PDA

View Full Version : First Glance: P4 3GHz HyperThreading



overcaffeined1745
2003-06-27, 10:19 AM
I've made a first performance test with my new system. It might perhaps help PIII users, as I also provide the result for my older PIII system.

New System:
P4 3GHz HT 800MHz FSB
1GB RAM
Geforce 5200FX 128MB

Old System:
PIII 667MHz
512MB RAM
Geforce 2 GTS 32MB

The test is for redefining an apartment group which is inserted 30 times in a multistorey building. None of the systems needed swap for the task, as it fitted in 300MB

PIII - 12min 05sec
P4 - 3min 00sec

Since this P4 supports HT (hyperthreading), I repeated the test but now with PovRay raytracing a scene in parallel while Revit was redefining the group. This time the result for the group redefinition was:

P4 (Revit+PovRay) - 4min 29 sec.

Note about HT: The P4 has just one FP core, which is shared by the two logical processors. If the other application was not PovRay but a non-FP task, I guess the result would have been better. I'll test it someday. It's cool to see two processor meters in the Windows XP task manager 8) It seems Revit is not multithreaded, as it will always run on one processor only.

Regarding Revit usability, the P4 runs smoother, of course, although there're still some "freezes" when working in big projects (less noticeable than in the PIII, of course). The conclusion is that there's still no "perfect" processor for Revit, although the P4 may allow me to finish a project which could have been become unmanageable by my older PIII. And, btw, the 5200FX is a lot faster than the 2GTS. I can now drag the multistorey in shaded 3D much more smoother than with the 2GTS.

Also, some people say Intel's HT is a very bad design. I'm happy with my new system, but I don't know HT details enough to say that I recommend it or not to other users. I think the time will tell me whether I would have been happier with a non-HT Pentium or not.

hand471037
2003-06-27, 04:11 PM
Revit isn't multithreaded, but Accurender is. So it kicks in when rendering. I've been using dual-processor machines for years, and love them.

But I've got a quick question: can any program that is multithreaded take full advatage of the Hyperthreading? Or does the only time HT comes into play is when running multipule programs, as the system (Windows) is what takes advantage of the HT?

overcaffeined1745
2003-06-27, 04:36 PM
You're right!! The two logical processors have a 100% load when rendering in Accurender! However, I've been told there's just one FP core, so I don't know what speed advantage I'm really getting (well, even a raytracer isn't 100% FP work, so I believe some % of performance increase might be achievable -- note that the Revit group redefinition didn't duplicate the time cost when I ran POVray in parallel). I also noticed that some Photoshop filters use the two logical CPUs, while others use one only (ie: some filters are multithreaded while others not).

Unfortunately I don't know how HT compares to real "dual" systems in terms of performance.

GeL
2003-07-04, 03:36 PM
Unfortunately I don't know how HT compares to real "dual" systems in terms of performance.

You can benchmark your system with Cinebench 2003 which can be downloaded here at http://www.maxon.net/pages/download/cinebench.html

For comparison, my results benched with dual XP1800 @ 2.3 Ghz. as follow:


****************************************************

Tester : GeL

Processor : Xp1800
MHz : 2304Mhz
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : Win XP Pro SP1
Graphics Card : G400
Resolution : 1200x1024
Color Depth : 32 bit
****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 281 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 524 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.86

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 277 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 633 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 367 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 2.28

****************************************************

Benchmark interpretation as follow:

Rendering (Single CPU): 281 CB-CPU = Equivalent to 1xP4 @ 2.8 Ghz

Rendering (Multiple CPU): 524 CB-CPU =Equivalent to 1xP4 @ 5.24Ghz
[/quote]

overcaffeined1745
2003-07-05, 04:31 PM
Thanks for the link! This is my benchmark results. The HT advantage seems to be about 20% in Cinema4D. However, I think it's higher for applications where there's little or no FP involved, as the processes doesn't need to compete for the shared FP unit then.


CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : overcaffeined

Processor : Pentium 4 HT
MHz : 3.0 GHz
Number of CPUs : 1 (2 through HT)
Operating System : Windows XP Home SP1

Graphics Card : GeForceFX 5200
Resolution : 1280x1024
Color Depth : 8/8/8/8 RGBA

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 300 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 359 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.20

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 313 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1395 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1410 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 4.50

****************************************************

GeL
2003-07-06, 03:25 AM
Your results are about right. It appears the Intel C versions with HT enabled have improved tremendously over the previous cores.

Regarding Floating Point usage, 3 D rendering engines be it Accurender, Lightwaves, Brazil, Maya et el., requires heavy intensive FPU and ALU performance. So i don't see your point unless you are talking about SSE2 optimized softwares.

overcaffeined1745
2003-07-06, 11:55 AM
Your results are about right. It appears the Intel C versions with HT enabled have improved tremendously over the previous cores.

Regarding Floating Point usage, 3 D rendering engines be it Accurender, Lightwaves, Brazil, Maya et el., requires heavy intensive FPU and ALU performance. So i don't see your point unless you are talking about SSE2 optimized softwares.

Some days ago, I did some tests with non-FP tasks, and they seemed to scale a lot better than FP applications (like 3D rendering as you mention). Also, as a side note, I really hate PCs and everything that looks like them, so I don't have any preference of Intel over AMD or viceversa :lol: If I bought a new PC, it was because I needed it for Revit, and just for Revit 8)

brentcarlson892079
2003-07-07, 03:45 PM
I did the test on my almost New (few months old) computer.

Tester : BAC

Processor : Pentium 4
MHz : 2.53
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : XP Pro

Graphics Card : Nvidia Quadro 4 980 XGL
Resolution : 1200x1024
Color Depth : 32 bit
****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 252 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 255 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1168 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1936 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 7.58





Not bad for a $1200 computer (half for the video card) :twisted: