• Welcome to Tux Reports: Where Penguins Fly. We hope you find the topics varied, interesting, and worthy of your time. Please become a member and join in the discussions.

Where to locate my CPU benchmark?

P

Paul

Flightless Bird
Eric wrote:
> My CPU is Intel® Xeon® Processor 2.66 GHz,
> http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL73M
> I get no idea on how to locate my CPU's performance, because there is no
> specific model number for my CPU.
> Does anyone have any suggestions on how to locate it under CPU benchmark list?
> http://www.cpubenchmark.net/mid_range_cpus.html
> Thanks in advance for any suggestions
> Eric


I found this on the Intel site, which helps match the CPU id to
some steppings.

1 CPU/ 2 CPUs Intel Xeon(tm) processors with 400MHz/533MHz for
CPU id 0F24/0F27/0F29/0F25 (B0/C1/D1/M0 Stepping)

Your processor is an M0. The geometry is 0.13 microns, which
makes the processor close in some way, to a Pentium 4 Northwood.
The Northwood has 512KB cache and 0.13 micron geometry. This
is a D1 and they don't make M0 versions of that particular
processor. (Steppings are silicon revisions - silicon is
rev'ed to improve design performance or increase yield at
the foundary.) So we could say your processor is in the
same ballpark as a P4 2.66GHz/FSB533 512KB cache 0.13u
processor. (Some Xeons, and even some P4 processors, have
L3 cache, which would make their performance different again.
I see enough similarities between these two, to say they'd
be in the same ballpark. I can't honestly say, how your
Xeon differs. I don't know if it has a TLB, whether the
TLB is bigger on the Xeon or not. Usually, the difference
would be attributed to cache.)

http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL6PE

This is the ark entry for your processor. The list at the
bottom, shows all the SLxxx numbers corresponding to that
Xeon.

http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=27272&processor=&spec-codes=SL6GF,SL6NR,SL6VM,SL6YP,SL72E,SL73M

*******

Not that any of that is important.

You didn't look low down enough on the chart. I can find it
on this page. It's near the top of the low_end chart (11th
entry from the top). It turns out to be significantly
faster than the P4 Northwood.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/low_end_cpus.html

Intel Xeon 2.66GHz 402 points
Intel Pentium 4 2.66GHz 340 points

You'll notice, that the CPUbenchmark terminology is not
precise enough, to tell which exact processor they're
referring to. Those are my best guesses, as to what would be
close to your processor. You'll notice, at the bottom of
the chart, they have an entry called simply "Celeron", and
there are hundreds of processors that fit the description.
I expect the Passmark people have the necessary information,
but chose not to mess up the chart putting it in.

If your motherboard has two of those CPUs, and is a dual
socket motherboard, then your benchmark will end up
significantly higher.

Paul
 
E

Eric

Flightless Bird
My motherboard has two of those CPUs, and is a dual
socket motherboard, would it be 402 points x 2 = 804 points.
Thank you very much for suggestions
Eric


"Paul" wrote:

> Eric wrote:
> > My CPU is Intel® Xeon® Processor 2.66 GHz,
> > http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL73M
> > I get no idea on how to locate my CPU's performance, because there is no
> > specific model number for my CPU.
> > Does anyone have any suggestions on how to locate it under CPU benchmark list?
> > http://www.cpubenchmark.net/mid_range_cpus.html
> > Thanks in advance for any suggestions
> > Eric

>
> I found this on the Intel site, which helps match the CPU id to
> some steppings.
>
> 1 CPU/ 2 CPUs Intel Xeon(tm) processors with 400MHz/533MHz for
> CPU id 0F24/0F27/0F29/0F25 (B0/C1/D1/M0 Stepping)
>
> Your processor is an M0. The geometry is 0.13 microns, which
> makes the processor close in some way, to a Pentium 4 Northwood.
> The Northwood has 512KB cache and 0.13 micron geometry. This
> is a D1 and they don't make M0 versions of that particular
> processor. (Steppings are silicon revisions - silicon is
> rev'ed to improve design performance or increase yield at
> the foundary.) So we could say your processor is in the
> same ballpark as a P4 2.66GHz/FSB533 512KB cache 0.13u
> processor. (Some Xeons, and even some P4 processors, have
> L3 cache, which would make their performance different again.
> I see enough similarities between these two, to say they'd
> be in the same ballpark. I can't honestly say, how your
> Xeon differs. I don't know if it has a TLB, whether the
> TLB is bigger on the Xeon or not. Usually, the difference
> would be attributed to cache.)
>
> http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL6PE
>
> This is the ark entry for your processor. The list at the
> bottom, shows all the SLxxx numbers corresponding to that
> Xeon.
>
> http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=27272&processor=&spec-codes=SL6GF,SL6NR,SL6VM,SL6YP,SL72E,SL73M
>
> *******
>
> Not that any of that is important.
>
> You didn't look low down enough on the chart. I can find it
> on this page. It's near the top of the low_end chart (11th
> entry from the top). It turns out to be significantly
> faster than the P4 Northwood.
>
> http://www.cpubenchmark.net/low_end_cpus.html
>
> Intel Xeon 2.66GHz 402 points
> Intel Pentium 4 2.66GHz 340 points
>
> You'll notice, that the CPUbenchmark terminology is not
> precise enough, to tell which exact processor they're
> referring to. Those are my best guesses, as to what would be
> close to your processor. You'll notice, at the bottom of
> the chart, they have an entry called simply "Celeron", and
> there are hundreds of processors that fit the description.
> I expect the Passmark people have the necessary information,
> but chose not to mess up the chart putting it in.
>
> If your motherboard has two of those CPUs, and is a dual
> socket motherboard, then your benchmark will end up
> significantly higher.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> .
>
 
