Os-X Time comparisons PPC vs. Intel
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Os-X Time comparisons PPC vs. Intel
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
 Paul D. BuckSend message Joined: 12 Apr 08 Posts: 621 Credit: 161,934,067 RAC: 0  
|
When you post a link with no explanation, yes, I missed the obvious. The question remains, why the discrepancy on my, and other's (Alliance Francophone) systems and not on his. I have sent him a PM to ask if he/she can shed any light on the problem. *I* still say investigation is warranted and will keep looking for an answer. |
|
Send message Joined: 31 Mar 08 Posts: 23 Credit: 721,836 RAC: 0 
|
Unfortunately, I'm only able to notice the fact, not to propose any practical solution. I see nice computing time indeed, that is a result. My Mac Pro Quad 2.66Ghz takes 11:29 / WU under Leopard. It should take around 4-5 minutes (as under Ubuntu). It has 4 Gigs of ram, thus memory should not be an issue. Can you give more information about how to achieve these results ? Thanks! |
|
Send message Joined: 31 Mar 08 Posts: 23 Credit: 721,836 RAC: 0
|
[quote]Unfortunately, I'm only able to notice the fact, not to propose any practical solution. On the other side, while this users Mac Pro is performing well under Leopard, his iMac is not doing that well under Tiger: http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/show_host_detail.php?hostid=1160 My Mini was going more than twice as fast (2.00 Ghz, T7200) under Ubuntu than his iMac 2.33Ghz (T7600) under Tiger. Thus, strange, is he using a beta/own decompiled/recompiled version on the Mac Pro (this is how optimized clients appeared first on SETI) ? Edit: add my Mini info + question |
Crunch3r Send message Joined: 17 Feb 08 Posts: 363 Credit: 258,227,990 RAC: 0  |
i do see them too :)
Memory is not the issue.
Yes i can.  Join Support science! Joinc Team BOINC United now! |
|
Send message Joined: 2 Apr 08 Posts: 32 Credit: 1,017,362 RAC: 0 
|
My Leopard Mac Book Pro was averaging around 850 seconds per WU. Interesting to see how the other platforms can crunch through WU's quickly... |
|
Crunch3r Send message Joined: 17 Feb 08 Posts: 363 Credit: 258,227,990 RAC: 0 |
Joining a project without properly reading the board and what development was done is not an excuse.
If you would have read some threads on the board you've probably would have know by now... anyhow, if you're not willing then i can't help you.
Now i'm waiting for what that investigation will come up with as a clue* ... [* read all posts on the board you're posting on... and all threads of it!!!] Join Support science! Joinc Team BOINC United now! |
|
Send message Joined: 2 Apr 08 Posts: 32 Credit: 1,017,362 RAC: 0
|
[* read all posts on the board you're posting on... and all threads of it!!!] With the size of some boards that could take quite a while ;) From what I gather it appears that the OS and whether or not one is running an optimized or beta app that really makes the big difference in times for WU's as opposed to clock drive speed. Since Leopard is one of platforms that doesn't have a beta/optimized app we are going to have slower speeds for a machine of the same hardware as a general rule of thumb. Good to see you with this project Crunch3r, I know your contribution to other BOINC projects as been great! :) |
|
Crunch3r Send message Joined: 17 Feb 08 Posts: 363 Credit: 258,227,990 RAC: 0 |
Yeha, it might but it'S usually bether than jumping in and start spamming without having a clue ... (not you)
Yes it does.
Well yes and no... there are some factors involved in this.
Yes, you and me know that ... however some think i'm a security risk ... now that's why the MACs have to suffer that hard... OOPPPS did i really post that thought ? Hmmm ask the adminstration they can tell you much more ... Or sign up at my message board as long as this post is still here ;) Join Support science! Joinc Team BOINC United now! |
|
Send message Joined: 2 Apr 08 Posts: 32 Credit: 1,017,362 RAC: 0
|
Probably thoughts of jealous paranoia on some, pity that Macs have to suffer as a result. But probably not the thread or board to get into it. |
|
Crunch3r Send message Joined: 17 Feb 08 Posts: 363 Credit: 258,227,990 RAC: 0 |
If your interested to know more about why the macs got punished... sign up over there and i'll tell you all the story... Anyone welcome... but not here ;)... let's leave the poor devs. out of this ;) Thank you. Join Support science! Joinc Team BOINC United now! |
 Send message Joined: 29 Aug 07 Posts: 115 Credit: 502,527,662 RAC: 0  
|
On the other side, while this users Mac Pro is performing well under Leopard, his iMac is not doing that well under Tiger: My iMac is still running the stock app. Check this out. Tiger, 2.16 Core Duo w/ opt app: ~478 sec Tiger, 2.33 Core 2 Duo w/ stock app: ~865 sec 
|
|
Paul D. Buck Send message Joined: 12 Apr 08 Posts: 621 Credit: 161,934,067 RAC: 0
|
puting time indeed, that is a result. Yes, we can develop the compiling technology so that the project can make better executables to be delivered to the participants. The person (zombie67) who's computer that was referred to as proof that there was something somehow wrong with OS-X and / or my computer is running an optimized compile. Thusly, they are obtaining faster run times. It is not clear to me all of the whys and wherefores and bent feelings but I can only surmise that the project asked for and received assistance in improving the algorithms used but would not accept compiled binaries because of the potential of legal liability if something went wrong or malicious code was inserted into the delivered binaries. In this, the M-Way project's sponsors reacted as would any large organization to an offer such as this regardless of the person making the offer. It would have nothing to do with the person's trustworthiness or lack thereof, in the end, if the university cannot prove the provenance of the source code to binary transition they have opened themselves up for significant liability. Other projects make other choices ... For example, I will point to SETI@Home which is open source and allows third parties to make and distribute binaries, Einstein@Home which makes the optimized applications "in-house" and as possible tries to later "mainstream" some of the technology and CPDN which uses a third party application under license and has very strict rules about visibility of source code. Three different choices as to the delivery mechanisms and the use of optimization possibilities ... LHC@Home had issues with math libraries and cross-platform issues ... the permutations go on and on ... And so ... For whatever reason, the mechanism used to create the application for Linux is producing a "better" and faster executing binary. In that OS-X is unix as is Linux and they essentially use the same compiler, there should be little to no difference in end run times (most other things being equal, machine usage, background processes and so forth ...). So, as it turns out, there is little need to read all the threads on all the forum boards if people simply answer questions in a straightforward manner and don't play "gottcha" games. Since I have made it this far with figuring out what the problem is, and I also have spent most of a day reading up and making tries at compiling an OS-X version. Though I have familiarity with programming languages I am not a C programmer or an expert on GCC and so am re-inventing the wheel. However, I have made some progress even if it is all negative to this point, and I am hoping that tomorrow I will be able to take another whack at making a binary and from there I can begin testing to see if I can figure out the best compiler switches for OS-X binaries and to get the runtimes down. Should I discover something that works I can report this to the project's managers and then they can make the binaries and we can move forward. If my past history with compilers is any guide, finding and setting the "right" compiler switches will make a significant difference. Exactly how we test this should I figure something out is also TBD ... For OS-X as a target the issue is complicated by the variation in the target environments, things optimized for the G4 are not well optimized for the G5 or the Intel. But the time discrepancy is real, it likely has nothing to do with the OS in question including windows, but has to do with making the best binary possible with the tools available to the project If someone does have some experience with Xcode you can PM me, or post here, and I will welcome your thoughts and suggestions. If you have any other questions I doubt that I will suggest you read the UBW before I give you an obscure answer ... but, that is just me, ... |
|
Send message Joined: 31 Mar 08 Posts: 23 Credit: 721,836 RAC: 0
|
Obvious there was something with an optimized app/compilation there for OS X. :-) My question to Crunch3r was aimed at getting more than clues about this beta app. Since we cannot get to know more, let's just wait for it to be released. |
|
Paul D. Buck Send message Joined: 12 Apr 08 Posts: 621 Credit: 161,934,067 RAC: 0
|
Is there anyone here that has one of the earliest Mac Pros that was built on the Core Duo CPU/chipset? If so, does it have SSE3 and SSE3 extensions? |
|
Send message Joined: 29 Aug 07 Posts: 115 Credit: 502,527,662 RAC: 0
|
Is there anyone here that has one of the earliest Mac Pros that was built on the Core Duo CPU/chipset? The first Mac Pros were all Core 2 Duo-based Xeons (aka Woodcrest). There were no Core Duo Mac Pros. However, there *were* Core Duo (aka Yonah) based Mac Books, and Mac Book Pros, and Mac Minis. Not sure about iMacs. No SSE3 for Core Duo.
|
Dave Przybylo Send message Joined: 5 Feb 08 Posts: 236 Credit: 49,648 RAC: 0 
|
Is there anyone here that has one of the earliest Mac Pros that was built on the Core Duo CPU/chipset? Sorry to contradict you on this but SSE3 has been around for a long time. About 4 years now, and it has been used since Pentium 4's. You can view a page here that will show you all processors with SSE3 support. SSE3 Support Dave Przybylo MilkyWay@home Developer Department of Computer Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute |
|
Send message Joined: 29 Aug 07 Posts: 115 Credit: 502,527,662 RAC: 0
|
Is there anyone here that has one of the earliest Mac Pros that was built on the Core Duo CPU/chipset? Ah! Sorry, I was thinking of SSSE3. So replace that in what I said above. The rest of what I said is still true. There were no Core Duo Mac Pros.
|
|
Crunch3r Send message Joined: 17 Feb 08 Posts: 363 Credit: 258,227,990 RAC: 0 |
OK... so here we go... OSX optimized applcations Have fun :) Join Support science! Joinc Team BOINC United now! |
|
Send message Joined: 29 Aug 07 Posts: 115 Credit: 502,527,662 RAC: 0
|
|
|
Send message Joined: 21 Nov 07 Posts: 52 Credit: 1,756,052 RAC: 0
|
OK... so here we go... Hi Crunch3r, thanks a lot! Do these apps also work with the Xeons in the MacPro? 
|
©2024 Astroinformatics Group