Prime95 - Different Torture Test Options?

Hi,

I see Prime95 now has different test options (Blend, etc. .) Would anybody
care to say a few words as to which test is good for what?

Also how do you get a P4 with Hyperthreading to run two *instances* of
prime95? Do I need to install the program twice or what?
--
Wayne ][
Sign on door reads: Please Do No Disturb! Pentium 4 assembly in progress!

"Wayne Youngman" writes:
I see Prime95 now has different test options (Blend, etc. .) Would anybody
care to say a few words as to which test is good for what?

On a similar subject, beating up on processors trying to factor numbers,
if anyone would take a few minutes to run the following test on some
AMD parts, maybe 2600, 3000 and one of the 64 parts of about the same
speed, and P4 at about the same speed, I'd greatly appreciate it.

The code to do this is a Java applet that is behind this web page:
http://www.alpertron.com.ar/ECM.HTM

After the screen loads type
(2^2281+1)/(3*22811*95803)
into the "number or expression to factor..." box
and type
400
into the box next to "New Curve"
and then click the "New Curve" button.

That should start it running the Java applet on your box, trying
to find the next factor for this. It will take perhaps 20-30 minutes
of furious crunching to complete Step 1 up to 100% and Step 2 up to
100%. The elapsed time to get to 100% on Step 2 is the benchmark.
(Then it will start over with Step 1, so you have to watch it)

With an AMD 2000+ I'm getting just under 40 minutes and I'd greatly
appreciate some numbers to see how much I would gain with a 2600
and with a -64 processor. Or if I were to switch to a P4 at about
the same speeds or better.

Thank you
(email address is valid, if that matters)

http://www.ocfaq.com/reviews/Gigabyte/K8NPro/4
Huh, when I read this.
It didn't do better then this?
http://www.hardwarezoom.com/viewcont...D=200&PageNo=7
I would go with P4 (Northwood Core.)
2.6 GHz or a little higher.
Got mine running @ 3.33 GHz
For now, the P4 C's are still Really Very fast.
I would wait for AMD Athlon 64 FX53's to come down in price if you want
something that's about as fast, or a little faster.

As for me, I'm still trying to figure out what, what?
I know what, but I don't know when.
Asus MB (Dual Xeon.)
The MB Has everything but what I really wanted in a server board.
Which is 64Bit PCI Slots
http://usa.asus.com/products/server/...l/overview.htm
It's got good support for a heck of a lot of stuff.
Something that wonders me about this board is it's got a 875P Chipset.
This board is also Overclockable, and low cost as well.
I've seen some Server MB's going for as much as the cost of the two Xeon
2.66 GHz CPU's
I want to put on it.
Saving and waiting, I'll get the thing some day.
What's the thing going to be used for? Video Encoding more then one file @
a time.
I'm thinking I can do four @ the same time, and still stay stable on an
Overclock.
Hoping for 3 GHz and over for the Overclock.
If I can, I'm going to use ram I already have, and Video I already have.
Old card, Radeon9000 Pro.. But it should do the job well for what I want to
do.
Another Intel Cpu besides? Hm, I'm waiting for Intel to get their Acts
together.
The Prescott was supposed to be so good, but as you can see by the link I've
posted..
(I think it's the 2nd link I posted, but I'm not sure I remember anymore.)
They are far from what Intel said they would be.
Denny. :-) Always with a smile, even if times are bad.


"Don Taylor" wrote in message
...
"Wayne Youngman" writes:
I see Prime95 now has different test options (Blend, etc. .) Would
anybody
care to say a few words as to which test is good for what?

On a similar subject, beating up on processors trying to factor numbers,
if anyone would take a few minutes to run the following test on some
AMD parts, maybe 2600, 3000 and one of the 64 parts of about the same
speed, and P4 at about the same speed, I'd greatly appreciate it.

The code to do this is a Java applet that is behind this web page:
http://www.alpertron.com.ar/ECM.HTM

After the screen loads type
(2^2281+1)/(3*22811*95803)
into the "number or expression to factor..." box
and type
400
into the box next to "New Curve"
and then click the "New Curve" button.

