Comment from 2023: This is the old benchmark. You can see the results of the new benchmark here:
https://lalescu.ro/liviu/fet/forum/index.php?topic=5729.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old Message:
Most important is a fast (single core) CPU with a big cache size. Maybe you want to know if you should buy a new CPU. Maybe just do following small benchmark to get an idea about possible speedup.
Here are some results (of course lower time is better):
Time - CPU - Speed - compiled or precompiled - OS - metered by
0min 56s - Intel i5-9400F, 2.90 GHz, compiled on Ubuntu 19.04, cipman
0min 58s - AMD Ryzen 2700x, 3.7 GHz, compiled on openSUSE Tumbleweed, Liviu Lalescu
1min 28s - Intel Xeon E3 1230 v3, 3.7 GHz, precompiled, Windows 10, Rumtata
1min 28s - AMD Ryzen 2700x, 3.7 GHz, precompiled, Windows 10, Liviu Lalescu
1min 29s - Intel i3 6100, 3.7GHz, precompiled, Windows 10, Salatsauce45
1min 32s - Intel i5, 3.33 GHz, compiled on Linux, liquid
1min 34s - Intel i7 2700K, 3.50GHz, precompiled, Windows 7 64-Bit, Christian Kemmer
1min 34s - AMD Ryzen 1800x, 3.60GHz, precompiled, Windows 10, tobse2056
1min 34s - Intel Pentium G4560, 3.5 GHz, precompiled, Windows 10, Volker Dirr
1min 38s - Intel i7 2600K, 3.40 GHz, precompiled, Windows 7, Christian Kemmer
1min 40s - Intel i5 4460, 3.20 GHz, precompiled, Windows 10, Volker Dirr
1min 41s - AMD Ryzen 1600, 3.2 GHz, precompiled, Windows 10, Liviu Lalescu
1min 50s - Intel i7 2670Qm, 2.2GHz, compiled on Ubuntu 11.10, Silver
1min 50s - Intel Xeon E5 1620v2, 3.7 Ghz, precompiled, Windows 7, DarkWing13
1min 53s - Intel i5 M 460, 2.5 GHz, compiled on Linux Debian 10, erick nimtz
1min 54s - Intel i5 3210m, 2.5 GHz, precompiled, Windows 7, Volker Dirr
1min 57s - Intel Celeron G1840, 2.80 GHz, precompiled, Windows 7 64bit, y
2min 01s - AMD Athlon II X2 270, 3.40 GHz, compiled on Ubuntu, Volker Dirr
2min 02s - AMD Phenom II X4 955, 3,6GHz, precompiled, Windows 10, Rumtata
2min 04s - Intel i5 2520M, 2.50 GHz, lalloso
2min 05s - Intel i7 2670Qm, 2.2GHz, precompiled, Windows 7, Silver
2min 07s - Intel Core i5 4200U, 1.60GHz, precompiled, Windows 8, Volker Dirr
2min 21s - Intel Core i5 M460, 2.53 GHz, precompiled, Windows 7, Volker Dirr
2min 23s - AMD Athlon II X2 250, 3.00 GHz, compiled on Ubuntu, Volker Dirr
2min 34s - AMD Athlon X3 450, 3.21GHz, precompiled, Windows XP, Christian Kemmer
2min 37s - AMD Athlon X2 260, 3.2 GHz, precompiled, Windows 7, Christian Kemmer
2min 47s - AMD Athlon X2 250, 3 GHz, precompiled, Windows 7, Christian Kemmer
2min 58s - Intel Xeon X3450, 2.67 GHz, precompiled, Windows Server 2008, Christian Kemmer
3min 21s - Intel i3 M330, 2.13 GHz, precompiled, Windows 7, Volker Dirr
3min 27s - Intel Duo T9400, 2.53 GHz, precompiled, Windows Vista, Volker Dirr
3min 52s - Intel Duo E6550, 2.33 GHz, precompiled, Windows XP, alfaromeo
3min 55s - Intel Duo E6600, 2.40 GHz, precompiled, Windows 7 32bit, y
