Causes of anomalous difference in execution time same application, same OS, different boxes ?
Assembled cognoscenti; just idle curiosity really. I am wondering about , causes of anomalous difference in execution time, same application (FreeDVDDecrypter), same OS (XP x64), different boxes ? Box 1: Asus M4A79XTD_EVO; 16GB RAM;CPU AMD Phenom II x4 (4 core) 965 3.4GHz takes about 30min for 6GB DVD, with 1 core obviously flat-chat ~100% Box 2: Asus_P6T-intel-i7; 20GB RAM; CPU Intel i7 (4 core) 940 2.93 GHz takes about 10min for same 6GB DVD, with no core seemingly particularly active regards Rohan McLeod
On 29/09/2015 1:36 PM, Rohan McLeod wrote:
Assembled cognoscenti; just idle curiosity really. I am wondering about , causes of anomalous difference in execution time, same application (FreeDVDDecrypter), same OS (XP x64), different boxes ?
Box 1: Asus M4A79XTD_EVO; 16GB RAM;CPU AMD Phenom II x4 (4 core) 965 3.4GHz takes about 30min for 6GB DVD, with 1 core obviously flat-chat ~100%
Box 2: Asus_P6T-intel-i7; 20GB RAM; CPU Intel i7 (4 core) 940 2.93 GHz takes about 10min for same 6GB DVD, with no core seemingly particularly active
The Intel is using AES-NI whilst the AMD is not? Perhaps that's all there is to it; I think that is the most likely reason. AES is hardware supported with many (most) i7 and many i5 CPUs. Oh and if that XP boxen is connected to the Internet, be careful, be very careful. XP has no support and there are serious bugs that will never get fixed. Cheers A.
Andrew McGlashan wrote:
On 29/09/2015 1:36 PM, Rohan McLeod wrote:
Assembled cognoscenti; just idle curiosity really. I am wondering about , causes of anomalous difference in execution time, same application (FreeDVDDecrypter), same OS (XP x64), different boxes ?
Box 1: Asus M4A79XTD_EVO; 16GB RAM;CPU AMD Phenom II x4 (4 core) 965 3.4GHz takes about 30min for 6GB DVD, with 1 core obviously flat-chat ~100%
Box 2: Asus_P6T-intel-i7; 20GB RAM; CPU Intel i7 (4 core) 940 2.93 GHz takes about 10min for same 6GB DVD, with no core seemingly particularly active The Intel is using AES-NI whilst the AMD is not? Perhaps that's all there is to it; I think that is the most likely reason.
AES is hardware supported with many (most) i7 and many i5 CPUs.
Andrew; many thanks; yes that seems to be the answer , no sign of " AMD Phenom CPU's here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AES_instruction_set#Intel_and_AMD_x86_achitect...
Oh and if that XP boxen is connected to the Internet
Yes
, be careful, be very careful. Yes
XP has no support This is definitely the case for 32bit; but 64bit stll seems to be recieving periodic upgrades; something to do with relation to server version ?
and there are serious bugs that will never get fixed.
Wasn't that always the way ? regards Rohan McLeod
On 29/09/2015 3:48 PM, Rohan McLeod wrote:
Andrew McGlashan wrote:
On 29/09/2015 1:36 PM, Rohan McLeod wrote:
Assembled cognoscenti; just idle curiosity really. I am wondering about , causes of anomalous difference in execution time, same application (FreeDVDDecrypter), same OS (XP x64), different boxes ?
Box 1: Asus M4A79XTD_EVO; 16GB RAM;CPU AMD Phenom II x4 (4 core) 965 3.4GHz takes about 30min for 6GB DVD, with 1 core obviously flat-chat ~100%
Box 2: Asus_P6T-intel-i7; 20GB RAM; CPU Intel i7 (4 core) 940 2.93 GHz takes about 10min for same 6GB DVD, with no core seemingly particularly active The Intel is using AES-NI whilst the AMD is not? Perhaps that's all there is to it; I think that is the most likely reason.
AES is hardware supported with many (most) i7 and many i5 CPUs. Andrew; many thanks; yes that seems to be the answer , no sign of " AMD Phenom CPU's here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AES_instruction_set#Intel_and_AMD_x86_achitect...
It might not be that simple, but it probably is.
Oh and if that XP boxen is connected to the Internet Yes
Not good.
, be careful, be very careful. Yes
;-)
XP has no support This is definitely the case for 32bit; but 64bit stll seems to be recieving periodic upgrades; something to do with relation to server version ?
I think that XPx64 was linked to W2k3, but support for that has ended too. Some people are having success with XP POS updates, but I wouldn't be relying on it.
and there are serious bugs that will never get fixed.
Wasn't that always the way ?
sure, but at the very least, stay away from Internet Exploder (I'm sure you do anyway) .... and be careful which websites you go to; too much preaching, sorry, but XP whilst it was a good choice at one time, it is a bad one today and if there was a case to find an alternative answer, I'm sure that some form of Linux should be able to provide all or most of the requirements. Like many things that are bad, if you can limit exposure, you may be okay.... if you are lucky or perhaps even just if you practice safe computing as best you can with that OS (like you should with any OS). Cheers A.
participants (2)
-
Andrew McGlashan -
Rohan McLeod