That should start it running the Java applet on your box, trying
to find the next factor for this. It will take perhaps 20-30 minutes
of furious crunching to complete Step 1 up to 100% and Step 2 up to
100%. The elapsed time to get to 100% on Step 2 is the benchmark.
(Then it will start over with Step 1, so you have to watch it)

With an AMD 2000+ I'm getting just under 40 minutes and I'd greatly
appreciate some numbers to see how much I would gain with a 2600
and with a -64 processor. Or if I were to switch to a P4 at about
the same speeds or better.

Thank you
(email address is valid, if that matters)

"Dennis E Strausser jr" wrote in message
...
http://www.ocfaq.com/reviews/Gigabyte/K8NPro/4
Huh, when I read this.
It didn't do better then this?
http://www.hardwarezoom.com/viewcont...D=200&PageNo=7
I would go with P4 (Northwood Core.)
2.6 GHz or a little higher.
Got mine running @ 3.33 GHz
For now, the P4 C's are still Really Very fast.
I would wait for AMD Athlon 64 FX53's to come down in price if you want
something that's about as fast, or a little faster.

As for me, I'm still trying to figure out what, what?
I know what, but I don't know when.
Asus MB (Dual Xeon.)
The MB Has everything but what I really wanted in a server board.
Which is 64Bit PCI Slots
http://usa.asus.com/products/server/...l/overview.htm
It's got good support for a heck of a lot of stuff.
Something that wonders me about this board is it's got a 875P Chipset.
This board is also Overclockable, and low cost as well.
I've seen some Server MB's going for as much as the cost of the two Xeon
2.66 GHz CPU's
I want to put on it.
Saving and waiting, I'll get the thing some day.
What's the thing going to be used for? Video Encoding more then one file
@
a time.
I'm thinking I can do four @ the same time, and still stay stable on an
Overclock.
Hoping for 3 GHz and over for the Overclock.
If I can, I'm going to use ram I already have, and Video I already have.
Old card, Radeon9000 Pro.. But it should do the job well for what I want
to
do.
Another Intel Cpu besides? Hm, I'm waiting for Intel to get their Acts
together.
The Prescott was supposed to be so good, but as you can see by the link
I've
posted..
(I think it's the 2nd link I posted, but I'm not sure I remember anymore.)
They are far from what Intel said they would be.
Denny. :-) Always with a smile, even if times are bad.


"Don Taylor" wrote in message
...
"Wayne Youngman" writes:
I see Prime95 now has different test options (Blend, etc. .) Would
anybody
care to say a few words as to which test is good for what?

On a similar subject, beating up on processors trying to factor numbers,
if anyone would take a few minutes to run the following test on some
AMD parts, maybe 2600, 3000 and one of the 64 parts of about the same
speed, and P4 at about the same speed, I'd greatly appreciate it.

The code to do this is a Java applet that is behind this web page:
http://www.alpertron.com.ar/ECM.HTM

After the screen loads type
(2^2281+1)/(3*22811*95803)
into the "number or expression to factor..." box
and type
400
into the box next to "New Curve"
and then click the "New Curve" button.

That should start it running the Java applet on your box, trying
to find the next factor for this. It will take perhaps 20-30 minutes
of furious crunching to complete Step 1 up to 100% and Step 2 up to
100%. The elapsed time to get to 100% on Step 2 is the benchmark.
(Then it will start over with Step 1, so you have to watch it)

With an AMD 2000+ I'm getting just under 40 minutes and I'd greatly
appreciate some numbers to see how much I would gain with a 2600
and with a -64 processor. Or if I were to switch to a P4 at about
the same speeds or better.

Thank you
(email address is valid, if that matters),


I got 52 minutes with a P4-1.8A @ 2.771 GHz and 512 MB.

when memtest86 boots up,
hit C for configuration..
then 2
then 5 for test selection
then 5 for test 5
then hit enter and it'll say somewhere on the screen "Test 5"

once the specific test is being looped, we can tell it to cover the entire
range of memory. (we're still in the configuration screen)

3 for address range or memory used
select 3 for entire address range
hit enter and it'll come back to the test

Just leave it running through test 5 (it automatically restarts the test
after it's finished for as long as you can spare the time).



If you are getting errors, back off the front side bus until it shows no
errors for the first 10 loops or so. Run it for a few hours, restart, bump
the fsb up 1, run the burn in again. Keep going until it you hit a wall, you
can usually get 10 mhz fsb in a day, but once you start getting errors, you
may have to leave it burnin overnight at that setting before moving up to
the next step.



"JB" wrote in message
...

"Dennis E Strausser jr" wrote in message
...
http://www.ocfaq.com/reviews/Gigabyte/K8NPro/4
Huh, when I read this.
It didn't do better then this?
http://www.hardwarezoom.com/viewcont...D=200&PageNo=7
I would go with P4 (Northwood Core.)
2.6 GHz or a little higher.
Got mine running @ 3.33 GHz
For now, the P4 C's are still Really Very fast.
I would wait for AMD Athlon 64 FX53's to come down in price if you want
something that's about as fast, or a little faster.

As for me, I'm still trying to figure out what, what?
I know what, but I don't know when.
Asus MB (Dual Xeon.)
The MB Has everything but what I really wanted in a server board.
Which is 64Bit PCI Slots
http://usa.asus.com/products/server/...l/overview.htm
It's got good support for a heck of a lot of stuff.
Something that wonders me about this board is it's got a 875P Chipset.
This board is also Overclockable, and low cost as well.
I've seen some Server MB's going for as much as the cost of the two Xeon
2.66 GHz CPU's
I want to put on it.
Saving and waiting, I'll get the thing some day.
What's the thing going to be used for? Video Encoding more then one
file
@
a time.
I'm thinking I can do four @ the same time, and still stay stable on an
Overclock.
Hoping for 3 GHz and over for the Overclock.
If I can, I'm going to use ram I already have, and Video I already have.
Old card, Radeon9000 Pro.. But it should do the job well for what I want
to
do.
Another Intel Cpu besides? Hm, I'm waiting for Intel to get their Acts
together.
The Prescott was supposed to be so good, but as you can see by the link
I've
posted..
(I think it's the 2nd link I posted, but I'm not sure I remember
anymore.)
They are far from what Intel said they would be.
Denny. :-) Always with a smile, even if times are bad.


"Don Taylor" wrote in message
...
"Wayne Youngman" writes:
I see Prime95 now has different test options (Blend, etc. .) Would
anybody
care to say a few words as to which test is good for what?

On a similar subject, beating up on processors trying to factor
numbers,
if anyone would take a few minutes to run the following test on some
AMD parts, maybe 2600, 3000 and one of the 64 parts of about the same
speed, and P4 at about the same speed, I'd greatly appreciate it.

The code to do this is a Java applet that is behind this web page:
http://www.alpertron.com.ar/ECM.HTM

After the screen loads type
(2^2281+1)/(3*22811*95803)
into the "number or expression to factor..." box
and type
400
into the box next to "New Curve"
and then click the "New Curve" button.

That should start it running the Java applet on your box, trying
to find the next factor for this. It will take perhaps 20-30 minutes
of furious crunching to complete Step 1 up to 100% and Step 2 up to
100%. The elapsed time to get to 100% on Step 2 is the benchmark.
(Then it will start over with Step 1, so you have to watch it)

With an AMD 2000+ I'm getting just under 40 minutes and I'd greatly
appreciate some numbers to see how much I would gain with a 2600
and with a -64 processor. Or if I were to switch to a P4 at about
the same speeds or better.

Thank you
(email address is valid, if that matters),


I got 52 minutes with a P4-1.8A @ 2.771 GHz and 512 MB.

Don Taylor wrote:
"Wayne Youngman" writes:
I see Prime95 now has different test options (Blend, etc. .) Would
anybody care to say a few words as to which test is good for what?

On a similar subject, beating up on processors trying to factor
numbers, if anyone would take a few minutes to run the following test
on some AMD parts, maybe 2600, 3000 and one of the 64 parts of about
the same speed, and P4 at about the same speed, I'd greatly
appreciate it.

The code to do this is a Java applet that is behind this web page:
http://www.alpertron.com.ar/ECM.HTM

After the screen loads type
(2^2281+1)/(3*22811*95803)
into the "number or expression to factor..." box
and type
400
into the box next to "New Curve"
and then click the "New Curve" button.

That should start it running the Java applet on your box, trying
to find the next factor for this. It will take perhaps 20-30 minutes
of furious crunching to complete Step 1 up to 100% and Step 2 up to
100%. The elapsed time to get to 100% on Step 2 is the benchmark.
(Then it will start over with Step 1, so you have to watch it)

With an AMD 2000+ I'm getting just under 40 minutes and I'd greatly
appreciate some numbers to see how much I would gain with a 2600
and with a -64 processor. Or if I were to switch to a P4 at about
the same speeds or better.