3min 57s - AMD 4000+, 2.11 GHz, openSuse 11.4 64 bit, Liviu Lalescu
4min 05s - AMD Athlon X2 QL-65, 2.1 GHz, compiled on Linux, Zsolt Udvari
4min 15s - AMD Athlon 5350, 2.05 GHz, precompiled, Windows 7 32bit, y
4min 21s - Intel Celeron E1500, 2.20 GHz, precompiled, Windows Vista 32bit, y
4min 26s - Intel Duo T7300m, 2.0 GHz, precompiled, Windows Vista 32bit, y
4min 36s - Broadcom BCM2711, Raspberry Pi 4, ARM Cortex-A72, 1.5 GHz, Raspbian, Volker Dirr
4min 46s - AMD Athlon 64 x2 3800+, 2.01 GHz, precompiled, Windows XP, Volker Dirr
4min 51s - Intel Duo T5750, 2.00 GHz, precompiled, Windows XP, Volker Dirr
5min 50s - Intel Pentium E2140, 1.60 GHz, precompiled, Windows 7 32-bit, y
6min 28s - Pentium 4, 3.40 GHz, precompiled, Windows XP, Christian Kemmer
6min 57s - Intel Pentium 4 530, 3.00 GHz, precompiled, Windows XP 32bit, y
7min 12s - Intel Atom Z3735G (Tablet Dell Venue 8 Pro - battery only), 1.33GHz, precompiled, Windows 8, Rumtata
7min 45s - Broadcom BCM2837B Raspberry Pi 3+, ARM Cortex-A53, 1.4 GHz, Raspbian, Volker Dirr
9min 08s - Broadcom BCM2837 Raspberry Pi 3, ARM Cortex-A53, 1.2 GHz, Raspbian, Volker Dirr
17min 15s - Broadcom BCM2836 Raspberry Pi 2, ARM Cortex-A7, 0.9 GHz, Raspbian, Volker Dirr
1h 11min 25s - Broadcom BCM2835 Raspberry Pi, ARM1176JZF-S, 0.7 GHz, Raspbian, Volker Dirr
Best overclocker performance is:
Time - CPU - Speed - compiled or precompiled - OS - metered by
1min 05s - Intel i7 4770k, 4.8 GHz, precompiled, Windows 10, Addi
Notes:
- Time is always +/- a few seconds.
- The clock speed (GHz) is always the basic speed. Modern CPUs increase the clock speed. For example the clock speed of Intel 2670Qm increase from 2.2Ghz up to 3.1Ghz while running the fet benchmark.
Rules for this benchmark are following:
1. Download FET 5.14.3 (please USE FOR DAILY WORK ONLY NEWEST OFFICIAL FET version (currently 5.31.3). ONLY for this benchmark please use version 5.14.3, because only by this the results are not effected by other things.)
(Get source from http://www.timetabling.de/download/old/fet-5.14.3.tar.bz2 (ONLY recommended for benchmark!).
Get executable from http://www.timetabling.de/download/old/fet-5.14.3.exe (ONLY recommended for benchmark!).)
2. Open file: examples -> Germany -> secondary-school-1 -> constraint-min-n-days-100-few-0 -> german-100_and_0.fet
3. Go to FET->Settings->Advanced->Seed of random number generator. Set both values (seed X and seed Y) to value 1.
4. Generate the table (FET->Timetable->Generate new). Do not run other CPU consuming programs in simulation time! Also turn off screen saver.
5. Remember needed time to solve the table.
6. Go to FET->Settings->Advanced->Seed of random number generator. Check if seed X is 1272947622 and seed Y is 1955161776. Set them to value 1 again and repeat step 4 to 6 at least one time.
7. Let us know your results.
(Modification: I added results up to 04.12.2020. Later results are not added yet.)
