DOCSLIB.ORG

Sysmark® 2002 Performance Benchmark: Analysis Presentation Benchmarks & Athlon XP Performance

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sysmark® 2002 Performance Benchmark: Analysis Presentation Benchmarks & Athlon XP Performance SYSmark® 2002 Performance Benchmark: Analysis Presentation Benchmarks & Athlon XP Performance • Benchmarks are currently the only way for business and home consumers to clearly measure the real-world performance of PCs. Benchmarks must accurately and objectively represent real-world application performance relevant to the end-user. •BAPCo® is a non-profit consortium, originally founded in 1995 by Intel, IBM, Dell and NCR. SYSmark® is BAPCo’s flagship application benchmark. • The AMD Athlon™ XP processor routinely outperformed comparable Intel Pentium® 4 processors using the SYSmark 2001 benchmark. • On January 31, 2002, BAPCo released SYSmark 2002. 2 SYSmark 2001 & 2002 Similarities Internet Content SYSmark Both SYSmark 2001 & SYSmark Creation 2002 Version 2002 are application-based Adobe Photoshop v6.0.1 benchmarks that attempt to Adobe Premier Same reflect usage patterns for end Macromedia Dreamweaver Same users in the areas of Internet Macromedia Flash Same Content Creation and Office Windows Media Encoder v7.01 Productivity. Office Productivity SYSmark 2002 Version The chart on the right explains Microsoft Word v2002 that SYSmark 2002 uses the same Microsoft Excel v2002 applications as SYSmark 2001 Microsoft Power Point v2002 with updated versions where Microsoft Outlook v2002 applicable. Microsoft Access v2002 Dragon Naturally Speaking Same McAfee VirusScan Same Netscape Communicator Same WinZip Computing Same 3 SYSmark 2002 Inconsistencies AMD tested SYSmark 2001 and 2002 on similarly configured systems based on the AMD Athlon XP 2000+ and the Intel Pentium 4 2.0A processors. When compared to the SYSmark 2001 benchmark results, the SYSmark 2002 benchmark results suggested a significant performance decline in the AMD Athlon XP 2000+ processor’s performance and a significant increase in Intel Pentium 4 2.0A processor’s performance. This prompted AMD to contact BAPCo to better understand the methodology generating the unusual results of SYSmark 2002. Internet Content Creation Office Productivity Relative Performance: Relative Performance: AMD Athlon XP 2000+ AMD Athlon XP 2000+ Compared to Intel Pentium 2.0A GHz* Compared to Intel Pentium 2.0A GHz* 10% 10% 6% 1% SYSmark 2002 SYSmark 2002 0% 0% SYSmark 2001 SYSmark 2001 -10% -10% -4% -19% -20% -20% *See backup slides 15 & 16 for software patch information and configuration details 4 SYSmark 2002 White Paper To AMD After AMD contacted BAPCo for a detailed explanation regarding the changes to SYSmark 2002, AMD received the SYSmark 2002 white paper which included the following information: • The application workload changed between SYSmark 2001 and SYSmark 2002. In other words, the contribution of each application to the overall score changed. • BAPCo explains the methodology used to derive their SYSmark performance “ratings:” “The overall response time for a category (Office Productivity or Internet Content Creation) is the average of all the operation response times in all of the applications that make up that category. The average response time for each of the two scenarios is then converted to a performance “rating…” The overall SYSmark 2002 rating is derived from the geometric mean of the two category ratings.” • The only application changes were version updates to Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook and Access and PhotoShop and Windows Media Encoder. However: • BAPCo’s white paper explanation didn’t satisfactorily address AMD’s concerns. The white paper only addressed the application-level details and ignored the crucial task- level details and relative contributions of those tasks to the final