Author Topic: Benchmark for DWORD to ASCII algorithms  (Read 7760 times)

herge

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 480
Re: Benchmark for DWORD to ASCII algorithms
« Reply #15 on: June 11, 2012, 10:37:44 PM »
Hi Every One:

Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E4600 @ 2.40GHz
Results 8 pass average
timing Ray original utoa 314 ms
timing Paul Dixon utoa_ex 113 ms
timing brethren utoa2 226 ms
timing Lingo utoa_ex 99 ms
timing msvc ustr$ 748 ms
timing Ray modified utoa3 308 ms

Regards herge
Regards herge
Read "Slow Death by Rubber Duck"
for chemical Laughs.

User12

  • Guest
Re: Benchmark for DWORD to ASCII algorithms
« Reply #16 on: June 12, 2012, 02:03:49 PM »
Code: [Select]
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9650 @ 3.00GHz
Results 8 pass average
timing Ray original utoa 234 ms
timing Paul Dixon utoa_ex 78 ms
timing brethren utoa2 172 ms
timing Lingo utoa_ex 78 ms
timing msvc ustr$ 390 ms
timing Ray modified utoa3 234 ms

Ah actually, this isn't quite right, CPU is Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4Ghz. The CPUID posted here in the original topic identifies the CPU just fine...

jj2007

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7558
  • Assembler is fun ;-)
    • MasmBasic
Re: Benchmark for DWORD to ASCII algorithms
« Reply #17 on: June 12, 2012, 03:14:44 PM »
Code: [Select]
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9650 @ 3.00GHz
Ah actually, this isn't quite right, CPU is Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4Ghz. The CPUID posted here in the original topic identifies the CPU just fine...
Wow, so these cloners managed to write two different brand strings into your CPU :dazzled:

dedndave

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8734
  • Still using Abacus 2.0
    • DednDave
Re: Benchmark for DWORD to ASCII algorithms
« Reply #18 on: June 12, 2012, 11:51:52 PM »
i was gonna say something about that, but the subject isn't really pertinent to this thread   :P
he should go over to the CPUID thread and post displayed results from the different CPUID test programs

User12: those string are typically taken from the CPU internal registers
if you get 2 different results, it may be that one of the programs does not access the internal string

i am going to go out on a limb, here, and guess that this one is correct
Code: [Select]
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9650 @ 3.00GHz
could it be that you are using 2 different machines ?   :P

FORTRANS

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
Re: Benchmark for DWORD to ASCII algorithms
« Reply #19 on: June 12, 2012, 11:54:24 PM »
Code: [Select]
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9650 @ 3.00GHz
Ah actually, this isn't quite right, CPU is Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4Ghz. The CPUID posted here in the original topic identifies the CPU just fine...
Wow, so these cloners managed to write two different brand strings into your CPU :dazzled:

Hi,

   Would that explain why the code does not run on one
of my machines?

Regards,

Steve N.

dedndave

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8734
  • Still using Abacus 2.0
    • DednDave
Re: Benchmark for DWORD to ASCII algorithms
« Reply #20 on: June 12, 2012, 11:56:10 PM »
Steve - what CPU is in the machine that will not run it ?

FORTRANS

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
Re: Benchmark for DWORD to ASCII algorithms
« Reply #21 on: June 13, 2012, 12:20:55 AM »
Hi Dave,

   My bad.  This is the wrong thread.  It was the CMP versus
CMPS thread.  Anyway, a Mobile Intel(R) Celeron(R) processor,
in a Sony Vaio.

Oops,

Steve

User12

  • Guest
Re: Benchmark for DWORD to ASCII algorithms
« Reply #22 on: June 13, 2012, 09:35:10 AM »
Quote
Wow, so these cloners managed to write two different brand strings into your CPU :dazzled:
Doh! Not quite... It seems Windows doesn't update files in a zip file like WinRar, I ended up copying the contents of the bmlog.txt file that already exists... :redface: ...Back to the results...

Quote
i am going to go out on a limb, here, and guess that this one is correct
Close, I mean it was a 50/50, but nah, it's the Q6600... :D

U12.