My test result:
3min 52s - Intel Core2 Duo E6550 (2.33 GHz - precompiled FET with Windows XP)
I think that the history (the graph) of process solving is also important, so here is the history:
409 palced activities at 42s
573 palced activities at 1m46s
578 palced activities at 2m
581 palced activities at 3m10s
Edited to add: 589 palced activities at 3m52s
No, the history of placed activities is not important, only check the final random seed X and Y to be the same (to ensure the same process on any machine). By the way, 598 in your previous post is wrong, should be 589.
Yes, final value is 589
I corrected it above
About, the history of placed activities
I am not sure! it was just a thought.. :) Because, if you launch two instances of FET with same file, you will notice that each one goes by different path, which make one find a solution faster than other...
QuoteYes, final value is 589
I corrected it above
About, the history of placed activities
I am not sure! it was just a thought.. :) Because, if you launch two instances of FET with same file, you will notice that each one goes by different path, which make one find a solution faster than other...
You are right, it is an additional check, but the probability that the final random seed X and Y coincides is very low for different behavior (approx. 1/2^62). This is the best check.
Also, it is difficult for other users to write down the progress.
4min 5s - AMD Athlon(tm) X2 Dual-Core QL-65 (2100 MHz, compiled and generated on Linux)
2 m 58 s on Intel Xeon X3450 @2.67 GHz Windows Server 2008 64-Bit, precompiled Windows
6 m 28 s on Pentium(r) 4CPU 3.40 GHz Windows XP 32-Bit, precompiled Windows
2 m 47 s on AMD Athlon X2 250 GHz Windows 7 32-Bit, precompiled Windows
Best Regards,
Christian Kemmer
2min 37sec on AMD Athlon X2 260, 3,2 GHz Windows 7, 64-Bit, precompiled Windows-version
1m32s on Intel i5 3.33 GHz - compiled and generated on Linux 64b
Quote1m32s on Intel i5 3.33 GHz - compiled and generated on Linux 64b
Wow, nice computer :-)
Here is my openSuse 11.4 64 bit kernel 2.6.37 Qt 4.7.2 gcc/g++ 4.5.2 (I admit I did it only once, right now, with some other minor programs running, but probably the result is correct, as I have dual core).
Computer: AMD 4000+ 2.11 GHz dual core, don't know cache size, maybe 512 kb each core.
3 m 57 s.
QuoteComputer: AMD 4000+ 2.11 GHz dual core, don't know cache size, maybe 512 kb each core.
grep "cache size" /proc/cpuinfo
Thanks, Zsolt! Useful file, /proc/cpuinfo.
Yes, I have 512 kb cache on each core.
As a note for this thread, you can continue this thread also on future FET versions, as long as starting the same file with the same random seed finishes with the same random seed, respectively. Currently, 17 March 2011, the FET snapshot has the same exact generation procedure, so you can include it, and probably the next 5.14.4 version (to be released probably in a week or more).
2min 34 sec on AMD Athlon X3 450, 3.21GHz, Windows XP, precompiled Windows-Version 5.14.4
Quote4min 5s - AMD Athlon(tm) X2 Dual-Core QL-65 (2100 MHz, compiled and generated on Linux)
4min 19s - same machine, v5.14.4, Linux.
QuoteQuote4min 5s - AMD Athlon(tm) X2 Dual-Core QL-65 (2100 MHz, compiled and generated on Linux)
4min 19s - same machine, v5.14.4, Linux.
Don't worry, I can explain: :-)
1) FET internal generation algorithm was not changed, not even a bit (only a small assignment was made now an assert, like: a=b became assert(a==b), because these should be equal before this instruction).
2) Maybe your Qt on the GNU/Linux machine was updated, and maybe it is a bit slower. I think it is not the case, as on my computer it has the same speed, and the FET generation algorithm does not depend much on Qt and probably the responsible Qt code in this part was not changed. Also, the Qt team is optimizing.
3) Maybe you have other gcc/g++. I think not the case, as I also updated my gcc/g++ without noticing slowdowns, and also the gcc/g++ team is optimizing.
4) The probable cause: I noticed sometimes a slowdown for generations of the exact same compiled FET on my GNU/Linux computer. It depends on the other processes running, or other things. Try to restart, generate at another time, etc. (only if you want to convince yourself that FET was not slowed down in the 5.14.4 release compared to 5.14.3).
I don't worry about it :) I think, this some seconds doesn't matter, it's only about 1.5%, it's not relevant imho (mesaure error :)).
QuoteI don't worry about it :) I think, this some seconds doesn't matter, it's only about 1.5%, it's not relevant imho (mesaure error :)).
Actually, it is a 5.71% increase (computed as: 14 seconds / 245 seconds).
Thank you for results. Since we are on page 2 now, i modified my first message and added your results. Let us now more results.
1min 38s - Intel Core i7 2600K (3.40 GHz - precompiled FET with Windows 7
Thank you for the result. i updated my first massage again.
Maybe someone has a new netbook with an intel atom or amd fusion cpu? whould be intresting to know their time.
Important note: it seems that GNU/Linux FET might be faster than precompiled Windows FET.
On my computer, I have 64 bit GNU/Linux openSuse (64 bit compiler gcc) and 64 bit Windows 7 (32 bit compiler MinGW).
The Windows FET seems about 15% slower.
Maybe if using MSVC compiler under Windows might get better results for Windows FET.
5min 50s - Intel Pentium E2140 (1M Cache, 1.60 GHz, 800 MHz FSB)
Precompiled FET
Windows 7 32-bit
Thank you for report. I also done a new benchmark:
2min 01s - AMD Athlon II X2 270 (3.40 GHz - compiled and generated with Linux)
i added both results into the first message.
please sent us more results.
Two more benchmarks:
4min 21sec - Intel Celeron E1500 (2.20 GHz - precompiled FET with Windows Vista 32bit)
6min 57sec - Intel Pentium 4 530 (3.00 GHz - precompiled FET with Windows XP 32bit)
And a final one (at least for today):
4min 26sec Intel Mobile Core 2 Duo T7300 (2.0 GHz, 4MB L2 cache - precompiled FET with Windows Vista 32bit)
For GNU/Linux, you need to care about the Qt version. Qt 4.8.0 is slower than Qt 4.7.4 on my computer.
repeat 5 :
41s - 1m1s - 46s - 1m42s - 51s
min: 60.2 sec
intel i7 - 2670Qm 2.2GHz
Hallo silver,
i am not 100% sure what you have done. maybe you didn't always use the "correct" seed?
Can you please explain a bit more detailed your results and/or repeat them with the correct seed, file and fet version?
if you mean seed x=1 y=1 :
intel i7 - 2670Qm 2.2GHz
with windows 7 = 2m 5sec
with ubuntu 11.10 = 1m 50sec
regards
thank you.
i added all previous results in the fist message. (so also results from y).
since the first message grow and grow i just want to know this:
- is it needed to split it into 2 tables? one for windows and one for linux? (because the linux variants are always ~10% faster)
- is it needed to cut results that are slower then maybe 5 minutes?
Quote from: Volker Dirr on February 25, 2012, 10:52:21 AM
thank you.
i added all previous results in the fist message. (so also results from y).
thanks
since the first message grow and grow i just want to know this:
- is it needed to split it into 2 tables? one for windows and one for linux? (because the linux variants are always ~10% faster)
no, sort by the cpu better than sort by the system
- is it needed to cut results that are slower then maybe 5 minutes?
no, It's good publicity for Linux.
-------
1min 42s - Intel i7 - 2670Qm (2.2GHz - compiled and generated with Ubuntu 12.04 - 64 bit - metered by Silver)
The future version 5.18.0 will contain this bug fix: http://lalescu.ro/liviu/fet/forum/index.php?topic=1136 , and the random seeds and times will change from then on, sorry.
Quote from: Liviu Lalescu on May 03, 2012, 09:15:21 AM
The future version 5.18.0 will contain this bug fix: http://lalescu.ro/liviu/fet/forum/index.php?topic=1136 , and the random seeds and times will change from then on, sorry.
i used fet 5.14 not 5.18 (from the Ubuntu repositories).
best regards
I haven't compiled 5.14.3 on the Mac, so I used 5.15. Hope it's the same.
CPU: 2.4 GHz Intel Core i5 Dual Core Sandy-Bridge
Time: 2 min 27 sec
Quote from: Zsolt Udvari on November 08, 2010, 11:16:54 PM
4min 5s - AMD Athlon(tm) X2 Dual-Core QL-65 (2100 MHz, compiled and generated on Linux)
Same machine, x86_64 build: 3 min 31 sec - 14% faster.
i guess it is faster because of an newer compiler and/or just because of "normal" inaccuracy (if you meter several times).
i don't think it is because of 64 bit, because there are not many 64 bit values in the source of fet and also 64 bit divide the cache in half (compared with 32 bit.) so 64 bit can be theoretical slower then 32 bit (of course only if the dataset use more then 50% and less then 100% of the cache in 32 bit mode.)
maybe you (or someone else) can proof that?
so maybe we also need to write down the used compiler?
I don't know - I'm not hardware/software expert - just now turned to 64bit my Arch and I was curious.
Do you think the newest gcc generates 14% faster binaries?
Edit: newest measurement: 3m39s (I've worked parallel too).
Difficult to say without more tests. But that is one possible reason. (Or you used other fet source in the past, or there where a few other programms running during the test in the past (in worst case a part of your operating system), or normal inaccuracy, or ...) Proof is only possible by several tests.
Maybe newer Qt. Maybe newer Linux (kernel).
64 bit should not be faster than 32 bits. Professor Knuth writes the same argument as Volker's on his page.
PS: My newer Qt is in fact slower in the interface. We may consider running next texts by command-line interface.
I added a new result:
1min 54s - Intel i5 3210m (2.5 GHz - precompiled FET with Windows 7 - metered by Volker Dirr)
Interesting to see that this new and expensive Intel cpu is not much better then an very old and cheap AMD cpu.
(2min 01s - AMD Athlon II X2 270 (3.40 GHz - compiled and generated with Linux - metered by Volker Dirr)
Is there someone that can test also on AMD E-450, Bulldozer, Trinity, Piledriver, ...? (By the way: A 4 core bulldozer will be faster then an 8 core bulldozer, because FET use only one core and the 4 core cpus have an higher clock speed.)
today, i updated Qt to 4.8 and i generated (german-100_and_0.fet) with seed x=1 y=1,
1min 02s - Intel i7 - 2670Qm (2.2GHz - compiled and generated with Ubuntu 12.04 - 32 bit - metered by Silver)
Is it 1 min 02 s or 1 min 20 s?
Volker will be unavailable for a couple of weeks, so he won't be able to update right away.
Hallo Silver,
maybe you used the latest FET version? For the benchmark only the old version is allowed.
So i will keep your old value:
1min 50s - Intel i7 - 2670Qm (2.2GHz - compiled and generated with Ubuntu 11.10 - metered by Silver)
3min 55s - Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 (2.40 GHz - precompiled FET 5.14.3 with Windows 7 32bit - metered by y)
thank you. i added that result.
so windows xp is faster windows 7?
(because:
3min 52s - Intel Core2 Duo E6550 (2.33 GHz - precompiled FET with Windows XP - metered by alfaromeo)
3min 55s - Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 (2.40 GHz - precompiled FET 5.14.3 with Windows 7 32bit - metered by y)
)
or it was just a bit luck, because results are always +/- a few seconds.
