![Image](http://www.gchq.gov.uk/SiteCollectionImages/OctopiPortrait.jpg)
The Ethernet spanning tree appears to be 8x8 instead of 4x4x4.
http://www.gchq.gov.uk/press_and_media/ ... amble.aspx
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
I got interested and dusted off my old pi model B rev1 (256MB) to get some performance numbers. As a result, it is playing on FICS now as Bliep(C), in turbo mode (1GHz) from a 4GB SD card. Very nice project, I should have done that much earlier.sje wrote:The Core i5 machine capital cost is about 40% of the Pi64 capital cost. So on that basis, and using the other available numbers, the Pi64 capital cost per throughput unit is about 46% that of the Core i5. Note: much guesswork here.
There is a core count and frequency difference:Joost Buijs wrote:I see you are still using the data you took once on my old 980x computer with a very outdated GNU compiler on it.
Maybe you have to run the benchmark again sometime with a more recent compiler, because there is no way an AMD 8350 can beat an Intel 980x speed wise.
I still have that old computer somewhere on the attic, although I don't use it anymore it is still working.
I remember when you did this test there were some problems to get the latest GCC working, so you tested with an old GCC version which clearly performed worse than expected.mvk wrote:There is a core count and frequency difference:Joost Buijs wrote:I see you are still using the data you took once on my old 980x computer with a very outdated GNU compiler on it.
Maybe you have to run the benchmark again sometime with a more recent compiler, because there is no way an AMD 8350 can beat an Intel 980x speed wise.
I still have that old computer somewhere on the attic, although I don't use it anymore it is still working.
8350: 8 * 4 GHz = 32 GHz, with 18 Mnps that gives 1777 cycles/node
980x: 6 * 3.7 GHz = 22.2 GHz. with 16.5 Mnps that gives 1345 cycles/node
Which seems about right. I don't mind to measure again of course. Let's chat on fics.