Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

centrino 1,6ghz crunchtimes!

8 views
Skip to first unread message

Stefan Reiss

unread,
Jul 29, 2003, 3:55:47 PM7/29/03
to
Acer TravelMate 661Lci
Intel Centrino Mobile 1,4GHz, 512 MB DDR
WinXP Prof
CLI 3.03

Date Start Start Angle Tera- Process
Done RA Dec Range FLOPs Time-hr
21.07.2003 6.559 20.210 0.443 4.081 2.980
21.07.2003 15.980 23.960 8.039 3.319 2.121
23.07.2003 16.580 27.560 0.837 3.791 3.216
23.07.2003 16.672 27.850 0.866 3.766 2.600
24.07.2003 16.621 27.190 0.800 3.825 2.889
24.07.2003 16.708 27.510 1.569 3.360 2.123
25.07.2003 16.753 27.660 3.337 3.300 1.997
25.07.2003 17.079 28.560 0.937 3.746 2.617
25.07.2003 17.188 28.580 0.937 2.413 1.845
26.07.2003 17.241 28.570 0.934 3.765 2.611
26.07.2003 17.450 28.340 0.904 3.780 2.628
26.07.2003 17.599 28.010 0.867 3.776 2.566
27.07.2003 17.647 27.880 0.852 3.766 2.569
27.07.2003 17.599 28.010 0.867 3.776 2.618
27.07.2003 17.830 27.270 0.788 3.815 2.865
28.07.2003 17.872 27.100 0.772 3.826 2.874
28.07.2003 17.993 26.600 0.724 3.829 2.820
29.07.2003 18.031 26.420 0.709 3.855 2.777
29.07.2003 18.108 26.070 0.679 3.878 2.688
29.07.2003 18.212 25.580 0.640 3.913 2.916
29.07.2003 18.245 25.420 0.628 3.931 2.910

Stefan

Toni Alfirevic

unread,
Jul 29, 2003, 4:15:25 PM7/29/03
to
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:38:47 GMT, alonzo wrote:

> Acer TravelMate 803MLi
> Intel Centrino Mobile 1,6GHz, 512 MB DDR
> WinXP Prof
> CLI 3.03
> SetiQueue 3.03.2.2b
>
> Completed Ra, Dec AR CPU Time
>
> 2003 Jul 28 18:57 5.123,18.08 0.426 2:08
> 2003 Jul 28 21:10 22.489,28.14 0.07 2:13
> 2003 Jul 28 23:17 5.28,15.87 0.432 2:06
> 2003 Jul 29 00:52 0.945,8.17 4.247 1:35
> 2003 Jul 29 02:28 2.196,14.55 3.601 1:35
> 2003 Jul 29 04:03 2.474,28.58 4.204 1:35
> 2003 Jul 29 05:38 4.799,13.68 3.976 1:35
> 2003 Jul 29 07:14 10.293,16.16 4.176 1:35
> 2003 Jul 29 09:08 12.153,23.13 0.83 1:54
> 2003 Jul 29 11:20 5.778,24.68 0.003 2:12
> 2003 Jul 29 12:55 14.592,17.1 8.127 1:35
> 2003 Jul 29 14:30 16.93,11.43 11.926 1:35
>
>
> many sweet wu's, but normal ranges about 2:08, vlars about 2:13!!!
>
> crunching for one week and then this notebook will go to a workmate
>:-(
>
> alonzo

WOW. Impresive!
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards,
Toni Alfirevic

Feel free to visit my SETI page: http://fly.srk.fer.hr/~crooked
New members welcomed!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nick M V Salmon

unread,
Jul 29, 2003, 8:05:51 PM7/29/03
to
"Toni Alfirevic" <toni.al...@fer.hr> wrote