Maybe it has not anything to do with windows version. According to these specs sheets,
E6550: http://ark.intel.com/products/30783/Intel-Core2-Duo-Processor-E6550-4M-Cache-2_33-GHz-1333-MHz-FSB (http://ark.intel.com/products/30783/Intel-Core2-Duo-Processor-E6550-4M-Cache-2_33-GHz-1333-MHz-FSB)
and
E6600: http://ark.intel.com/products/27250 (http://ark.intel.com/products/27250)
both have the same cache, E6600 is a bit older chip and it has 3% faster frequency, but E6550 has quite higher (25%) FSB speed. Maybe the latter gives that marginal better result to E6550.
I measured 3 times the E6600, giving 3:56, 3:54 and 3:55! I reported the middle value :)
1min34sec precompiled FET 5.14.3 on Windows 7, 64-Bit, Intel i7-2700K@3.50GHz
Thank you for the report. I added your result in the first post.
2 min 04 secs on an Intel Core i5-2520M CPU@2.50 Ghz 2.50Ghz
Thank you for the report. I added your result in the first post.
i also added a new result in the first post:
2 min 07 secs on an Intel Core i5-4200U 1.60GHz (of course clock speed is much higher during generating with FET)
Maybe someone wonder that an Core i5-4200U 1.60GHz is nearly as fast as an AMD x2 270 3.4 GHz.
Of course the i5 is much newer but on the other hand it is also not an desktop CPU.
But there is still a big difference between that CPUs.
If you generate 2 timetables simoultanously then both cores of the AMD CPU still stay at 3.4 GHz, so both timetables are solved in around 2 minutes.
But the Intel CPU can't hold the turbo clock (2.5 GHz) and slow down to 1.6 GHz. So generating 2 timetables simoultanously is much slower with that Intel CPU.
So what do you think? Do we need to modify the benchmark rules? As you can see: The current rules are only correct if you generate a single timetable. So it isn't very realistic. On the other side it will be very hard to do a more "realistic" benchmark.
I also like to know some other results. Anybody out there who can benchmark a new Intel i5-4xxx deskop CPU and/or an AMD A10-7xxx CPU?
results from Raspberry Pi (ARM CPU) added.
1h 11min 25s - Broadcom BCM2835 - ARM1176JZF-S (0.7 GHz - Raspberry Pi - metered by Volker Dirr)
results from Raspberry Pi 2 (ARM CPU) added.
17min 15s - Broadcom BCM2836 - ARM Cortex-A7 (0.9 GHz - Raspberry Pi - metered by Volker Dirr)
results from Commodore Amiga 500 added.
3d 14h 1min 59s - Motorola 68000 (7 MHz - AROS - metered by Volker Dirr)
Quote from: Volker Dirr on April 01, 2015, 12:02:04 PM
results from Commodore Amiga 500 added.
3d 14h 1min 59s - Motorola 68000 (7 MHz - AROS - metered by Volker Dirr)
Wow! :)
You forgot to add this in the first post.
Is this comparable to a Sinclair Spectrum Z80 with 64 k memory which I was using in the 90's? You added more memory to it? Also, it was an 8-bit processor? How is this magic possible?
Amiga has got a 16 bit CPU. I think it is impossible with an 8 bit CPU to run FET.
The default memory of an Amiga is also 512 kb (not 64 kb) and it can be upgraded with 2 slots. So you can add 2 MB. Of course it isn't enough memory to run the GUI, i benchmarked by using fet-cl (command line version).
1min 57s - Intel Celeron G1840 (2.80 GHz - precompiled FET 5.14.3 with Windows 7 64bit - metered by y)
Thank you for report. I added your result in the first post.
4min 15s - AMD Athlon 5350 (2.05 GHz - precompiled FET 5.14.3 with Windows 7 32bit - metered by y)
Lousy performance for a 4-core processor! It must be because FET uses only one core all of the time. Compared with the Intel Celeron G1840 2.80 GHz, it looks awful, but for tasks using all processors (e.g. mining), the AMD performs better.
Yes, FET use single core only. I will add your other relsut also into the first post now. Thank you for report.
I added a new result:
9min 08s - Broadcom BCM2837 Raspberry Pi 3 - ARM Cortex-A53 (1.2 GHz - Raspbian - metered by Volker Dirr)
Sorry for french Words.
Je suis d'accord avec mr Volker, j'ajoute que le plus important avec FET, ce n'est pas le nombre de core CPU, mais c'est le cache mémoire, la ram et la fréquence de l'horloge (exprimé en GHz ). En plus de des activités placées en premier par fet.
Donc en résumé le temps met par fet pour produire un tableau dépend de deux choses:
1- les caractéristiques citées plus haut.
2- le phénomène aléatoire du placement des activités.
Ce dernier point en peut le vérifier facilement; avec le même tableau, en aura des temps de productions déférents!
I agree with mr Volker , I add that the most important with FET , it is not the number of core CPUs , but the cache, the ram and the clock frequency (expressed in GHz). In addition to the activities placed first by fet .
So in short time places per fect for an array depends on two things :
1- the characteristics listed above.
2- the random phenomenon of investment activities .
This last point can be checked easily ; with the same array, will have time to deferent productions!
Hi
anyone with an AMD Ryzen out there? I am interested in the results of that CPU (see first message of this topic). Maybe you can do a benchmark? Of course all other CPUs are also interesting. Let me know if you have got new results.
Thank you!
I added 2 new results in the first message of this topic:
1min 34s - AMD Ryzen 1800x (3.60GHz - precompiled - Windows 10 - metered by tobse2056)
1min 40s - Intel i5 4460 (3.20 GHz - precompiled FET with Windows 10 - metered by Volker Dirr)
Please let me now your results. (Also intresting will be AMD Ryzen 7 1700, Intel Atom, Intel Celeron, Intel Pentium, ...)
3 new results by Rumtata:
(AMD Phenom II X4 955 @3,6GHz- Windows 10- 2m 2s)
(Intel Xeon E3 1230 v3 @3,7GHz Windows 10 - 1m 28s)
(Dell Venue 8 Pro [Tablet] Intel Atom Z3735G@1,33GHz-Windows 8- 7m 12s) battery only (without cable power supply)
Thank you.
Please check the first message in this topic to see the full list.
I added 3 new results in the first message of this topic:
1min 05s - Intel i7 4770k, 4.8 GHz, precompiled, Windows 10, Addi
1min 29s - Intel i3 6100, 3.7GHz, precompiled, Windows10, Salatsauce45
1min 50s - Intel Xeon E5 1620v2, 3.7 Ghz, precompiled, Windows 7, DarkWing13
by the way:
a big thank you to the guys from the "pcgameshardware"-forum.
( http://extreme.pcgameshardware.de/prozessoren/473676-ryzen-besiter-bitte-um-einen-kurzen-benchmark.html )
I added a new result in the first message of this topic:
1min 34s - Intel Pentium G4560, 3.5 GHz, precompiled, Windows 10
i added a new result in the first post of this topic:
1min 41s - AMD Ryzen 1600, 3.2 GHz, precompiled, Windows 10, Liviu Lalescu
I added a new result with the enhanced Pi 3 (See first post of this topic). It was released 6 month ago. In my opinion the cheapest way to make timetables, since you need to pay only ~35$ for this single-board computer. (Board + CPU + GPU + RAM)
7min 45s - Broadcom BCM2837B Raspberry Pi 3+ - ARM Cortex-A53 (1.4 GHz - Raspbian - metered by Volker Dirr)
New Raspberry Pi 4 just released. Anyone bought it and can run the benchmark? I guess it will be around 20% up to 2 times faster.
Also the new Ryzen 3xxx with Zen 2 will be intresting (will be released 7.7.). Hope someone can run a test with that also.
Of course all other CPUs are also intresting. Let me know your results.
I added new results of an Ryzen 2700x in the first post. Metered by Liviu.
He measured it with the old precompiled windows version and a new Linux version (so 10 years newer compiler). So the Linux version is much faster.
hmm...
It is maybe time to think about a new benchmark and/or separate the results into different tables. There are a lot of reasons for a new benchmark. The precompiled version is pretty old (old compiler). There is at least one big improvement in the algorithm that might give much better results for CPUs with smaller cache size (removing the foreach stuff some years ago). We also should maybe care about a multi core test. Also the benchmark looks too easy. It should be more difficult.
Let me know your ideas about a new benchmark.
But as long as there is no new benchmark version:
I am still interested in other CPUs. Especially AMD Ryzen 3xxx and Raspberry Pi 4.
I just added results for the new raspberry pi 4:
4min 36s - Broadcom BCM2711, Raspberry Pi 4, ARM Cortex-A72, 1.5 GHz, Raspbian, Volker Dirr
Intel i5-9400F @ 2.90 GHz, on Ubuntu 19.04, FET 5.14.3 compiled from source --> 56 seconds from 10 trial runs (1 run was 55 secs) - printscreen at https://i.imgur.com/ebU0EGD.png (https://i.imgur.com/ebU0EGD.png)
Not as fast as I've expected (45-48 secs) but I chose this CPU for a silent PC configuration and it is dead silent running 6 FET instances on all 6 cores with CPU temp at 68-70 deg C in 25 deg C ambient. So I'm more than happy with the result.
Looking forward for a Ryzen 5 3600 speed test (although I'm not an AMD fan - yet).
Thank you, cipman, for your report! Good processor! Mine is not dead silent if I run 8 instances (8 core).
Volker will add your results to the first post.
So, are you satisfied with the FET timetables? I invite you to write also about your FET experience, on the dedicated Feed-back board. Or you might have suggestions or other reports.
Thank you! I added the result in the first post. You are at place one now :-)
Your CPU and also your cooling is fine. The junction temperature of that CPU is 100°C. So the CPU should run at full speed with 4.1 GHz if your CPU has only 70°C.
So even with a "better/louder" cooling the speed won't increase. (You might increase by over clocking, but I think the disadvantages of over clocking are maybe too strong).
Also the time of 56s is fine. I expected even 1-2 seconds slower. Why? Because I compared your CPU with Livius Ryzen 2700x in the userbenchmark. FET is a single core software.
Check https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-2700X-vs-Intel-Core-i5-9400F/3958vs4051 (https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-2700X-vs-Intel-Core-i5-9400F/3958vs4051)
As you can see the Ryzen 2700x got 119 points while the 9400F got 120 points. So pretty the same speed.
Why did you expect 45-48 secs?
Comparing with that benchmark I expect that the Ryzen 3600 is 10% faster. But it would be nice if we get a FET benchmark for that CPU.
"Kind" of an old machine here, Dell Vostro 3500 laptop from 2011 (still running like a charm for daily basic tasks - my favorite machine for meetings and field works):
1min55s on 1st run - https://photos.app.goo.gl/xRvjf3gbBYWuKVbYA
1min53s on 2nd run - https://photos.app.goo.gl/2UbH9U6SSjLMsnAB6
1min52s on 3rd run - https://photos.app.goo.gl/8Wy4HtYaMzohh25X6
Intel i5 M 460 (dual core, 4 threaded) @ 2.528 GHz, locally compiled fet-5.14.3 with Debian GNU/Linux 10 (buster) x86_64, kernel 4.19.0-12-amd64, ran on qt4-default/stable,now 4:4.8.7+dfsg-18+deb10u1 amd64 [installed] Qt 4 development defaults package.
As the cache memory seems to matter for the results, this cpu values are:
L1d cache: 32K, L1i cache: 32K, L2 cache: 256K, L3 cache: 3072K (as seen on lscpu bash command).
I'll try to run the test on other machines (higher and lower specs than this), specially the main desktop I use daily.
Thank you for your kind post, with all these details! Volker will add your results on the first post, soon.
Thank you!
I addit this into the first post:
1min 53s - Intel i5 M 460, 2.5 GHz, compiled on Linux Debian 10, erick nimtz