Questions and Answers : Windows : BOINC V 5.2.13 reports lower benchmark (-36%)
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
Send message Joined: 12 Jun 05 Posts: 2 Credit: 366,094 RAC: 0 |
I recently upgraded to version 5.2.13 from version 4.19. The CPU bencmark figures have changed significantly: reduction in Dhrystone result of approx 36%. PC is P4-3.6GHz, Multithreading using WinXP-SP2. 2Gbyte RAM, disks are 150M-SATA. Hardware configuration unchanged since I began running CPDN last year. Under V4.19 typical result was: \"2006-05-01 02:09:49 [---] Benchmark results: Number of CPUs: 2 1533 double precision MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU 2840 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU\" Under 5.2.13 typical result is: \"2006-05-06 02:59:15 [---] Benchmark results: Number of CPUs: 2 1531 double precision MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU 1819 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU\" I retested my PC using \"Passmark Performance test\" which reported very similar results to when PC was new (before XP-SP2 \"upgrade\") so I suspect that the PC is performing the same as before, but the Dhrystone results reported are different for some reason. Is this a problem with 5.2.13? (Re-Installed as \"single user\" - no different to installing as \"server\"). Simon |
Send message Joined: 5 Sep 04 Posts: 7629 Credit: 24,240,330 RAC: 0 |
The 5.* versions use a different algorithm to work out benchmarks than earlier versions. And they\'re still useless for this project, and still not used. I went from version 4.05 to 4.25, so I don\'t know what they would have been like with 4.19; however, with 5.2.8, my integer has jumped a fair bit: Benchmark results: (4.25) 1428 double precision MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU 1230 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU Benchmark results: (5.2.8) 1719 double precision MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU 3538 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU |
Send message Joined: 5 Aug 04 Posts: 426 Credit: 2,426,069 RAC: 0 |
The 5.* versions use a different algorithm to work out benchmarks than earlier versions. And they\'re still useless for this project, and still not used. Also the benchmarks in the windows version of 4.19 were badly bugged, the compiler \"optimized\" most of the code out since it did not have any output. BOINC WIKI BOINCing since 2002/12/8 |
Send message Joined: 12 Jun 05 Posts: 2 Credit: 366,094 RAC: 0 |
Thanks Les and John for the quick replies. I guess that my machine is indeed running OK and as you suggest the BOINC benchmarks are a bit misleading. Simon |
©2025 cpdn.org