> alonzo wrote:
> > Acer TravelMate 803MLi
> > Intel Centrino Mobile 1,6GHz, 512 MB DDR
> > WinXP Prof
> > CLI 3.03
> > SetiQueue 3.03.2.2b
> >
> > Completed Ra, Dec AR CPU Time
> >
> > 2003 Jul 28 18:57 5.123,18.08 0.426 2:08
> > 2003 Jul 28 21:10 22.489,28.14 0.07 2:13
> > 2003 Jul 28 23:17 5.28,15.87 0.432 2:06
> > 2003 Jul 29 00:52 0.945,8.17 4.247 1:35
> > 2003 Jul 29 02:28 2.196,14.55 3.601 1:35
> > 2003 Jul 29 04:03 2.474,28.58 4.204 1:35
> > 2003 Jul 29 05:38 4.799,13.68 3.976 1:35
> > 2003 Jul 29 07:14 10.293,16.16 4.176 1:35
> > 2003 Jul 29 09:08 12.153,23.13 0.83 1:54
> > 2003 Jul 29 11:20 5.778,24.68 0.003 2:12
> > 2003 Jul 29 12:55 14.592,17.1 8.127 1:35
> > 2003 Jul 29 14:30 16.93,11.43 11.926 1:35
> >
> >
> > many sweet wu's, but normal ranges about 2:08, vlars about 2:13!!!
> >
> > crunching for one week and then this notebook will go to a workmate
> >:-(
>
> WOW. Impresive!

wOw it is FAST to be sure, that 1.6GHz Centrino is crunching at about the
same speed as an AMD Barton at 2.4GHz with memory at 200MHz..! (ie. about a
3400+)

Ciao...

[UK]_Nick...
--
Nick M V Salmon Master Mariner MN(Retd.)

My four init...@btinternet.com


FalconFly

unread,
Jul 30, 2003, 4:01:30 AM7/30/03
to
Yep, that is one hell of a CPU...

Makes me wonder why they didn't make a Desktop Version.
Just imagine a 3000MHz Centrino... o.0

Webmaster
http://www.falconfly.de
3dfx Archive
====================
Forum : http://www.falconfly-central.de


Toni Alfirevic

unread,
Jul 30, 2003, 6:07:57 AM7/30/03
to
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 10:01:30 +0200, FalconFly wrote:

> Yep, that is one hell of a CPU...
>
> Makes me wonder why they didn't make a Desktop Version.
> Just imagine a 3000MHz Centrino... o.0


Maybe they'll implement some of that "advanced_technology" into Prescots.

Chuck in Minot

unread,
Jul 30, 2003, 4:25:02 AM7/30/03
to
I trust and hope those are honest results, cause those are the best WU times
I've ever seen.

"FalconFly" <falc...@ewetel.net> wrote in message
news:bg7u0i$kjakh$1...@ID-75931.news.uni-berlin.de...

Stefan Reiss

unread,
Jul 30, 2003, 12:11:38 PM7/30/03
to
Am Wed, 30 Jul 2003 03:25:02 -0500, schrieb "Chuck in Minot"
<no...@earthmail.com>:

>I trust and hope those are honest results, cause those are the best WU times
>I've ever seen.

I think so - same results today. ;-)

>Makes me wonder why they didn't make a Desktop Version.
>Just imagine a 3000MHz Centrino... o.0

BTW:
I think that the goal of the Centrino isn't the fast crunching time,
but the opportunity to save notebook-energy.

I mentioned that the Centrino (1,4 GHz) runs only with full "speed" if
it is needful (Seti is running ;-)) - working time with one accu
around 2,5 hours.

Otherwise it steps down to lower rates (around 700Mhz) - working time
around 4 up to 5,5 hours.

Greetings
Stefan

Adam

unread,
Jul 30, 2003, 4:39:28 PM7/30/03
to
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 03:25:02 -0500, "Chuck in Minot"
<no...@earthmail.com> wrote:

>I trust and hope those are honest results, cause those are the best WU times
>I've ever seen.

Well they match up with mine:

2003 Jul 30 09:20pm 14.411,9.13 0.727 1.6Ghz Centrino 2h02m
2003 Jul 30 07:18pm 1.009,18.08 0.426 1.6Ghz Centrino 2h08m
2003 Jul 30 05:10pm 3.181,8.79 2.493 1.6Ghz Centrino 1h36m
2003 Jul 30 03:34pm 3.388,11.23 2.588 1.6Ghz Centrino 1h36m
2003 Jul 30 01:58pm 21.24,18.08 0.426 1.6Ghz Centrino 2h08m
2003 Jul 30 11:50am 1.12,18.08 0.426 1.6Ghz Centrino 2h09m
2003 Jul 30 09:41am 0.739,18.08 0.426 1.6Ghz Centrino 2h08m
2003 Jul 30 07:33am 0.492,18.08 0.426 1.6Ghz Centrino 2h08m
2003 Jul 30 05:25am 21.12,18.08 0.426 1.6Ghz Centrino 2h08m
2003 Jul 30 03:17am 23.85,18.08 0.426 1.6Ghz Centrino 2h08m
2003 Jul 30 01:09am 23.535,18.08 0.426 1.6Ghz Centrino 2h08m

Display Name 1.6Ghz Centrino
Seti User Name Biffa
Seti@home Platform i386-winnt-cmdline
Seti@home Version 3.03
CPU Type Intel Pentium
System Type Windows NT: 5.1
Work units pending 23
WU downloaded 915
Results uploaded 898
Total Time 4.964 years
Total CPU Time 73 days 14 hr 16 min
Average Time 2 days 0 hr 25 min
Average CPU Time 1 hr 58 min (4% efficient)
Connections 1,813
Last connection Wed 2003 Jul 30 9:20:53pm (17 min 23 sec ago)
Last result received at Wed 2003 Jul 30 9:20:51pm (17 min 25 sec ago)
Red time (overdue est) 1 day 21 hr 27 min
14-Day Average Time 1 day 20 hr 58 min
14-Day Average CPU Time 1 hr 57 min (4% efficient)
14-Day Average Results per day 12.3

>"FalconFly" <falc...@ewetel.net> wrote in message
>news:bg7u0i$kjakh$1...@ID-75931.news.uni-berlin.de...
>Yep, that is one hell of a CPU...
>
>Makes me wonder why they didn't make a Desktop Version.
>Just imagine a 3000MHz Centrino... o.0
>
>Webmaster
>http://www.falconfly.de
>3dfx Archive
>====================
>Forum : http://www.falconfly-central.de
>
>
>

--
Biffa [Team OcUK - Overclockers UK]
Parping, Stomping & Spanking into the top 4

m

unread,
Aug 2, 2003, 2:21:07 PM8/2/03
to
I notice that Dell are offering a 1.7GHz Centrino processor option for their
D Series Latitude notebooks. ?

"Toni Alfirevic" <toni.al...@fer.hr> wrote in message
news:1mkdiwqa840ci.uoy4lx6dcmyd$.dlg@40tude.net...

Nick M V Salmon

unread,
Aug 11, 2003, 9:12:18 PM8/11/03
to
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10964

Apparently it's not only SETI the Centrino excels at...

[UK]_Nick...


"f/f george" <an163...@nonanon.penet.de> wrote
> My dad just got my son one for college and it is doing Seti CLI in
> about 2 hours 13 minutes per unit over a 100 units.

seven...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 12, 2003, 12:05:18 AM8/12/03
to
Toni Alfirevic <toni.al...@fer.hr> wrote in message news:<1mkdiwqa840ci.uoy4lx6dcmyd$.d...@40tude.net>...

> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 10:01:30 +0200, FalconFly wrote:
>
> > Yep, that is one hell of a CPU...
> >
> > Makes me wonder why they didn't make a Desktop Version.
> > Just imagine a 3000MHz Centrino... o.0
>
>
> Maybe they'll implement some of that "advanced_technology" into Prescots.

If you read a tech brief, you'll see why Centrino cannot be
implemented as a 3 GHz. The reason Centrino is so fast given its speed
is that it is a shorter pipelined architecture than the Pentium 4.
While a Pentium 4 is a 20 pipelined processor, the Pentium M is only
12 pipelines. This makes it more efficient than the Pentium 4, but
also makes it hard to reach high speeds. Until Intel's 90 nanometer
process is perfected and applied to Banias (current Pentium M
codename)'s successor Dothan, the Pentium M is predicted to not be
able to surpass 2 GHz. Even that speed would be very difficult to
reach. Someone may know of the trouble Intel had making the Pentium 3
surpass 1 GHz. That problem was because the Pentium 3 was a 10 staged
processor architecture. The Pentium M is 12 staged, and because of
that, it will top out around 1.8 to 2 GHz. A good explanation of
exactly what makes the Pentium M so different than either the Pentium
3 or 4 can be found at
http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.html?i=1800. But basically,
the Pentium 4 allows super high speeds, and the Pentium M allows much
slower speeds, but more efficient use of the speed it has. Since
higher speed requires more power, the Pentium M allows optimal use of
the limited power a notebook possesses, while a Pentium 4 can take
advantage of the effectively limitless power of a wall power jack.

Stratcat®

unread,
Aug 13, 2003, 11:39:19 PM8/13/03
to

<seven...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:680aaa92.03081...@posting.google.com...

Nice analysis IMHO. Short pipeline + Large L2 cache + Good
instruction/pre-fetch/branch prediction set = Excellent processing for
SETI/GIMPS type problems.

To see proof of the (even slower clocked) Banias' SETI performance we need
to look no further than positions 11 & 14 here:

http://cox-internet.com/setispy/tlctop200.htm

FWIW Intel's roadmap for the Pentium-M shows not just a higher clock
speed of 1.9/2.0G in Q1/Q2 '04, but an increase in L2 cache to 2MB!

Now that faster clocked baby w/a 2M cache ought be somethin' to see...
--
Strat®


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 8/4/2003


Seung

unread,
Aug 14, 2003, 2:35:59 AM8/14/03
to
Hello,

I have a dell centrino 1.3 with 348meg of ram but don't get near as
good numbers as you guys? Am i doing something wrong?

please help!
thanks,
Seung


Stefan Reiss <ne...@stefan-reiss.de> wrote in message news:<22rfivok0qjbaldkq...@4ax.com>...

Chuck in Minot

unread,
Aug 16, 2003, 12:22:15 PM8/16/03
to
I would just like to see the S@H program running on a fast CPU like that,
bet the graphics just zip right along. Man if Intel would make a Centrino
desk top, yep its not just speed but how well the chip works that makes it
truly fast.

What does the graphics looks like.
"Alonzo" <n_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kuhsjvgsrc5cu21du...@4ax.com...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 13:44:42 GMT, f/f george
<an163...@nonanon.penet.de> wrote:

>My sons did the next 50 in under 2 hours. Averaging about 1 hour 50
>minutes per work unit. This using the CLI version NONE of the
>processing was done with the screen saver version.

as i posted at the beginning.
many sweet units will decrease the stats (sweet units about 1:35)
normal ranges at about 2:07

alonzo


m

unread,
Aug 17, 2003, 4:06:33 AM8/17/03
to
Is that why a P4/2.8GHz/(133/533)/266MHz is less than twice as fast as a
PIII/1.2GHz/PC133RAM (both l/t systems)? Someone said that the 2.8GHz -
133/533MHz P4 does not have hyperthreading implemented, whereas the
equivalent 3.06GHz process does - so losses no gains from running 2 x CLIs.

M

<seven...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:680aaa92.03081...@posting.google.com...

0 new messages