LinuxQuestions.org
View the Most Wanted LQ Wiki articles.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Hardware
User Name
Password
Linux - Hardware This forum is for Hardware issues.
Having trouble installing a piece of hardware? Want to know if that peripheral is compatible with Linux?

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 12-17-2004, 02:33 AM   #1
maenho
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Belgium
Posts: 81

Rep: Reputation: 15
older computer performs better new one


Hi,

I have a question that has been bothering me for a while. I have a workstation with an AMD Athlon 2100+ processor (1.73 Ghz, 266 Mhz FSB, 256 k L2 cache) and a laptop with an Intel Centrino M (745) processor (1.8 Ghz, 400 Mhz FSB, 2Mb L2 cache). Both have 512 Mb DDR RAM, a hard drive running at 5400 rpm (udma 5) and a specifically compiled 2.6.9 kernel.

One would expect the laptop to be faster or at least as fast as the AMD processor when doing the same calculations but the AMD seems to have the overhand every time. For example, both have the same mySQL server installed with exactly the same database. I use the workstation for large queries that take a lot of time. If they both do the same query on the same data (2 copies of course) the AMD is a lot faster then the Centrino. I can give lot's of other examples ...

Does this mean something is wrong with the setup on the laptop (for example the speedstep technology which is compiled and seems to work) or is it well possible that the AMD workstation is just faster for some hardware reason?

thank you for your help,


maenho
 
Old 12-17-2004, 02:47 AM   #2
oneandoneis2
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: London, England
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 1,460

Rep: Reputation: 46
AIUI, an Athlon 2100 is considered equivalent to a 2.1gig Pentium. That's where the numbering scheme comes from. So it should be the faster of the two.
 
Old 12-17-2004, 02:56 AM   #3
maenho
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Belgium
Posts: 81

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
ok that sounds reasonable,

I does make you wonder how AMD leaps over an Intel with 2.1 Ghz with an 1.73 Ghz processor though but I guess that would lead us off topic
 
Old 12-17-2004, 04:55 AM   #4
Zuggy
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Pocatello, Idaho, USA
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 256

Rep: Reputation: 30
Well I'm going to take it a bit off course with a history lesson.

The discovery that "megahertz don't matter" isn't new. In fact during the days when Cyrix was alive a 200mhz cyrix processor was just as fast as an Intel 300mhz processor. The thing is, that it wasn't until after the 1Ghz race that AMD found a creative way to express that their lower Mhz=a faster processor. That's what the whole x000+ scheme is about. Instead of posting the actual clock speed, they post the speed as it closely relates to the Intel equivelant speed. Also if you look at a list of AMD clock speeds as they relate to their name, a lot of times you'll have something like this (below is an example not an actual list:

AMD 2100+=1.7Ghz
AMD 2200+=1.8Ghz
AMD 2300+=1.6Ghz

No that's not a typo. A lot of times AMD will implement new technology that will increase the computer speed without increasing, and at times decreasing the actual clock speed.

A rule of thumb. Your computer is only as fast as its slowest part. Example: You could have the fastest processor but if you have slower RAM it'll bottleneck your processor.
 
Old 12-17-2004, 03:51 PM   #5
Electro
Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,042

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
AMD processors are very, very good when it comes to processing RAW data. When they are processing multimedia data, they are not that fast. Though the AMD Athlon 64 processors changed all that. Now AMD is the king in every data type you want it to process.

The bottleneck is the hard drive in every computer.

For database, more cache will speed up the transactions. If you have a controller with expandable cache, try increasing it. If you are using one hard drive, try to find models with 8 MB of cache, but do not mix it with controllers with on-board cache. Try to increase cache for your database server.
 
Old 12-17-2004, 04:11 PM   #6
jailbait
Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Blue Ridge Mountain
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Debian Jessie
Posts: 7,530

Rep: Reputation: 178Reputation: 178
"For example, both have the same mySQL server installed with exactly the same database. I use the workstation for large queries that take a lot of time. If they both do the same query on the same data (2 copies of course) the AMD is a lot faster then the Centrino. I can give lot's of other examples ..."

The speed of large database queries is almost entirely dependent on disk access speed. The difference in speed between the two machines is most likely dependent on where the records are located in the data base and/or how efficiently the data base physical structure is laid out.

The fastest computer will be the one that has the least total disk arm movement during the comparison tests.

----------------------------
Steve Stites

Last edited by jailbait; 12-17-2004 at 04:15 PM.
 
Old 12-18-2004, 03:48 AM   #7
maenho
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Belgium
Posts: 81

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
I do have a question related to the disk activity. I'm running a large query on the AMD and it's been running now for 2 days. The SHOW PORCESSLIST gives status: Copying to tmp table. One would expect the hard drive activity to be high but gkrellm shows there's only sometimes a small peak of disk activity no heigher then 50K. CPU usage is constantly at 100% though. Does this mean something is wrong with the query?
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Older Computer Question hyperriven Slackware 11 12-14-2004 11:37 AM
best version for older computer? jennyb Linux - Newbie 18 01-15-2003 02:13 PM
Mandrake Install at older computer! Andreas T. Linux - Software 5 04-24-2002 03:01 PM
Linux on an Older Computer Chijtska Linux - Distributions 5 02-23-2002 12:05 PM
Linux on Older Computer orty Linux - Newbie 3 01-18-2001 02:53 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:15 PM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration