It seems to me that perf3 is processing twice the data so you are seeing time to execute * 2 threads + overhead. If I am wrong I do apologize in advance.
I ran perf2 on my 3,2 GHz PC using the progam defaults and I get 390 mSec that is about 10x faster than you are reporting.
A final note it that i am personally looking into purchasing a Core Duo laptop PC in the very near future. Is there any performance data for the difference Core Duo Processors? The T2300, T2400, T2500, and T2600s. Am I wasting money with this technology?
Thanks for your test.
In perf3 each thread proccess half data.
The given process time is given for 400000 (the default value is 100000).
If I set the "Affinity" (In Windows task manager) to CPU1 or CPU2 (not both) (like a single core processor), the process time is better than with both CPU !
Sounds like we need someone with access to a buch of PCs to do some benchmarking of performance. Any volunteers out there? Agree, your numbers do not make sense.
Message Edited by mfitzsimons on 06-01-2006 12:00 PM
I'm also interested in this.
My super-duper Hyperthreading single core, filled to the teeth with warp engine 3GHz PC.... is slower than my regular 256MB, 2.4GHz PC...
And I recently, I upgraded my wife's PC with an AMD (finally switched camps) 1.8GHz and it kicks the butt off both my PC's!!!!
I am looking at newer / faster technologies, including the dual core, but I don't believe in the forecasted increase in performance. Windoze doesn't support dual core. Most applications do not either.. However, I would be interested in learning if there are improvements when using LV...
---- curious ----
(PS: then there are games... but who has time for that???)