31 min 51 sec 32-bit Barton @ 2200MHz

"S.Heenan" wrote in message
news:Xi4bc.8410$Pk3.5381@pd7tw1no...
Don Taylor wrote:
"Wayne Youngman" writes:
I see Prime95 now has different test options (Blend, etc. .) Would
anybody care to say a few words as to which test is good for what?

On a similar subject, beating up on processors trying to factor
numbers, if anyone would take a few minutes to run the following test
on some AMD parts, maybe 2600, 3000 and one of the 64 parts of about
the same speed, and P4 at about the same speed, I'd greatly
appreciate it.

The code to do this is a Java applet that is behind this web page:
http://www.alpertron.com.ar/ECM.HTM

After the screen loads type
(2^2281+1)/(3*22811*95803)
into the "number or expression to factor..." box
and type
400
into the box next to "New Curve"
and then click the "New Curve" button.

That should start it running the Java applet on your box, trying
to find the next factor for this. It will take perhaps 20-30 minutes
of furious crunching to complete Step 1 up to 100% and Step 2 up to
100%. The elapsed time to get to 100% on Step 2 is the benchmark.
(Then it will start over with Step 1, so you have to watch it)

With an AMD 2000+ I'm getting just under 40 minutes and I'd greatly
appreciate some numbers to see how much I would gain with a 2600
and with a -64 processor. Or if I were to switch to a P4 at about
the same speeds or better.


31 min 51 sec 32-bit Barton @ 2200MHz

"JB" wrote in message
...

"Dennis E Strausser jr" wrote in message
...
http://www.ocfaq.com/reviews/Gigabyte/K8NPro/4
Huh, when I read this.
It didn't do better then this?
http://www.hardwarezoom.com/viewcont...D=200&PageNo=7
I would go with P4 (Northwood Core.)
2.6 GHz or a little higher.
Got mine running @ 3.33 GHz
For now, the P4 C's are still Really Very fast.
I would wait for AMD Athlon 64 FX53's to come down in price if you want
something that's about as fast, or a little faster.

As for me, I'm still trying to figure out what, what?
I know what, but I don't know when.
Asus MB (Dual Xeon.)
The MB Has everything but what I really wanted in a server board.
Which is 64Bit PCI Slots
http://usa.asus.com/products/server/...l/overview.htm
It's got good support for a heck of a lot of stuff.
Something that wonders me about this board is it's got a 875P Chipset.
This board is also Overclockable, and low cost as well.
I've seen some Server MB's going for as much as the cost of the two Xeon
2.66 GHz CPU's
I want to put on it.
Saving and waiting, I'll get the thing some day.
What's the thing going to be used for? Video Encoding more then one
file
@
a time.
I'm thinking I can do four @ the same time, and still stay stable on an
Overclock.
Hoping for 3 GHz and over for the Overclock.
If I can, I'm going to use ram I already have, and Video I already have.
Old card, Radeon9000 Pro.. But it should do the job well for what I want
to
do.
Another Intel Cpu besides? Hm, I'm waiting for Intel to get their Acts
together.
The Prescott was supposed to be so good, but as you can see by the link
I've
posted..
(I think it's the 2nd link I posted, but I'm not sure I remember
anymore.)
They are far from what Intel said they would be.
Denny. :-) Always with a smile, even if times are bad.


"Don Taylor" wrote in message
...
"Wayne Youngman" writes:
I see Prime95 now has different test options (Blend, etc. .) Would
anybody
care to say a few words as to which test is good for what?

On a similar subject, beating up on processors trying to factor
numbers,
if anyone would take a few minutes to run the following test on some
AMD parts, maybe 2600, 3000 and one of the 64 parts of about the same
speed, and P4 at about the same speed, I'd greatly appreciate it.

The code to do this is a Java applet that is behind this web page:
http://www.alpertron.com.ar/ECM.HTM

After the screen loads type
(2^2281+1)/(3*22811*95803)
into the "number or expression to factor..." box
and type
400
into the box next to "New Curve"
and then click the "New Curve" button.

That should start it running the Java applet on your box, trying
to find the next factor for this. It will take perhaps 20-30 minutes
of furious crunching to complete Step 1 up to 100% and Step 2 up to
100%. The elapsed time to get to 100% on Step 2 is the benchmark.
(Then it will start over with Step 1, so you have to watch it)

With an AMD 2000+ I'm getting just under 40 minutes and I'd greatly
appreciate some numbers to see how much I would gain with a 2600
and with a -64 processor. Or if I were to switch to a P4 at about
the same speeds or better.

Thank you
(email address is valid, if that matters),


I got 52 minutes with a P4-1.8A @ 2.771 GHz and 512 MB.

This test includes interaction with the site so the connection speed
contaminates the results. I am on dial-up and maybe that explains why my
time is so high.

"JB" writes:
"Don Taylor" wrote in message
...
On a similar subject, beating up on processors trying to factor numbers,
if anyone would take a few minutes to run the following test on some
AMD parts, maybe 2600, 3000 and one of the 64 parts of about the same
speed, and P4 at about the same speed, I'd greatly appreciate it.

The code to do this is a Java applet that is behind this web page:
http://www.alpertron.com.ar/ECM.HTM

After the screen loads type
(2^2281+1)/(3*22811*95803)
into the "number or expression to factor..." box
and type
400
into the box next to "New Curve"
and then click the "New Curve" button.

That should start it running the Java applet on your box, trying
to find the next factor for this. It will take perhaps 20-30 minutes
of furious crunching to complete Step 1 up to 100% and Step 2 up to
100%. The elapsed time to get to 100% on Step 2 is the benchmark.
(Then it will start over with Step 1, so you have to watch it)

With an AMD 2000+ I'm getting just under 40 minutes and I'd greatly
appreciate some numbers to see how much I would gain with a 2600
and with a -64 processor. Or if I were to switch to a P4 at about
the same speeds or better.

I got 52 minutes with a P4-1.8A @ 2.771 GHz and 512 MB.

This test includes interaction with the site so the connection speed
contaminates the results. I am on dial-up and maybe that explains why my
time is so high.

It seems to me that once it starts crunching there is almost no
interaction. You can even drop your connect to the net and if
your web browser doesn't complain about the dropped connection
it will just keep crunching away.

Now, DISCLAIMER, I'm NOT kicking dirt on anybody or anything.
As a comparison I tried running the identical test on a Dell
2400 with a 2.4 Ghz real P4, not a Celeron. The bus speed to
memory is faster than the AMD I tried it on and got the 40
minute figure. The clock is 2.4/2.0, there is almost zero
video I/O with this test, there is zero hard drive activity,
from what I can tell, it doesn'use much memory to run.

But the Dell took almost 60 minutes. Repeat, I'm not criticizing
ANYBODY. But I'm really confused why it wouldn't take more
like 33 minutes. There were no other jobs running on either
machine (but that doesn't seem to matter a great deal), both
were running XP, Home on the Dell, Pro on the AMD. I can't
figure out why it seems somewhere like half the speed I would
expect. It is even slower than the 52 minutes quoted for the
P4 above, but if I compare the clock rates those don't look
wildly out of line with each other.

I had a pro check the BIOS info on the Dell and he agrees
that it is a real P4, not a celeron. The only thing I've been
able to find that is different thus far is that the Dell is
running Java 2 from Sun and the AMD is running Microsoft Java.
I haven't taken the leap trying to swap Java's yet.

I never had any intention of turning this into bragging about
"mine is faster than yours" or criticizing either brand.
But I'm wondering if there is something wrong with the Dell.
I did the usual virus and spyware checks, etc. Nothing.
Is it possible that this particular Java app just runs slower
on P4's than on AMD's? This certainly isn't the sort of
streaming video crunching or massive floating point calcs
where the P4 might shine. Or maybe there is some other
explanation that I haven't figured out yet. Any ideas would
be greatly appreciated.

And I'm wondering where I should go from my AMD 2000. All
my time is spent sitting inside Mathematica doing symbolic
crunching, other than this little factoring problem came
up and the new version of elliptic curve factoring code
in Mathematica isn't ready yet. Few can afford multiple
CPU Mathematica licenses, I can't. So I am thinking of
the AMD 64's, Wolfram has included specific optimizations
to take advantage of 64 bit CPU's now. If it were feasible
it would be cheaper to just have 4 cheap AMD 2600's for the
price of a fast 64 bit system today.

Thanks for any suggestions, looking for 2x current speeds.

"Don Taylor" wrote in message
...
"JB" writes:
"Don Taylor" wrote in message
...
On a similar subject, beating up on processors trying to factor
numbers,
if anyone would take a few minutes to run the following test on
some
AMD parts, maybe 2600, 3000 and one of the 64 parts of about the
same
speed, and P4 at about the same speed, I'd greatly appreciate it.

The code to do this is a Java applet that is behind this web page:
http://www.alpertron.com.ar/ECM.HTM

After the screen loads type
(2^2281+1)/(3*22811*95803)
into the "number or expression to factor..." box
and type
400
into the box next to "New Curve"
and then click the "New Curve" button.

That should start it running the Java applet on your box, trying
to find the next factor for this. It will take perhaps 20-30
minutes
of furious crunching to complete Step 1 up to 100% and Step 2 up to
100%. The elapsed time to get to 100% on Step 2 is the benchmark.
(Then it will start over with Step 1, so you have to watch it)

With an AMD 2000+ I'm getting just under 40 minutes and I'd greatly
appreciate some numbers to see how much I would gain with a 2600
and with a -64 processor. Or if I were to switch to a P4 at about
the same speeds or better.

I got 52 minutes with a P4-1.8A @ 2.771 GHz and 512 MB.

This test includes interaction with the site so the connection speed
contaminates the results. I am on dial-up and maybe that explains why my
time is so high.

It seems to me that once it starts crunching there is almost no
interaction. You can even drop your connect to the net and if
your web browser doesn't complain about the dropped connection
it will just keep crunching away.

Now, DISCLAIMER, I'm NOT kicking dirt on anybody or anything.
As a comparison I tried running the identical test on a Dell
2400 with a 2.4 Ghz real P4, not a Celeron. The bus speed to
memory is faster than the AMD I tried it on and got the 40
minute figure. The clock is 2.4/2.0, there is almost zero
video I/O with this test, there is zero hard drive activity,
from what I can tell, it doesn'use much memory to run.

But the Dell took almost 60 minutes. Repeat, I'm not criticizing
ANYBODY. But I'm really confused why it wouldn't take more
like 33 minutes. There were no other jobs running on either
machine (but that doesn't seem to matter a great deal), both
were running XP, Home on the Dell, Pro on the AMD. I can't
figure out why it seems somewhere like half the speed I would
expect. It is even slower than the 52 minutes quoted for the
P4 above, but if I compare the clock rates those don't look
wildly out of line with each other.

I had a pro check the BIOS info on the Dell and he agrees
that it is a real P4, not a celeron. The only thing I've been
able to find that is different thus far is that the Dell is
running Java 2 from Sun and the AMD is running Microsoft Java.
I haven't taken the leap trying to swap Java's yet.

I never had any intention of turning this into bragging about
"mine is faster than yours" or criticizing either brand.
But I'm wondering if there is something wrong with the Dell.
I did the usual virus and spyware checks, etc. Nothing.
Is it possible that this particular Java app just runs slower
on P4's than on AMD's? This certainly isn't the sort of
streaming video crunching or massive floating point calcs
where the P4 might shine. Or maybe there is some other
explanation that I haven't figured out yet. Any ideas would
be greatly appreciated.

And I'm wondering where I should go from my AMD 2000. All
my time is spent sitting inside Mathematica doing symbolic
crunching, other than this little factoring problem came
up and the new version of elliptic curve factoring code
in Mathematica isn't ready yet. Few can afford multiple
CPU Mathematica licenses, I can't. So I am thinking of
the AMD 64's, Wolfram has included specific optimizations
to take advantage of 64 bit CPU's now. If it were feasible
it would be cheaper to just have 4 cheap AMD 2600's for the
price of a fast 64 bit system today.

Thanks for any suggestions, looking for 2x current speeds.


I think your'e right. Looking at the meter on winxp reveals little going
over the phone line. I also ran benchmarks on the CPU and found the xp2000
much faster in both integer and fpu tests. Mine beats the xp in the memory
benchmark but the cpu performance seems to be the key for this particular
application.

Perhaps the same would hold in Mathcad. My copy of Mathcad is v2 (DOS) so
it's not a candidate for comparison.