OT: Wheeeeee! New PSpice Benchmarks

In article <cgfl2e$6k5$1@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net
says...
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.
Click to expand...
Even the lowly Pentium-1 (P5) had a 64bit bus. Memory can only be
referenced a cache-line/sector at a time. You want one bit? You're
getting 255 more where that one came from. ;-)

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.
Click to expand...
The difference is quite likely do to the integrated DRAM controllers on
the Athlon64/Opteron. The memory latency is significantly less than it
would be with a northbridge attached memory system.

--
Keith
 
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 07:46:25 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

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 :-(
Click to expand...
Another one lost to The Dark Side.

John
 
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:10:26 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 07:46:25 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

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 :-(



Another one lost to The Dark Side.

John
Click to expand...
But he's a good source of information about the legalities of
telemarketing.

Unfortunately most of the telemarketers don't follow the rules. My
son's company does, enforced by his software that forces no dialing
followed by a hangup.

My son advises talking to telemarketers to determine who they are,
then file a complaint.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
 
Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:10:26 -0700, the renowned John Larkin
jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:



Another one lost to The Dark Side.



Which dark side, telemarketing or C++?
Click to expand...
I don't consider C++ as dark side, it's just that C++ calls for the
dark side of programmers. It's not the gun, that's evils - it may be
the one who uses the gun.

Andreas
--
If C++ has taught me one thing, it's this: Just because the system is
consistent doesn't mean it's not the work of Satan.
- Andrew Plotkin
 
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:11:07 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:10:26 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 07:46:25 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

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 :-(



Another one lost to The Dark Side.

John

But he's a good source of information about the legalities of
telemarketing.

Unfortunately most of the telemarketers don't follow the rules. My
son's company does, enforced by his software that forces no dialing
followed by a hangup.
Click to expand...
You mean no dialing following a hangup. Prob is that some companies
who *do* follow the rules have customers who want them to schedule a
callback if they don't get the whole pitch out, otherwise "not
interested" means just that. I'm in a no rebuttal state so "not
interested" is supposed to end the call no matter what, but
sometimes they'll ask a question. Sometimes the telejock will get
pissed off and sched it for a few minutes later.
My son advises talking to telemarketers to determine who they are,
then file a complaint.

...Jim Thompson
Click to expand...
Maybe it's at inetjunkbusters.com... there's a script you read to
the telejock to get the info you need and f*ck up the whole call for
him/her. It's funny, really.

I'm on the PA DNC list, but Verizon, Sprint, etc. with whom I do biz
can still call until I ask to go on their DNC list.

You can also google TCPA for the fed laws. Telecommunications
Consumer Protection Act.

BTW, Convergys... bad guess. They do outsourced tech support, not
telejockery. Hmm... telejocularity, it's been.
--
Best Regards,
Mike
 
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:33:39 -0400, Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net>
wrote:

[snip]
BTW, Convergys... bad guess. They do outsourced tech support, not
telejockery. Hmm... telejocularity, it's been.
Click to expand...
So does Phase2. They were also capable of completely taking over the
telephone operator's functions when they went on strike a few months
back. So seamlessly that it wasn't even noticed by the customers...
there wasn't even a few seconds of dead time.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
 
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:36:32 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:33:39 -0400, Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net
wrote:

[snip]

BTW, Convergys... bad guess. They do outsourced tech support, not
telejockery. Hmm... telejocularity, it's been.

So does Phase2. They were also capable of completely taking over the
telephone operator's functions when they went on strike a few months
back. So seamlessly that it wasn't even noticed by the customers...
there wasn't even a few seconds of dead time.

...Jim Thompson
Click to expand...
Oooh.. bet that cost the telco. But they'll get it back by
overcharging everyone a few pennies here and there, just like they
do to recoupe lost revs from fraud.
--
Best Regards,
Mike
 
Active8 wrote:
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 07:46:25 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
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.
Click to expand...
Active, I'm disappointed in you. Howcome you're not ragging on Mr.
Thompson for having a favorite son who's a professional annoyer?

Cheers!
Rich
 
Active8 wrote:
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:11:07 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

You mean no dialing following a hangup. Prob is that some companies
who *do* follow the rules have customers who want them to schedule a
callback if they don't get the whole pitch out, otherwise "not
interested" means just that. I'm in a no rebuttal state so "not
interested" is supposed to end the call no matter what, but
sometimes they'll ask a question.
Click to expand...
I tried telemarketing one time when desperate for income of some kind,
and it was awful. What happens is you get old, lonely people, who are
so grateful to hear the sound of a human voice that they'd be more
than happy to listen to your pitch all day long. You have to cut them
off, because they're not buyers, and you're wasting time.

It broke my heart every time.

When I went in on the day I quit, I explained to the boss that I wasn't
cut out for it, and wanted to weasel out of giving notice. He was very
understanding, of course. "If it's not your cup of tea..." He took me
to the receptionist to "check out" and arrange for my last check, and
she said, "You came all the way down here to quit?" I said, "What was
I supposed to do, call?" She said, "Most of them just stop showing up."

It's not a great job.

Cheers!
Rich
 
It was written by keith[krw@att.bizzzz] in message
<pan.2004.08.24.01.34.55.726481@att.bizzzz>:

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

My first 4.77MHz 8088 machine cost me $2500 (with a *healthy* discount) in
1982, though it wasn't a clone.
Click to expand...
My first 486 machine cost me R$ 3000 (~ $1000) in (IIRC) 1996.
That was with color monitor and modem. 8MB RAM, 340MB hard drive. Windows 95

[]s
--
Chaos MasterŽ, posting from Brazil. REPLY TO GROUP!
MSN: wizard_of_yendor[@]hotmail[.]com http://marreka.no-ip.com
"People told me I can't dress like a fairy. I say,
I'm in a rock band and I can do what the hell I want!" -- Amy Lee
 
Jim, what version of PSpice are you using for this latest benchmark?
Version made a big difference from 9.2 to 9.2.3. I'm posting the whole
table of tests we have run. The Athlon-64 seems to be 15% more
efficient than the old Athlon XP processor. Note that PSpice doesn't
take advantage of the fancy stuff that some processors have to offer.


  PSpice Sim Sim time
Computer (seconds) at 1 GHz
============ ========== ========
P2, 266 MHz 1800 479 (Win95, PSpice 9.2)
P2, 440 MHz 1082 476 (NT4.0, PSpice 9.2)
P3, 800 MHz 510 408 (Win2K, PSpice 9.2)
P3, 1000 MHz 420 420 (Win2k, PSpice 9.2)
P4, 1500 MHz 413 620 (Win2k, PSpice 9.2)
ATH TB 1200 MHz 270 324 (WinME, PSpice 9.2)
ATH TB 1200 MHz 244 293 (Win2k A7A266, PC2100, PS9.2)
ATH TB 1200 MHz 244 293 (Win2k A7A266, PC133, PS9.2)
ATH TB 1400 MHz 210 294 (Win2k A7A266, PSpice 9.2)
ATH XP 1467 MHz 210 308 (Win2k A7M266, PSpice 9.2)
ATH XP 1467 MHz 167 245 (Win2K A7M266, PSpice 9.2.3)
P4 Xeon 2400MHz 205 493 (WinXP, PSpice 9.2)
ATH64 2.2 GHz 97 213 (Win2K, PSpice ?????)

----
Mark
 
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:53:41 -0700, qrk <SpamTrap@reson.com> wrote:

Jim, what version of PSpice are you using for this latest benchmark?
Version made a big difference from 9.2 to 9.2.3. I'm posting the whole
table of tests we have run. The Athlon-64 seems to be 15% more
efficient than the old Athlon XP processor. Note that PSpice doesn't
take advantage of the fancy stuff that some processors have to offer.


  PSpice Sim Sim time
Computer (seconds) at 1 GHz
============ ========== ========
P2, 266 MHz 1800 479 (Win95, PSpice 9.2)
P2, 440 MHz 1082 476 (NT4.0, PSpice 9.2)
P3, 800 MHz 510 408 (Win2K, PSpice 9.2)
P3, 1000 MHz 420 420 (Win2k, PSpice 9.2)
P4, 1500 MHz 413 620 (Win2k, PSpice 9.2)
ATH TB 1200 MHz 270 324 (WinME, PSpice 9.2)
ATH TB 1200 MHz 244 293 (Win2k A7A266, PC2100, PS9.2)
ATH TB 1200 MHz 244 293 (Win2k A7A266, PC133, PS9.2)
ATH TB 1400 MHz 210 294 (Win2k A7A266, PSpice 9.2)
ATH XP 1467 MHz 210 308 (Win2k A7M266, PSpice 9.2)
ATH XP 1467 MHz 167 245 (Win2K A7M266, PSpice 9.2.3)
P4 Xeon 2400MHz 205 493 (WinXP, PSpice 9.2)
ATH64 2.2 GHz 97 213 (Win2K, PSpice ?????)

----
Mark
Click to expand...
I'm running v10.0.0i

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
 
  PSpice Sim Sim time
Computer (seconds) at 1 GHz
============ ========== ========
P2, 266 MHz 1800 479 (Win95, PSpice 9.2)
P2, 440 MHz 1082 476 (NT4.0, PSpice 9.2)
P3, 800 MHz 510 408 (Win2K, PSpice 9.2)
P3, 1000 MHz 420 420 (Win2k, PSpice 9.2)
P4, 1500 MHz 413 620 (Win2k, PSpice 9.2)
ATH TB 1200 MHz 270 324 (WinME, PSpice 9.2)
ATH TB 1200 MHz 244 293 (Win2k A7A266, PC2100, PS9.2)
ATH TB 1200 MHz 244 293 (Win2k A7A266, PC133, PS9.2)
ATH TB 1400 MHz 210 294 (Win2k A7A266, PSpice 9.2)
ATH XP 1467 MHz 210 308 (Win2k A7M266, PSpice 9.2)
ATH XP 1467 MHz 167 245 (Win2K A7M266, PSpice 9.2.3)
P4 Xeon 2400MHz 205 493 (WinXP, PSpice 9.2)
ATH64 2.2 GHz 97.14 213.7 (Win2K, PSpice 10.0.0)
ATH64 2.2 GHz 112.454 247.4 (Win2K, LTSpice 2.11d)
ATH64 2.2 GHz 103.985 228.77 (Win2K, LTSpice 2.11dm TRTOL=7)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
 
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 14:46:50 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

Another plus for PSpice... Schematics, in particular. I just found
out that Simetrix can read PSpice Schematics designs but not Orcad
Capture... which you don't use :)

--
Best Regards,
Mike
 
More comparisons. Clearly P4s SUCK!

  Sim Time Sim Time
Computer (seconds) at 1 GHz
============ ========== ========
P4, 1500 MHz 413 620 (Win2k, PSpice 9.2)
P4, 3GHZ 182.953 548.86 (Win2K, LTSpice 2.11d TRTOL=1)
P4, 3GHZ 180.484 541.45 (Win2K, LTSpice 2.11d TRTOL=7)
P4 Xeon 2400MHz 205 493 (WinXP, PSpice 9.2)
P2, 266 MHz 1800 479 (Win95, PSpice 9.2)
P2, 440 MHz 1082 476 (NT4.0, PSpice 9.2)
P3, 1000 MHz 420 420 (Win2k, PSpice 9.2)
P3, 800 MHz 510 408 (Win2K, PSpice 9.2)
ATH TB 1200 MHz 270 324 (WinME, PSpice 9.2)
ATH XP 1467 MHz 210 308 (Win2k A7M266, PSpice 9.2)
ATH TB 1400 MHz 210 294 (Win2k A7A266, PSpice 9.2)
ATH TB 1200 MHz 244 293 (Win2k A7A266, PC2100, PS9.2)
ATH TB 1200 MHz 244 293 (Win2k A7A266, PC133, PS9.2)
ATH64 2.2 GHz 112.454 247.4 (Win2K, LTSpice 2.11d TRTOL=1)
ATH XP 1467 MHz 167 245 (Win2K A7M266, PSpice 9.2.3)
ATH64 2.2 GHz 103.985 228.77 (Win2K, LTSpice 2.11d TRTOL=7)
ATH64 2.2 GHz 97.14 213.7 (Win2K, PSpice 10.0.0)


...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
 
"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:eek:m1ki0hra2oq09u44vo5akd8dfi85bvo96@4ax.com...
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.

...Jim Thompson
Click to expand...
I'll second that.

Win 2K can run fine for months on end without a reboot. XP falls apart over
time, tends to do a lot of communicating with MS, has a lot of bloat ware,
requiring higher powered computers, etc.

My next OS of choice when win 2k becomes too obsolete will likely be a Linux
variant.


--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Click to expand...
 
In article <bt32j0p1rc6ame2g8m1fshbd58oj5vtmhh@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> writes:
More comparisons. Clearly P4s SUCK!

Actually, it would be good to see the results if the code
Click to expand...
was (properly) compiled with the SSE(2) instruction sets.
The P4s are sometimes 1/2 of the speed when using the old
stack instructions.

Few common compilers seem to generate proper code for the
P4, where the Intel C Compiler tends to do the best and
the most recent CVS trees of GCC also do fairly well. The
Microsoft C compiler (and Watcom) will produce lackluster
behavior with the P4.

When I do my pseudo-DSP work, I tend to compile the code
with SSE2 code generation and only use the stack instructions
for subroutine call compatibility (when absolutely needed) and
for certain transcendentals where the high accuracy is needed.

I don't find that the P4s 'suck', but they need to be treated
very differently from the P3s and AMD processors in order to
get the best possible floating point. When treated properly,
it isn't unreasonable to get 1Gflops-3Gflops/sec on P4.

It would be nice if Intel had done a better job with the FP
stack instructions.

John

  Sim Time Sim Time
Computer (seconds) at 1 GHz
============ ========== ========
P4, 1500 MHz 413 620 (Win2k, PSpice 9.2)
P4, 3GHZ 182.953 548.86 (Win2K, LTSpice 2.11d TRTOL=1)
P4, 3GHZ 180.484 541.45 (Win2K, LTSpice 2.11d TRTOL=7)
P4 Xeon 2400MHz 205 493 (WinXP, PSpice 9.2)
P2, 266 MHz 1800 479 (Win95, PSpice 9.2)
P2, 440 MHz 1082 476 (NT4.0, PSpice 9.2)
P3, 1000 MHz 420 420 (Win2k, PSpice 9.2)
P3, 800 MHz 510 408 (Win2K, PSpice 9.2)
ATH TB 1200 MHz 270 324 (WinME, PSpice 9.2)
ATH XP 1467 MHz 210 308 (Win2k A7M266, PSpice 9.2)
ATH TB 1400 MHz 210 294 (Win2k A7A266, PSpice 9.2)
ATH TB 1200 MHz 244 293 (Win2k A7A266, PC2100, PS9.2)
ATH TB 1200 MHz 244 293 (Win2k A7A266, PC133, PS9.2)
ATH64 2.2 GHz 112.454 247.4 (Win2K, LTSpice 2.11d TRTOL=1)
ATH XP 1467 MHz 167 245 (Win2K A7M266, PSpice 9.2.3)
ATH64 2.2 GHz 103.985 228.77 (Win2K, LTSpice 2.11d TRTOL=7)
ATH64 2.2 GHz 97.14 213.7 (Win2K, PSpice 10.0.0)


...Jim Thompson
Click to expand...
 
I read in sci.electronics.design that Ken Smith
<kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote (in <cgsvja$8ok$2@blue.rahul.net>)
about 'OT: Wheeeeee! New PSpice Benchmarks', on Sun, 29 Aug 2004:

LTSpice works under wine (you already knew that)
Click to expand...
Only if the wine is in the computer and not the operator.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
 
In article <pan.2004.08.29.15.01.37.677679@att.bizzzz>,
keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
[...]
I've already started down that path. It's been bumpy but I decided when
I went to Win2K three years ago that it was going the be my (first and)
last M$ OS. When I put together this Opteron system, I went with SuSE
9.1. I still have Win2K on the old system while I learn my way around.
Click to expand...
LTSpice works under wine (you already knew that)

The old DOS Orcad works under DOSEMU with a few problems. Their ESP
program id daft things in DOS land and they are still daft under Linux.

Open Office works ok for most text and spead sheet sorts of things. The
chart function of the spread sheet is so slow as to be near useless. I
plan on learning to use gnuplot when I get a little time.

A couple of other useful tips:

On any installed software, in a shell type "man nameofprogram". For the
good ones this display the manual for the program. If the manual tells
you that the manual is obsolete and that you should use the "info" system,
the program is likely to work but may have a bug or two. If there is no
man page, it is very likely that the program is quite buggy.

Old programs, that are well rung out, tend to have "man" pages. The
better programmers still provide "man" pages. So the method works fairly
well.

I'm far from a Linux expert but I've got it to work for me. I use SuSE
8.1. You've got 9.1 hopefully they've fixed the things I've had to fix in
the 8.1 install.

BTW: You can do darn near anything in a Bash script.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
 
In article <QT9hicASRhMBFwsD@jmwa.demon.co.uk>,
John Woodgate <noone@yuk.yuk> wrote:
I read in sci.electronics.design that Ken Smith
kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote (in <cgsvja$8ok$2@blue.rahul.net>)
about 'OT: Wheeeeee! New PSpice Benchmarks', on Sun, 29 Aug 2004:

LTSpice works under wine (you already knew that)

Only if the wine is in the computer and not the operator.
Click to expand...
It can be both and still work.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top