OT: Wheeeeee! New PSpice Benchmarks

Ken Smith · Aug 23, 2004

In article <MPG.1b933431e13dafa6989968@news1.news.adelphia.net>,
KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:
[... me ...]

I assume these were all with the same OS.

I'd hope we're talking a 64b OS and software for the A64.
Otherwise the gains are truly remarkable!

JT says Win2K Pro so its a 2 bit OS

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

Ken Smith · Aug 23, 2004

In article <o4mii016pkf1gjno7i9d6u4f04au4ipifg@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
[....]

When Intel went to the P4 they tossed the dedicated math core, so they
could devote more chip area to the pablum that the general public
wants.

Sounds like the Intel I know and love.

Intel made the 8080. Zilog produced the Z80. The best Intel could
respond with was the 8085.

Intel made the 8051. Several others made work alikes. Intel is not even
in that business any more as far as I know.

Intel made the 8086, 186, 286, 386, 486, and then the Penti-uuuummm. It
took longer but they still managed to blow their leadership.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

Active8 · Aug 23, 2004

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:13:53 GMT, Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:34:08 +0000 (UTC), the renowned
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

Intel made the 8086, 186, 286, 386, 486, and then the Penti-uuuummm. It
took longer but they still managed to blow their leadership.

They have something like 83% of the PC market. In a healthy
competitive market, the leader typically has more like 40%.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

Probably because of all the teletubbie getting the MSN package and
the welfare crowd that gets a "free" computer with their DSL
contract.
--
Best Regards,
Mike

Mike Engelhardt · Aug 23, 2004

Jim,

Win2K is the first M$ OS that I've had not a single
problem with. That's one of the reasons why I
haven't gone on to XP Pro. The other
reason being that XP is basically spyware.

Plus I hate this "activation" crap that some
software vendors are going to...

Boy howdy. I've avoided XP Pro in preference to
2K, but have to maintain an XP Pro machine as a
test bed. While Win 2K was a clear improvement
to NT4.0, XP Pro is a definite step backward in
performance.

--Mike

Jim Thompson · Aug 23, 2004

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 03:28:26 GMT, "Mike Engelhardt" <nospam@spam.org>
wrote:

Jim,

Ran the benchmark I posted 3 years ago.

2.175 times faster !!!

But isn't that the benchmark that LTspice ran about 2.5x
faster than PSpice?

Yes.

Could have gotten 2 years and 3
months on Moore's Law just by switching to LTspice.

--Mike

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Active8 · Aug 23, 2004

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 10:22:16 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 03:28:26 GMT, "Mike Engelhardt" <nospam@spam.org
wrote:

Jim,

Ran the benchmark I posted 3 years ago.

2.175 times faster !!!

But isn't that the benchmark that LTspice ran about 2.5x
faster than PSpice?

Yes.

Could have gotten 2 years and 3
months on Moore's Law just by switching to LTspice.

--Mike

But I love PSpice **and** the clone that is coming soon ;-)

...Jim Thompson

What clone? Whose clone.
--
Best Regards,
Mike

Active8 · Aug 24, 2004

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 20:48:00 GMT, Kevin Aylward wrote:

<snip>

What clone? Whose clone.

I'm not allowed to talk yet until the official release, but it has a
PSpice Schematics lool-alike for the frontend, plus can handle
device-size library binning which PSpice can't do.

I hate it when good things dissapear or obviously useful things just
aren't implemented. So all Orcad will be good for is Layout. plbht.

library binning? ...SuperSpice is already released...

What's library binning? Do I get a young babe pushing a cart of

books (should be food) or some old bag with a sour look?

--
Best Regards,
Mike

keith · Aug 24, 2004

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 08:01:25 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:34:08 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <o4mii016pkf1gjno7i9d6u4f04au4ipifg@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
[....]
When Intel went to the P4 they tossed the dedicated math core, so they
could devote more chip area to the pablum that the general public
wants.

Sounds like the Intel I know and love.

Intel made the 8080. Zilog produced the Z80. The best Intel could
respond with was the 8085.

Intel made the 8051. Several others made work alikes. Intel is not even
in that business any more as far as I know.

They make specialty uPs here in their Chandler, AZ, facilities, but I
think they are all OEM stuff, for automotive, cell phones, WiFi, etc.

Intel made the 8086, 186, 286, 386, 486, and then the Penti-uuuummm. It
took longer but they still managed to blow their leadership.

My first 386 machine cost me $6K in, IIRC, 1987; and that was a clone.

My first 4.77MHz 8088 machine cost me $2500 (with a *healthy* discount) in
1982, though it wasn't a clone.

--
Keith

keith · Aug 24, 2004

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:26:35 +0000, Ken Smith wrote:

In article <MPG.1b933431e13dafa6989968@news1.news.adelphia.net>,
KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:
[... me ...]
I assume these were all with the same OS.

I'd hope we're talking a 64b OS and software for the A64.
Otherwise the gains are truly remarkable!

JT says Win2K Pro so its a 2 bit OS

I can't argue too much with either of you. I moved on from OS/2 to Win2K
*because* it was the only MickeyMouse OS that deserved the title of "OS".
I knew then that any M$ OS was a only stop-over until I could comit to
Linux. ...and I've finally gone around that bend I hope (some issues
left). I'll not go to XP, unless I'm dragged screaming. I'll retire
first. ;-)

--
Keith

keith · Aug 24, 2004

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 08:10:30 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:26:35 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <MPG.1b933431e13dafa6989968@news1.news.adelphia.net>,
KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:
[... me ...]
I assume these were all with the same OS.

I'd hope we're talking a 64b OS and software for the A64.
Otherwise the gains are truly remarkable!

JT says Win2K Pro so its a 2 bit OS

Win2K is the first M$ OS that I've had not a single problem with.
That's one of the reasons why I haven't gone on to XP Pro. The other
reason being that XP is basically spyware.

Plus I hate this "activation" crap that some software vendors are
going to. It amuses me how hastily Intuit (TurboTax) has retreated
from this approach, after the protest level was so high that it made
the front pages of newspapers around here.

Activation, crap! What about rent-a-software. GOing down the MicyMouse
path you'll soon be renting your applications, and then shorly after
renting *your* data! ...just say *NO*!

--
Keith

Mike Engelhardt · Aug 24, 2004

What clone? Whose clone.

I'm not allowed to talk yet until the official
release, but it has a PSpice Schematics lool-
alike for the frontend, plus can handle
device-size library binning which PSpice can't
do.

LTspice has had binning for years. It lets you
mix hspice foundry models with PSpice behavioral
syntax. Folks have been upgrading from hspice
and PSpice to LTspice for years.

--Mike

Ken Smith · Aug 24, 2004

In article <gd1ki0dfhmg277mlol8ao26bce6j78qib0@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
[...]

My first 386 machine cost me $6K in, IIRC, 1987; and that was a clone.

I bought the turbo charged 25MHz 386 machine for $3705. It was so fast it
was spooky. Borland pascal would finish compiling before I could read the
message that said it was starting.

It had a 100Meg hard disk so it had to have magic software to handle the
big disk.

Today I use a 100Gig drive and worry about filling it.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

Ken Smith · Aug 24, 2004

In article <7a2ki0lp57pjdi710cfu940rh1k20ji4hk@4ax.com>,
Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:34:08 +0000 (UTC), the renowned
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

Intel made the 8086, 186, 286, 386, 486, and then the Penti-uuuummm. It
took longer but they still managed to blow their leadership.

They have something like 83% of the PC market. In a healthy
competitive market, the leader typically has more like 40%.

They are behind on the technology eventually the public may figure it out
and start switching.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

Kevin Aylward · Aug 24, 2004

Ken Smith wrote:

In article <7a2ki0lp57pjdi710cfu940rh1k20ji4hk@4ax.com>,
Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:34:08 +0000 (UTC), the renowned
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

Intel made the 8086, 186, 286, 386, 486, and then the
Penti-uuuummm. It took longer but they still managed to blow their
leadership.

They have something like 83% of the PC market. In a healthy
competitive market, the leader typically has more like 40%.

They are behind on the technology eventually the public may figure it
out and start switching.

No chance. "He who is first, wins".

Harvard, coke, kellogs, birds eye etc...

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

/* frank */ · Aug 24, 2004

Dopo dura riflessione, Jim Thompson ha scritto :

2.175 times faster !!!

Faster time - surely - isn't due to 64 bit:
nor WinXP neither pspice.exe are 64 bit

Keith Williams · Aug 24, 2004

In article <RLAWc.221544$28.27389@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk says...

Ken Smith wrote:
In article <7a2ki0lp57pjdi710cfu940rh1k20ji4hk@4ax.com>,
Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:34:08 +0000 (UTC), the renowned
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

Intel made the 8086, 186, 286, 386, 486, and then the
Penti-uuuummm. It took longer but they still managed to blow their
leadership.

They have something like 83% of the PC market. In a healthy
competitive market, the leader typically has more like 40%.

They are behind on the technology eventually the public may figure it
out and start switching.

No chance. "He who is first, wins".

Harvard, coke, kellogs, birds eye etc...

X86-64 (a.k.a. AMD64 ;-)

--
Keith

Active8 · Aug 24, 2004

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 07:46:25 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 05:55:54 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Active8 wrote:
[snip]
What's library binning?

Binning is when there are a range of models that cover ranges of sizes.
e.g.

.model model_test.1 nmos(lmax=1u, lmin=1u wmax=1u wmin=1u)
.model model_test.2 nmos(lmax=1u, lmin=1u wmax=5u wmin=2u)
.model model_test.3 nmos(lmax=10u, lmin=3u wmax=5u wmin=2u)

etc...

The software looks at all the models with the same extension, and picks
the one that satisfies the schematic sizes. As noted, SS supports this
feature. Its actually a bit more complicated, as ech model has 3
versions strong, weak and nominal. When SS does worst case, it
automaticaly selects the correct wc model and bin. If a wc model dosnt
exist, it uses typical default wc models.

Kevin Aylward
[snip]

While PSpice doesn't internally support binning, my oldest son wrote a
tool for me that automatically processes the netlist to accomplish
binning.

Nice to have a C++ expert in the family! Unfortunately he's so good
that he recently became software kingpin at the largest
call-center/telemarketing organization in the US :-(

...Jim Thompson

Who would that be, Convergys? Just a guess.
--
Best Regards,
Mike

Jim Thompson · Aug 24, 2004

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:48:16 -0400, Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net>
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 07:46:25 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

[snip]
While PSpice doesn't internally support binning, my oldest son wrote a
tool for me that automatically processes the netlist to accomplish
binning.

Nice to have a C++ expert in the family! Unfortunately he's so good
that he recently became software kingpin at the largest
call-center/telemarketing organization in the US :-(

...Jim Thompson

Who would that be, Convergys? Just a guess.

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Active8 · Aug 24, 2004

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 08:24:47 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

<snip>

Who would that be, Convergys? Just a guess.

Phase2

...Jim Thompson

Oh. Hey. TNX for the benchmark.
--
Best Regards,
Mike

Ken Smith · Aug 24, 2004

In article <mn.c1f97d4831c16dbd.15428@spamyourselfagainstawall>,
/* frank */ <__frank__@despammed.com> wrote:

Dopo dura riflessione, Jim Thompson ha scritto :

2.175 times faster !!!

Faster time - surely - isn't due to 64 bit:
nor WinXP neither pspice.exe are 64 bit

You may be wrong. A 64 bit bus can transfer more instructions per cycle
and move a "double" in one stroke. Since the software has to do a lot of
both, it could be the 64 bit nature of the machine that helped to gain the
speed.

It could also be like the new navigation system we just installed. They
got a 25% increase in performance just by changing to a synthetic oil on
the relative bearings.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

OT: Wheeeeee! New PSpice Benchmarks

Ken Smith

Guest

Ken Smith

Guest

Active8

Guest

Mike Engelhardt

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Active8

Guest

Active8

Guest

keith

Guest

keith

Guest

keith

Guest

Mike Engelhardt

Guest

Ken Smith

Guest

Ken Smith

Guest

Kevin Aylward

Guest

/* frank */

Guest

Keith Williams

Guest

Active8

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Active8

Guest

Ken Smith

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor