a comprehensive evaluation of your computer at all Just curious, which benchmarks do you guys use (if any)? |
|
| Author: | cool dude [ Tue Dec 05, 2006 4:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
My laptop took 2 minutes and a few seconds to calculate 2M although i had a bunch of open applications running. Wow i wish i had TheFerret's computer lol. 1.36 seconds. nice! Edit: Forgot to mention my laptop specs. 2.8 GHz, Pentium 4, 512 MB RAM. |
|
| Author: | rdrake [ Tue Dec 05, 2006 5:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
One minute, twenty-one seconds here. Running on an Intel Centrino Duo T2500@2.00 GHz with 1 GB RAM. |
|
| Author: | War_Caymore [ Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
1m 55s running a 2.93Ghz P4 with 512 of DDR RAM. not bad |
|
| Author: | Andy [ Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
BenLi wrote: But to what someone said, it doesn't matter if you're dual core. The application isn't.
err, incase you havent noticed, your system runs more than 1 program at a time. dual core systems will give you a noticeable increase in performance by pipelining tasks queues to the two cpus. |
|
| Author: | md [ Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Andy wrote: BenLi wrote: But to what someone said, it doesn't matter if you're dual core. The application isn't.
err, incase you havent noticed, your system runs more than 1 program at a time. dual core systems will give you a noticeable increase in performance by pipelining tasks queues to the two cpus. Yes, that speeds up the execution of programs in general; but it cannot speed one particular app up in particular if it's not multi-threaded. The best it could do is run the app as if it were getting 100% CPU time. So, faster? Yes. As past as a multi-threaded version on a dual-core? Probably not. |
|
| Author: | Silent Avenger [ Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I've ran all of them (16K to 32M) on my computer which is running a Pentium D (dual core) at 3.6 Ghz with 4 GB RAM. I was also running some programs at the same time so it's not completely accurate but I guess it's close enough. Oh yeah I was too lazy to cut out the window so I just took a screen shot of my whole desktop. |
|
| Author: | [Gandalf] [ Tue Dec 05, 2006 8:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Blargh! My uber-gaming computer got 2 million in 1 minute and 27 seconds. Damn you rdrake, damn yooooouuu!  |
|
| Author: | Andy [ Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
4gb of ram on windows xp? what a waste... |
|
| Author: | Silent Avenger [ Wed Dec 06, 2006 6:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Actually Andy it is of use in many ways when doing media editing such as recording home videos on to the PC. With 4GB I can record a continuous 3.5 hours of video from a camera and with Media Center I can rewind live TV back 2.5 hours and re watch a movie if I wanted too and one other thing I can do a lot of multi tasking. So in some ways 4GB of ram isn't a waste on a Windows XP computer. |
|
| Author: | Andy [ Wed Dec 06, 2006 6:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
check your system resources. i doubt all 4gb get consumed. xp has horrible memory management. if it were osx, or vista, i'd agree with you |
|
| Author: | Silent Avenger [ Wed Dec 06, 2006 7:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I have the Alienware Dock and it has a system monitor on it and the highest the Ram indicator has gotten to is 92% so if I do my calculations right is about 3.68 GB of ram but I've never seen it higher so I guess I lose about half a gig of total ram. I'm also thinking of upgrading to Vista which I'm sure my system can handle (except for the video card). |
|