OT: Wheeeeee! New PSpice Benchmarks

[Rich Grise]

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.

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

 

[Chaos Master]

It was written by Active8[reply2group@ndbbm.net] in message
<16xyeu6zsgkx5.dlg@news.individual.net>:

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?

As I understand it:

- A HSPICE model file has parameters for slow/normal/fast/worst case...;
- Library binning is automatically 'changing' the models

Never used HSpice, nor I have made any IC designs (I am a hobbyist, after all),
so I can't say for sure.


[]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

 

[Chaos Master]

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.

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 Thompson]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:29:50 -0300, Chaos Master
<fallenchaos@mailinator.com> wrote:

in message
16xyeu6zsgkx5.dlg@news.individual.net>:



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?

As I understand it:

- A HSPICE model file has parameters for slow/normal/fast/worst case...;
- Library binning is automatically 'changing' the models

Never used HSpice, nor I have made any IC designs (I am a hobbyist, after all),
so I can't say for sure.

No, "binning" assigns models for SIZE ranges, e.g.:

Model1 1u <= L < 5u, 2u <= W < 10u

Model2 0.3u <= L < 1u, 2u <= W < 10u

etc., in a matrix.

This is "binning".

Then there's Slow/Typical/Fast model LIBRARIES, each of which has the
binning ranges for the models.

HSpice doesn't do this automatically, you need to specify a .ALTER
statement which re-runs the simulation with the LIBRARIES changed.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[qrk]

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

 

[Jim Thompson]

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

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 Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)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]

I had never done the comparison between PSpice and LTSpice myself,
relying on the reports of others.

This noon hour I ran the latest version of LTSpice with exactly the
same setups, save-waveforms, and waveforms-to-be-plotted. (See
below.)

LTSpice came out very slightly slower.

(I should also point out that, since Mike E. last did a comparison,
PSpice added a new "Solver" to their algorithm.)

  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)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Mike Engelhardt]

By default, LTspice runs at a higher accuracy than PSpice.
You need to go to Tools=>Control Panel=>SPICE and set
trtol to 7(instead of 1) for a comparison. I just checked and
I have still have the files you e-mailed me, so I'll check on
PSpice 10.0.0 my self on Monday. If you want, you can send
the exact files you're using to the address on the Help=>about
box if you want to be sure I'm using the same files.

--Mike

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:84m1j0d3lpd12lnhrvqs8oc545f3nbbu7h@4ax.com...

I had never done the comparison between PSpice and LTSpice myself,
relying on the reports of others.

This noon hour I ran the latest version of LTSpice with exactly the
same setups, save-waveforms, and waveforms-to-be-plotted. (See
below.)

LTSpice came out very slightly slower.

(I should also point out that, since Mike E. last did a comparison,
PSpice added a new "Solver" to their algorithm.)

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)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Mike Engelhardt]

Oh, now I remember this circuit, trtol doesn't
impact the timestep at all. Anyway, I just tried
this on a 1.7GHz P4, the deck you gave me was
modified to save all nodes(selective saving with
the .probe statement you send sped PSpice up about
10%):

LTspice: 178 seconds
PSpice 9.2: 344 seconds

Anyway on Monday, when I'm in the other office
I'll try it on PSpice 10.0.0. I have seen small
improvements between 9.2, 9.2.3, and 10, but it
was mostly a case of now this circuit which didn't
used to run now runs but this other circuit that
used to run now doesn't anymore. With 10, there's
a fraction of a second startup overhead removed,
but the test circuit's I had tried gave identical
results.

Maybe they fixed the DC problem in PSpice's BSIM
and that's speeding things up. Thanks,

--Mike

"Mike Engelhardt" <nospam@spam.org> wrote in message
news:Zx5Yc.12760$aM6.11168@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...

By default, LTspice runs at a higher accuracy than PSpice.
You need to go to Tools=>Control Panel=>SPICE and set
trtol to 7(instead of 1) for a comparison. I just checked and
I have still have the files you e-mailed me, so I'll check on
PSpice 10.0.0 my self on Monday. If you want, you can send
the exact files you're using to the address on the Help=>about
box if you want to be sure I'm using the same files.

--Mike

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:84m1j0d3lpd12lnhrvqs8oc545f3nbbu7h@4ax.com...
I had never done the comparison between PSpice and LTSpice myself,
relying on the reports of others.

This noon hour I ran the latest version of LTSpice with exactly the
same setups, save-waveforms, and waveforms-to-be-plotted. (See
below.)

LTSpice came out very slightly slower.

(I should also point out that, since Mike E. last did a comparison,
PSpice added a new "Solver" to their algorithm.)

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)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)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]

  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 Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Active8]

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

 

[Jim Thompson]

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 Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Jeff]

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
newsm1ki0hra2oq09u44vo5akd8dfi85bvo96@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

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 Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[John S. Dyson]

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

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

 

[keith]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 04:13:27 +0000, Jeff wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
newsm1ki0hra2oq09u44vo5akd8dfi85bvo96@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

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.

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.

--
Keith

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Ken Smith
<kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote (in <cgsvja$8ok$2@blue.rahul.net&gt
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.
--
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

 

[Ken Smith]

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.

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

 

[Ken Smith]

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&gt
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.

It can be both and still work.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Mike Engelhardt]

Jim,

I had never done the comparison between PSpice and LTSpice
myself, relying on the reports of others.

This noon hour I ran the latest version of LTSpice with
exactly the same setups, save-waveforms, and waveforms-to-
be-plotted. (See below.)

LTSpice came out very slightly slower.

I wasn't able to duplicate this. I find that LTspice is still
considerably faster that PSpice 10.0.0 on your circuit. But
I'm glad that since I'm distributing over 1000 times as many
copies of LTspice as Cadence is of PSpice, it's nice they still
take notice and try to catch up as they've done with other
performance improvements and features first introduced to the
industry by LTspice.

(I should also point out that, since Mike E. last did a
comparison, PSpice added a new "Solver" to their algorithm.)

Yes, they did seem to fix some of their BSIM problems, but it
still lags in performance. Here are run times from a 1yr plus
old 3GHz P4:

PSpice 9.2 200.86 (trolt=7)
PSpice 9.2.3 165.55 (trolt=7)
PSpice 10.0.0 164.56 (trolt=7)
LTspice 2.11e 117.98 (trolt=7)
LTspice 2.11e -P4 Only 89.50 (trolt=7)

Now, I did remove some unused libraries, but I can send back
the exact deck I used if you wish. I can't remember if these
were under a gentleman's NDA or not, so I haven't and won't
share them with anyone else.

Since SPICE uses successive linearizations of a non-linear
system there's enough heuristics going on that you can't
use a single circuit to determine if one SPICE is faster
than another. The experience I get from working at a foundry
with hundreds of IC engineers is that LTspice ran BSIM
circuit 3 to 6 times faster than PSpice. The latest PSpice
version as reduced that to 2 to 4 times faster, but it still
has more convergence problems. Ya know, these kids these days
just want to simulate the whole IC all at once and not think
about what they're doing.

Of course, you should still remember the other benchmark you
send me. PSpice gave you the wrong answer and LTspice immediate
gave the right one. Also, you could make LTspice duplicate
PSpice's erroneous results by setting the integration method to
Gear and it still ran substantially faster than PSpice. I
believe that was done with PSpice 10.0.0. Anyway, that was
a time where LTspice's improved integrity of solution helped
you catch a design flaw in a circuit you inherited.

Now, I used a P4 and 10.0.0 instead of an ATH64 and 10.0.0i.
Maybe the AMD machine speeds up PSpice more than it speeds
up LTspice. But the general LTspice distribution is optimized
for a P3, not a P4. The version called "LTspice 2.11e -P4" is
a P4 version, at it runs 30% faster still, but won't run on
a P3. Older AMD's could do the full P4 instruction set, but
it might run on your ATH64, that executable is at

http://ltspice.linear.com/software/P4scad3.exe

Just put it in the same directory as scad3.exe, usually
C:\Program Files\LTC\SwCADIII, and run it. It uses the
P4's ability to do two double precession floating point
operations at the same time, as also mentioned by JD.
Periodically I make a P4 specific version of LTspice
availible, so now an up-to-date P4 only is availible.
I'm not very interested in the AMD vs. Intel debate, but
I'm certainly not going to quit using Intel machines.
They've the market share and my machines are ultimately
all test beds, not for personal use.

--Mike

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 17:26:52 GMT, "Mike Engelhardt" <nospam@spam.org>
wrote:

Jim,

I had never done the comparison between PSpice and LTSpice
myself, relying on the reports of others.

This noon hour I ran the latest version of LTSpice with
exactly the same setups, save-waveforms, and waveforms-to-
be-plotted. (See below.)

LTSpice came out very slightly slower.

I wasn't able to duplicate this. I find that LTspice is still
considerably faster that PSpice 10.0.0 on your circuit. But
I'm glad that since I'm distributing over 1000 times as many
copies of LTspice as Cadence is of PSpice, it's nice they still
take notice and try to catch up as they've done with other
performance improvements and features first introduced to the
industry by LTspice.

[snip]

I didn't run PSPice on a P4 since my copy is installed on the AMD
Ath64.

On the Athlon, LTSPice=104sec, PSpice=97sec.

On my 3GHz P4 LTSpice=180sec and you got 164sec. Probably motherboard
differences... my P4 is nominally my Internet machine, a true cheapy
at $600

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.