score. So AMD investigated further… 5 Bapco Application Weighting Changes 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% SYSMark 2002Office Productivity 5% SYSMark 2001 0% Microsoft Word Microsoft Excel Microsoft PowerPoint Microsoft Outlook Microsoft Access Dragon Naturally Speaking Source: Bapco Whitepaper: An Overview of SYSmark 2002 – www.bapco.com McAfee VirusScan Netscape Communicator WinZip Computing WinZip 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% Internet Content Creation 10% 5% 0% SYSMark 2002 SYSMark 2001 Adobe Photoshop Adobe Premiere Macromedia Dreamweaver MacromediaFlash Microsoft Windows® Media Encoder 6 SYSmark 2002 Methodology: Example numbers for illustration only Application Task Time Application The chart on the left is a simplified (sec) Contribution summary of the SYSmark methodology. These are not actual Dreamweaver 4 App loading 5.5 times or percentages. Rather the Dreamweaver 4 Add product – Slider Pro 3 10% numbers are used to demonstrate Dreamweaver 4 Add radio button #2 1.5 the methodology: Flash 5 Group 9 1. The methodology selects a Flash 5 Deselect 12 24% number of tasks to be Flash 5 Rotate 3 performed by each application PhotoShop 6.01 Filter SmartBlur 14 2. The time spent on each task is its contribution to the total PhotoShop 6.01 Filter GaussianBlur 7.5 time PhotoShop 6.01 ImageSizePercent 3 25% 3. The sum of the task times for PhotoShop 6.01 Color Balance 0.5 each application is the Premiere App loading 7.5 application’s contribution to 10% the total time Premiere Open file 2.5 Media Encoder 7.1 Encoding 30 4. Finally, the total time is 31% converted to a performance Media Encoder 7.1 App loading 1 "rating" Totals 100 100% For example, the sum of the PhotoShop task times is 25 seconds. Because the total task time is 100 seconds, PhotoShop’s workload contribution to SYSmark 2002 Internet Content Creation is 25%. Similarly, the workload contribution of Filter SmartBlur to SYSmark 2002 is 14% of the total time (and 56% of the Photoshop application time). 7 AMD’s Findings: SYSmark 2002 Task-Level Patterns After further comparing SYSmark 2001 to SYSmark 2002 at the task- level, AMD found the following patterns: • Removing tasks that favor AMD • Adding tasks that favor Intel • Inflating workload contributions by repeating tasks that favor Intel The BAPCo white paper explanation of AMD’s SYSmark 2002 concerns ignored the task-level details and related contribution at the heart of the unusual results. This pattern was found across applications in both Internet Content Creation and Office Productivity. 8 AMD’s Findings: PhotoShop SYSmark 2001 Filters SYSmark 2001 used 13 different 8 FilterEmboss_Fade FilterOther_MaximumValue filters, one time each. The AMD Athlon FilterRender_LightingEffects… XP 2000+ outperforms the Pentium 4 FilterSharpen_SharpenEdges 2.0A on 8 of those 13 filters. FilterSketch_WaterPaper AMD Athlon XP FilterStylize+WindStagger… advantage FilterWaterPaper_Fade SYSmark 2002 uses 3 FilterWind_Fade SYSmark 2002 Filters Filter Artistic_Underpainting Filter Artistic_Underpainting filters from SYSmark Intel Pentium 4 FilterBlur_GaussianBlur Filter Artistic_Underpainting 2001 and 3 new advantage FilterSketch_Charcoal Filter Artistic_Underpainting filters, multiple times FilterSharpen_UnsharpMask Filter Artistic_Underpainting 5 FilterStylise_Emboss FilterBlur_GaussianBlur for a total of 20 runs. FilterBlur_GaussianBlur All 8 of the AMD FilterBlur_GaussianBlur Athlon XP 2000+ BAPCO selected only 3 of FilterBlur_GaussianBlur advantaged filters the original 13 filters from FilterBlur_GaussianBlur FilterSketch_Charcoal from SYSmark 2001 SYSmark 2001 to use in FilterSketch_Charcoal were removed from 12 FilterSketch_Charcoal 2002. Those 3 filters SYSmark 2002, favored the Intel Pentium FilterBlur_SmartBlur FilterBlur_SmartBlur resulting in the Intel 4 2.0A GHz and are FilterBlur_SmartBlur Pentium 4 2.0A GHz FilterBlur_SmartBlur repeated to account for 12 outscoring the of the 20 times that a filter FilterBlur_SmartBlur FilterRender_LensFlare AMD Athlon XP on all is run in Sysmark 2002. FilterRender_LensFlare 20 FilterOther_HighPass SYSmark 2002 filters. 9 AMD’s Findings: Flash Task Time Difference between AMD Athlon XP 2000+ and In SYSmark 2001, Intel Pentium 4 2.0AGHz “Step Frame,” which the AMD Athlon XP step frame deselect other excelled at, accounted for 211 of 241 flash 40 tasks (88%), but was SYSmark 2001 SYSmark 2002 completely removed in AMD Athlon XP advantage 8.669 SYSmark 2002. 0 -4.659 Intel Pentium 4 -3.668 -29.895 advantage In SYSmark 2002, the tested file size greatly -40 increased from 118 kb -32.81 to 2.662 MB. Time (seconds) -80 10 AMD’s Findings: Excel In SYSmark 2002, Task Time Difference between sort is now AMD Athlon XP 2000+ and responsible for Intel Pentium 4 2.0AGHz over 90% of the application time. App loading sort charting other 5 SYSmark 2001 SYSmark 2002 AMD Athlon XP 0.458 advantage -0.243 -0.094 0.498 0 -0.066 Intel Pentium 4 -0.029 advantage -0.021 -5 -11.220 -10 Time (seconds) -15 11 AMD’s Findings: Access The 14 Access tasks where the AMD Task Time Difference between Athlon XP 2000+ AMD Athlon XP 2000+ and achieved the biggest Intel Pentium 4 2.0AGHz advantage over the Intel Pentium 4 2.0A AMD Athlon XP advantaged tasks GHz in SYSmark 2001 Intel Pentium 4 advantage tasks were completely Top 14 Athlon XP advantage tasks removed in SYSmark 2002. 40 SYSmark 2001 SYSmark 2002 Those 14 tasks 30 represented over 75% of the 20 application time 27.204 and 90% of the advantage the Time (seconds) 10 AMD Athlon XP AMD Athlon XP advantage 0 3.821 1.942 2000+ held over 0 -0.176 the Pentium 4 Intel Pentium 4 -1.331 advantage 2.0A GHz. -10 12 AMD Decisions AMD’s analysis raises serious questions regarding changes to the selection of tasks and application contribution in the methodology. BAPCo’s white paper response to AMD did not resolve the task-level questions raised by our analysis. Therefore, AMD plans to: • Join BAPCo in order to more fully understand
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Performance of a Computer (Chapter 4) Vishwani D
    ELEC 5200-001/6200-001 Computer Architecture and Design Fall 2013 Performance of a Computer (Chapter 4) Vishwani D. Agrawal & Victor P. Nelson epartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849 ELEC 5200-001/6200-001 Performance Fall 2013 . Lecture 1 What is Performance? Response time: the time between the start and completion of a task. Throughput: the total amount of work done in a given time. Some performance measures: MIPS (million instructions per second). MFLOPS (million floating point operations per second), also GFLOPS, TFLOPS (1012), etc. SPEC (System Performance Evaluation Corporation) benchmarks. LINPACK benchmarks, floating point computing, used for supercomputers. Synthetic benchmarks. ELEC 5200-001/6200-001 Performance Fall 2013 . Lecture 2 Small and Large Numbers Small Large 10-3 milli m 103 kilo k 10-6 micro μ 106 mega M 10-9 nano n 109 giga G 10-12 pico p 1012 tera T 10-15 femto f 1015 peta P 10-18 atto 1018 exa 10-21 zepto 1021 zetta 10-24 yocto 1024 yotta ELEC 5200-001/6200-001 Performance Fall 2013 . Lecture 3 Computer Memory Size Number bits bytes 210 1,024 K Kb KB 220 1,048,576 M Mb MB 230 1,073,741,824 G Gb GB 240 1,099,511,627,776 T Tb TB ELEC 5200-001/6200-001 Performance Fall 2013 . Lecture 4 Units for Measuring Performance Time in seconds (s), microseconds (μs), nanoseconds (ns), or picoseconds (ps). Clock cycle Period of the hardware clock Example: one clock cycle means 1 nanosecond for a 1GHz clock frequency (or 1GHz clock rate) CPU time = (CPU clock cycles)/(clock rate) Cycles per instruction (CPI): average number of clock cycles used to execute a computer instruction.
    [Show full text]
  • 6IF Ver. 1.X MANUAL
    5SMT / 5SMTS SiS 530 ALL-IN-ONE AT MAINBOARD OPERATION MANUAL DOC NO. UM-SMT-E4 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… PRINTED IN TAIWAN SiS530 AT MAINBOARD TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER & SECTION PAGE 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 SYSTEM OVERVIEW ...................................................................................1-1 1.2 SYSTEM BOARD LAYOUT .........................................................................1-2 2. FEATURES .............................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 2.1 MAINBOARD SPECIFICATIONS ........................................................2-1 3. HARDWARE SETUP ............................................................................. 3-1 3.1 UNPACKING...................................................................................................3-1 3.2 HARDWARE CONFIGURATION...............................................................3-2 3.2.1 CONNECTORS...................................................................................3-2 3.2.2 JUMPERS ............................................................................................3-17 3.2.3 QUICK INSTALLATION OF POPULAR CPU..............................3-23 3.2.4 INSTALLATION OF DEVICE DRIVER ........................................3-26 4. AWARD BIOS SETUP ........................................................................... 4-1 4.1 GETTING STARTED.....................................................................................4-1
    [Show full text]
  • AMD's Early Processor Lines, up to the Hammer Family (Families K8
    AMD’s early processor lines, up to the Hammer Family (Families K8 - K10.5h) Dezső Sima October 2018 (Ver. 1.1) Sima Dezső, 2018 AMD’s early processor lines, up to the Hammer Family (Families K8 - K10.5h) • 1. Introduction to AMD’s processor families • 2. AMD’s 32-bit x86 families • 3. Migration of 32-bit ISAs and microarchitectures to 64-bit • 4. Overview of AMD’s K8 – K10.5 (Hammer-based) families • 5. The K8 (Hammer) family • 6. The K10 Barcelona family • 7. The K10.5 Shanghai family • 8. The K10.5 Istambul family • 9. The K10.5-based Magny-Course/Lisbon family • 10. References 1. Introduction to AMD’s processor families 1. Introduction to AMD’s processor families (1) 1. Introduction to AMD’s processor families AMD’s early x86 processor history [1] AMD’s own processors Second sourced processors 1. Introduction to AMD’s processor families (2) Evolution of AMD’s early processors [2] 1. Introduction to AMD’s processor families (3) Historical remarks 1) Beyond x86 processors AMD also designed and marketed two embedded processor families; • the 2900 family of bipolar, 4-bit slice microprocessors (1975-?) used in a number of processors, such as particular DEC 11 family models, and • the 29000 family (29K family) of CMOS, 32-bit embedded microcontrollers (1987-95). In late 1995 AMD cancelled their 29K family development and transferred the related design team to the firm’s K5 effort, in order to focus on x86 processors [3]. 2) Initially, AMD designed the Am386/486 processors that were clones of Intel’s processors.
    [Show full text]
  • AMD Geode™ NX Processors BIOS Considerations Application Note
    AMD Geode™ NX Processors BIOS Considerations Application Note PID: 32483 Rev: A Issue Date: October 2004 © 2004 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. All rights reserved. The contents of this document are provided in connection with Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (“AMD”) products. AMD makes no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this publication and reserves the right to make changes to specifications and product descriptions at any time without notice. No license, whether express, implied, arising by estoppel or otherwise, to any intellectual property rights is granted by this publication. Except as set forth in AMD’s Standard Terms and Conditions of Sale, AMD assumes no liability whatsoever, and disclaims any express or implied warranty, relating to its products including, but not limited to, the implied warranty of mer- chantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or infringement of any intellectual property right. AMD’s products are not designed, intended, authorized or warranted for use as components in systems intended for surgical implant into the body, or in other applications intended to support or sustain life, or in any other application in which the failure of AMD’s product could create a situation where personal injury, death, or severe property or environmental damage may occur. AMD reserves the right to discontinue or make changes to its products at any time without notice. Contacts www.amd.com Trademarks AMD, the AMD Arrow logo, AMD Athlon, AMD PowerNow!, and combinations thereof, and Geode are trademarks of Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Microsoft and Windows are registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation.
    [Show full text]
  • MARIE: an Introduction to a Simple Computer
    00068_CH04_Null.qxd 10/18/10 12:03 PM Page 195 “When you wish to produce a result by means of an instrument, do not allow yourself to complicate it.” —Leonardo da Vinci CHAPTER MARIE: An Introduction 4 to a Simple Computer 4.1 INTRODUCTION esigning a computer nowadays is a job for a computer engineer with plenty of Dtraining. It is impossible in an introductory textbook such as this (and in an introductory course in computer organization and architecture) to present every- thing necessary to design and build a working computer such as those we can buy today. However, in this chapter, we first look at a very simple computer called MARIE: a Machine Architecture that is Really Intuitive and Easy. We then pro- vide brief overviews of Intel and MIPs machines, two popular architectures reflecting the CISC and RISC design philosophies. The objective of this chapter is to give you an understanding of how a computer functions. We have, therefore, kept the architecture as uncomplicated as possible, following the advice in the opening quote by Leonardo da Vinci. 4.2 CPU BASICS AND ORGANIZATION From our studies in Chapter 2 (data representation) we know that a computer must manipulate binary-coded data. We also know from Chapter 3 that memory is used to store both data and program instructions (also in binary). Somehow, the program must be executed and the data must be processed correctly. The central processing unit (CPU) is responsible for fetching program instructions, decod- ing each instruction that is fetched, and performing the indicated sequence of operations on the correct data.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Study of 64 Bit Microprocessors Apple, Intel and AMD
    Special Issue - 2016 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT) ISSN: 2278-0181 ICACT - 2016 Conference Proceedings A Comparative Study of 64 Bit Microprocessors Apple, Intel and AMD Surakshitha S Shifa A Ameen Rekha P M Information Science and Engineering Information Science and Engineering Information Science and Engineering JSSATE JSSATE JSSATE Bangalore, India Bangalore, India Bangalore, India Abstract- In this paper, we draw a comparative study of registers, even larger .The term may also refer to the size of microprocessor, using the three major processors; Apple, low-level data types, such as 64-bit floating-point numbers. Intel and AMD. Although the philosophy of their micro Most CPUs are designed so that the contents of a architecture is the same, they differ in their approaches to single integer register can store the address of any data in implementation. We discuss architecture issues, limitations, the computer's virtual considered an appropriate size to architectures and their features .We live in a world of constant competition dating to the historical words of the work with for another important reason: 4.29 billion Charles Darwin-‘Survival of the fittest ‘. As time passed by, integers are enough to assign unique references to most applications needed more processing power and this lead to entities in applications like databases. an explosive era of research on the architecture of Some supercomputer architectures of the 1970s and microprocessors. We present a technical & comparative study 1980s used registers up to 64 bits wide. In the mid-1980s, of these smart microprocessors. We study and compare two Intel i860 development began culminating in a 1989 microprocessor families that have been at the core of the release.
    [Show full text]
  • Athlon XP 2600+ Reviewed Athlon XP 2600+ Reviewed by Johan De Gelas – August 2002
    Ace’s Hardware Athlon XP 2600+ Reviewed Athlon XP 2600+ Reviewed By Johan De Gelas – August 2002 AMD Takes Up the Gauntlet with Flair The last few quarters have been pure agony for AMD. Sales and turnover figures plunged to terrible lows and AMD's results where written in bloody red ink. Thoroughbred, the 130 nanometer Athlon XP was limited to a 66 MHz increase over its older brother Palomino. The race with Intel was lost: Intel's 2.53 GHz Pentium 4 was arguably the fastest x86 processor in the world. After launching the Thoroughbred Athlon XP 2200+, many people on the Internet were forecasting doom scenarios for AMD. The disappointing initial clockspeeds were, however, no surprise for the hardware veterans among you. When Thoroughbred was launched, we stated: "Our sources indicate that AMD's yields at 0.13µ are pretty good, but the current bin splits have a lot of room for improvement. While 1.5V is good enough to get the Thoroughbred up to 1600 MHz, higher clockspeeds are only attained with some kind of overclocking. Now this is hardly of a reason for panic, as it is even sort of a "tradition" for AMD. With far fewer resources for debugging and tuning, new process technology almost always experiences some teething problems." Contrary to Intel, AMD has neither funds nor fabs for backup plans, so moves to new process technology or new processor layouts are always somewhat risky. New process technology or layout changes often initially result in yield, clock scaling, and/or binsplit problems, and the time that it takes to resolve these issues tends to be very variable.
    [Show full text]
  • EC Declaration of Conformity
    EC Declaration of Conformity We IWILL Corp. No. 10, Wu Chuan 3rd Rd., Hsin Chuang City, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C. Declare under sole responsibility that the XA100 Plus motherboard Meets the intent of Directive 89/336/ECC for Electromagnetic Compatibility. Compliance was demonstrated to the following specifications as listed in the official Journal of the European Communities: EN 50081-1 Emissions: EN 55022 Radiated, Class B EN 55022 Conducted, Class B EN 60555-2 Power Harmonics EN 50082-1 Immunity: IEC 801-2 Electrostatic Discharge IEC 801-3 RF Radiate IEC 801-4 Fast Transient V1.3C 1 About This Manual This manual introduces to the users how this XA100 PLUS Ultra ATA-2 ( Ultra DMA 33 ) and 100 MHz bus motherboard is manufactured. All useful information is described in later chapters. Keep this manual for future upgrades or system configuration changes. Chapter 0 Overview An overview of some special and basic features of the XA100 Plus motherboard Chapter 1 Features The detailed features and specifications of the XA100 Plus motherboard Chapter 2 Quick Installation The quick reference for experienced users Chapter 3 Hardware Installation The detailed information on jumper settings, connections, and hardware installation Chapter 4 AWARD BIOS Setup The detailed information of the system AWARD BIOS setup options Chapter 5 Software and Tools The detailed information for installing software and tools Warning Most of the features of this motherboard have passed strict testing, and are subject to change at any time without notice. IWILL assumes no responsibility or liability for any malfunction that occurs due to the future technical changes made by the respective component manufacturers.
    [Show full text]
  • AMD-K6-2® Processor Data Sheet
    Preliminary Information AMD-K6-2® Processor Data Sheet © 2000 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. All rights reserved. The contents of this document are provided in connection with Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. ("AMD") products. AMD makes no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this publication and reserves the right to make changes to specifications and product descriptions at any time without notice. No license, whether express, implied, arising by estoppel or otherwise, to any intellectual property rights is granted by this publication. Except as set forth in AMD's Standard Terms and Conditions of Sale, AMD assumes no liability whatsoever, and disclaims any express or implied warranty, relating to its products including, but not limited to, the implied warranty of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or infringement of any intellectual property right. AMD's products are not designed, intended, authorized or warranted for use as components in systems intended for surgical implant into the body, or in other applications intended to support or sustain life, or in any other application in which the failure of AMD's product could create a situation where personal injury, death, or severe property or environmental damage may occur. AMD reserves the right to discontinue or make changes to its products at any time without notice. Trademarks AMD, the AMD logo, K6, 3DNow!, and combinations thereof, K86, and Super7 are trademarks, and AMD-K6 and RISC86 are registered trademarks of Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Microsoft, Windows, and Windows NT are registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation. NetWare is a registered trademark of Novell, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Athlon XP 3200+ Versus Pentium 4 C by Johan De Gelas – May 2003
    Ace’s Hardware Gaming CPU Performance: Athlon XP 3200+ Versus 3 GHz Pentium 4 C Gaming CPU Performance: Athlon XP 3200+ Versus Pentium 4 C By Johan De Gelas – May 2003 Athlon XP 3200+ Reviewed As AMD feels that the Athlon 64 still isn't ready for prime time, the Athlon "Barton" core remains their flagship desktop processor that must face the fierce competition of Santa Clara. Today, AMD claims that a 2.2 GHz Athlon with 512 KB cache and a 400 MHz FSB should carry the 3200+ performance rating. Clockspeeds higher than 2.2 GHz seem to be a hurdle too high for the current Athlon. In our humble opinion, the primary limiting factor is power dissipation. The Athlon faces two problems: it is not capable of reaching high clockspeeds without a core voltage of 1.65V and it is hard to get rid of the heat of the resulting power dissipation when you have to dissipate it through a very small die without a heat-spreader. The carefully mounted heat-spreader and the SOI circuits on the Opteron show, however, that AMD has solved this problem with its next generation processors. But for now, eight months after the introduction of the 2.25 GHz AMD Athlon (2800+), the Athlon is still running at 2.2 GHz. Intel seems to face the same problem with the Pentium 4, as the 3 GHz P4 has been the fastest processor for 7 (!) months now. Nevertheless, when we knew that the new Athlon XP 3200+ was a 2.2 GHz part, we could not help but to be a bit disapointed.
    [Show full text]
  • Bapco Sysmark 25 White Paper
    SYSmark® 25 July 13th, 2020 Revision 1.1 Revision History: 1.0 – Initial version of the SYSmark 25 White Paper 1.1 – Corrected typo about RAM channels in Section 2.8, Corrected reference link names in Section 2.1, Updated APPENDIX A with information on licensing. BAPCo® SYSmark® 25 White Paper Page 1 of 34 About BAPCo Business Applications Performance Corporation (BAPCo) is a non-profit consortium with a charter to develop and distribute a set of objective performance benchmarks for personal computers based on popular computer applications and industry standard operating systems. For more information about BAPCo or a complete list of the current membership, see our website at http://www.bapco.com/. BAPCo® SYSmark® 25 White Paper Page 2 of 34 Table of Contents 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 4 2 BAPCo Development Process ................................................................................................................ 5 2.1 Milestone Overview ...................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Usage Model, Sub Scenario, and Scenario Selection .................................................................... 7 2.3 Scenario Grouping ......................................................................................................................... 8 2.4 Application Selection ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Battery Life Performance Ratings of the Acer Aspire Timeline 4810TZ
    TEST REPORT June 2009 Battery life performance ratings of the Acer Aspire Timeline 4810TZ notebook system Executive summary Acer commissioned Principled Technologies (PT) to run BAPCo’s MobileMark 2007 Productivity 2007 battery life KEY FINDING benchmark test on the Acer Aspire Timeline 4810TZ notebook system in its out-of-the-box (OOB) configuration. The Acer Aspire Timeline 4810TZ 14.0” notebook system, with a weight of just over 4 The goal of the testing was to gauge the battery life that pounds and retail price of $599, produced a buyers would experience. Acer specified and provided the battery life score of 8 hours 49 minutes on the test system. PT set up the system and executed all tests. MobileMark 2007 Productivity 2007 test with its standard 6-cell battery. (See Figure 1.) We measured system battery life using BAPCo’s MobileMark 2007 Productivity 2007 test. MobileMark 2007 Productivity 2007 is an industry-standard benchmark that provides a battery life rating and a performance rating based on common office scenarios. In our tests, we focus solely on the battery life rating. MobileMark 2007 Productivity 2007 includes applications and workloads specific to notebook systems, such as office activities like file and document management, data processing, and rich content creation. This module provides a score for battery life of the tested applications. As Figure 1 shows, with a standard 5,800 mAh, 6-cell battery, the Acer Aspire Timeline 4810TZ produced a battery life score of 8 hours 49 minutes. The Workload section details the specific applications the MobileMark 2007 Productivity 2007 test uses, the Test results section shows the test results in more detail, and the Test methodology section explains how we ran the tests.
    [Show full text]