S

SC Tom

Flightless Bird
If you look here:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/multi_cpu.html
you'll see the listing for yours as

[Dual CPU] Intel Xeon 2.66GHz 845


So a dual setup is a little better than just doubling the single CPU score.
--
SC Tom


"Eric" <Eric@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:647CD8AF-9E89-490F-AE93-2BE058C5A402@microsoft.com...
> My motherboard has two of those CPUs, and is a dual
> socket motherboard, would it be 402 points x 2 = 804 points.
> Thank you very much for suggestions
> Eric
>
>
> "Paul" wrote:
>
>> Eric wrote:
>> > My CPU is Intel® Xeon® Processor 2.66 GHz,
>> > http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL73M
>> > I get no idea on how to locate my CPU's performance, because there is
>> > no
>> > specific model number for my CPU.
>> > Does anyone have any suggestions on how to locate it under CPU
>> > benchmark list?
>> > http://www.cpubenchmark.net/mid_range_cpus.html
>> > Thanks in advance for any suggestions
>> > Eric

>>
>> I found this on the Intel site, which helps match the CPU id to
>> some steppings.
>>
>> 1 CPU/ 2 CPUs Intel Xeon(tm) processors with 400MHz/533MHz for
>> CPU id 0F24/0F27/0F29/0F25 (B0/C1/D1/M0 Stepping)
>>
>> Your processor is an M0. The geometry is 0.13 microns, which
>> makes the processor close in some way, to a Pentium 4 Northwood.
>> The Northwood has 512KB cache and 0.13 micron geometry. This
>> is a D1 and they don't make M0 versions of that particular
>> processor. (Steppings are silicon revisions - silicon is
>> rev'ed to improve design performance or increase yield at
>> the foundary.) So we could say your processor is in the
>> same ballpark as a P4 2.66GHz/FSB533 512KB cache 0.13u
>> processor. (Some Xeons, and even some P4 processors, have
>> L3 cache, which would make their performance different again.
>> I see enough similarities between these two, to say they'd
>> be in the same ballpark. I can't honestly say, how your
>> Xeon differs. I don't know if it has a TLB, whether the
>> TLB is bigger on the Xeon or not. Usually, the difference
>> would be attributed to cache.)
>>
>> http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL6PE
>>
>> This is the ark entry for your processor. The list at the
>> bottom, shows all the SLxxx numbers corresponding to that
>> Xeon.
>>
>> http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=27272&processor=&spec-codes=SL6GF,SL6NR,SL6VM,SL6YP,SL72E,SL73M
>>
>> *******
>>
>> Not that any of that is important.
>>
>> You didn't look low down enough on the chart. I can find it
>> on this page. It's near the top of the low_end chart (11th
>> entry from the top). It turns out to be significantly
>> faster than the P4 Northwood.
>>
>> http://www.cpubenchmark.net/low_end_cpus.html
>>
>> Intel Xeon 2.66GHz 402 points
>> Intel Pentium 4 2.66GHz 340 points
>>
>> You'll notice, that the CPUbenchmark terminology is not
>> precise enough, to tell which exact processor they're
>> referring to. Those are my best guesses, as to what would be
>> close to your processor. You'll notice, at the bottom of
>> the chart, they have an entry called simply "Celeron", and
>> there are hundreds of processors that fit the description.
>> I expect the Passmark people have the necessary information,
>> but chose not to mess up the chart putting it in.
>>
>> If your motherboard has two of those CPUs, and is a dual
>> socket motherboard, then your benchmark will end up
>> significantly higher.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> .
>>
 
P

Paul

Flightless Bird
Eric wrote:
> My motherboard has two of those CPUs, and is a dual
> socket motherboard, would it be 402 points x 2 = 804 points.
> Thank you very much for suggestions
> Eric
>


I don't know enough about Passmark to say what the result would be.

Looking at the page here -

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_test_info.html

I would guess running the same test on each of the
CPUs, would result in some bus contention, especially
in the compression test. Some of the other benchmark
sites, see their highest dependence on memory bandwidth,
in compression type tests. So that probably won't double.
(I.e. Two processors can't do twice the work in that case,
because it takes longer to get data from memory.)

*******

If you want a means of estimating, you could use
Cinebench, run it on one processor, run it on two
processors, and use the ratio as a "scale factor"
to multiply by the 402 points number above.

http://http.maxon.net/pub/benchmarks/CINEBENCH_11.529.zip (145,723,303 bytes)

You unzip that, and run the "CINEBENCH Windows 32 Bit.exe"
executable. There is nothing to install. (Run the 64 bit
version if you have a 64 bit Windows OS.)

The first thing to do, is go to the File menu, and remove
the tick mark next to "Keep Best Score". You want the
test to update the result after each run, no matter whether
it is better or worse.

On my computer, without changing the preference item, the
program tells me I have a 2C/2T test situation. That is
two computing cores and two test threads. That will likely
be your default as well.

Running the test might take 5-15 minutes. Click the "Run" button
next to "CPU". Two windowed areas should open, showing the
progress of two test threads. When the work of a thread is
completed, another thread is dispatched. Two threads should be
"in flight" until the test is finished. The program activity
being computed, appears to be ray tracing in an image
with multiple light sources.

The program will report a score after the test is complete.
For example, with two test threads, my score was 1.78 points.

Next, go back to the File menu, and select Preferences. You
can increment or decrement the number of test threads. Change
the number to "1", tick the box for Custom Number Of Test
Threads. Once you've set that preference, click the run
button next to "CPU" again. When the program runs, you should
see just one windowed area appear at a time, implying one test
thread is being used. The test will take roughly double the
time to run to completion.

My result for the second run, using only one test thread (which
uses one computing core), my score was 0.90.

If I take the ratio of those two scores 1.78/0.90, the result
is 1.978 . That means my processor scales pretty well. It should
have executed two threads at twice the rate, but only managed
to do it 1.978 times as fast.

Take the ratio, using your dual socket motherboard, and see
how much of a bottleneck your shared bus is. Your ratio should be
some number less than 2. You can multiply that number by the
Passmark result of 402 if you like, as an estimate of your
dual socket result to be expected.

To give some other examples, if you use a Core2 Quad core in
a test like that, the internal shared bus is a bit of a bottle
neck, and running four test threads, runs at about 87% of the
speed you would have expected. So the bus structure costs you
about 13% of the theoretical performance. If you repeat the
test with a Phenom quad core, four cores runs at exactly
four times the speed of one core, telling you there is no
performance loss. I think the Core i7 is the same way as the
Phenom. It has an integrated memory controller and a relatively
large cache, and hides bus issues well. But the Core2 quad core
isn't quite as good. I'm expecting a similar effect on your
dual Xeon. It shouldn't be twice as fast with two test threads.
I think the shared bus scheme runs out of steam at around
four sockets. There would not be much point extending the
bus on your motherboard, and using five sockets, as the
bus would be choked.

I'm just guessing here, but your processors are likely
connected like this. The CPUs arbitrate to see who owns the
bus and gets to do a transaction with the Northbridge.

CPU0 CPU1
| |
+-----+-----+
|
Northbridge ----- Memory

An alternative means, is to do this. This approach is used
on more modern server motherboards, with colossal pin count
Northbridge chips. By using a private bus connection for each
processor, and perhaps hiding a snoop cache inside the Northbridge,
some of the bus bottleneck can be removed. It is my guess your
processor is a generation previous to this, and uses the first
figure.

CPU0 CPU1
| |
| |
| |
Northbridge ----- Memory

Have fun,
Paul
 
P

Paul

Flightless Bird
SC Tom wrote:
> If you look here:
> http://www.cpubenchmark.net/multi_cpu.html
> you'll see the listing for yours as
>
> [Dual CPU] Intel Xeon 2.66GHz 845
>
>
> So a dual setup is a little better than just doubling the single CPU score.


Missed that :)

I wonder how that is possible ?
Doesn't that defy logic ?

Paul
 
S

SC Tom

Flightless Bird
"Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message
news:hvidml$j9h$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> SC Tom wrote:
>> If you look here:
>> http://www.cpubenchmark.net/multi_cpu.html
>> you'll see the listing for yours as
>>
>> [Dual CPU] Intel Xeon 2.66GHz 845
>>
>>
>> So a dual setup is a little better than just doubling the single CPU
>> score.

>
> Missed that :)
>
> I wonder how that is possible ?
> Doesn't that defy logic ?
>
> Paul


I don't know, maybe a slightly faster bus or chipset in the dual CPU setup?
Newer revision?
I never much got into benchmarks since the i486 days. I can remember
spending quite a few dollars more buying a 486DX-50 CPU with matching MB
instead of a 486DX2-50 because the DX ran on a 50MHz external bus instead of
25MHz doubled. It was certainly faster than the 386 CPU and MB I was
replacing, but wasn't perceptively faster than the DX2s we had at work :-(
--
SC Tom
 
Top