Re: Mersenne: 386SX
> > The problem is that a 20 Mhz 386 is loosely comparable to a 3 Mhz > P-II. It's much much worse than that. Even with a coprocessor, a floating point add or multiply on a 386 takes 28-57 clocks; on the PII it takes one, if scheduled carefully. When the 386 and 486 were state of the art, some people used to make a distinction between a PC and "a real computer". It wasn't because those people were snobs. jasonp _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: 386SX
Thanks for the info. I'll look into setting this up once I get another network card for the 386. Matthew Smith _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: 386SX
Joth Tupper wrote: > The 386SX has no numeric co-processor (on-board CPU for 486 and up). > If you installed a 387 co-processor, you might have some hope -- others know > a ton more than I do. > > Without hardware level float point operations, I would exclude LL tests from > my experiments. In all honesty, it cannot hurt (much) to install a version > of the GIMPS > software and try it out on small exponents. > > The problem is that a 20 Mhz 386 is loosely comparable to a 3 Mhz P-II. > > - Original Message - > From: "Matthew Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2000 11:58 AM > Subject: Mersenne: 386SX > > > I just installed Slackware 7.0 on an old 386SX and I want it > > to do distributed computing of some kind. However, the > > lowest CPU mprime allows is a 486. What can I do? > > > > _ > > Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm > > Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers > > It does have that co-processor, but mprime gave me an error message when I tried to select 486 (closest thing) @ 25 MHz. Another problem I have is the fact that it's not hooked up to the Internet. It has a network card and a modem, but I don't want to pay the University for another connection. I should do manual tests, which are ok for GIMPS, but I can't figure out how it's accomplished with distributed.net projects. _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: 386SX
>From: Walt Mankowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Mersenne discussion list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Mersenne: 386SX >Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 19:52:51 -0500 > >On Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 04:30:34PM -0800, John R Pierce wrote: > > > > phew. a 386sx is SO slow I really can't imagine WHAT useful > > computational > > > > work it could do... Thats a 25 or so MHz CPU with a 16 bit bus that > > > > probably takes 5-6 clocks to do a simple integer operation. Oh, and >its > > got > > > > no floating point. I'd estimate it at least a few 100 times slower > > than > > > > even a slow celeron at numerical work. No, wait. make that several > > > > THOUSAND times slower. > > > > > > It might be able to work on one of the distributed.net projects. I > > > don't *think* the rc5 stuff uses floating point. > > > > it doesn't. > >As far as I can tell from the information available at >www.distributed.net, it does. There is quite a bit of client speed >data at http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/, including a variety of >different 386SX processors. I will check that information. > > > However, even at 32 bit integer programming, figure the 16 bit 386SX >will be > > around 4-8 times slower than a 486 at the same clock speed, which in >turn is > > 3-4 times slower than a pentium at the same clock speed. now throw in >the > > differential between the 16-25MHz range of the typical 386SX to the > > 400-600Mhz of a modern celeron or pentium or k6 today and we can figure > > ANOTHER 20X slower. 386SX systems didn't use any level 2 cache either, >and > > only had like 8k of level 1 cache, and the 386SX memory bus took 2-3 >clocks > > minimum to transfer 16 bits with no burst cycle support. > > > > All told, that 386SX will be something like 100 times slower than a >bottom > > of the barrel Celeron or K6 system and probably draw at least as much >power. > >According to the dnet client speed page, a 386SX-33 can do about >16,000 RC5 keys/sec. My P3-450 can do about 1,264,000 kps. That's >less than 80 times faster. > >Walt 16 K keys/sec would take about 4 1/3 hours to do one block of keys. That is an output that would allow one to see the machine's placement in stats on a daily basis running packets of 1, 2 or 4 blocks. I am tempted to say that D.Net would be the best choice. __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: 386SX
On Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 07:41:09PM -0500, Nathan Russell wrote: > > > > >From: Walt Mankowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: Mersenne discussion list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: Mersenne: 386SX > >Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 19:01:51 -0500 > > > > (much snippage) > > >It might be able to work on one of the distributed.net projects. I > >don't *think* the rc5 stuff uses floating point. > > It does not, and neither does OGR. I just asked some folks on #distributed. They say it will run, but that the box needs to be in DOS mode. At any rate, it's easy enough to find out. Just download the client and see if it works. _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: 386SX
On Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 04:30:34PM -0800, John R Pierce wrote: > > > phew. a 386sx is SO slow I really can't imagine WHAT useful > computational > > > work it could do... Thats a 25 or so MHz CPU with a 16 bit bus that > > > probably takes 5-6 clocks to do a simple integer operation. Oh, and its > got > > > no floating point. I'd estimate it at least a few 100 times slower > than > > > even a slow celeron at numerical work. No, wait. make that several > > > THOUSAND times slower. > > > > It might be able to work on one of the distributed.net projects. I > > don't *think* the rc5 stuff uses floating point. > > it doesn't. As far as I can tell from the information available at www.distributed.net, it does. There is quite a bit of client speed data at http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/, including a variety of different 386SX processors. > However, even at 32 bit integer programming, figure the 16 bit 386SX will be > around 4-8 times slower than a 486 at the same clock speed, which in turn is > 3-4 times slower than a pentium at the same clock speed. now throw in the > differential between the 16-25MHz range of the typical 386SX to the > 400-600Mhz of a modern celeron or pentium or k6 today and we can figure > ANOTHER 20X slower. 386SX systems didn't use any level 2 cache either, and > only had like 8k of level 1 cache, and the 386SX memory bus took 2-3 clocks > minimum to transfer 16 bits with no burst cycle support. > > All told, that 386SX will be something like 100 times slower than a bottom > of the barrel Celeron or K6 system and probably draw at least as much power. According to the dnet client speed page, a 386SX-33 can do about 16,000 RC5 keys/sec. My P3-450 can do about 1,264,000 kps. That's less than 80 times faster. Walt _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: 386SX
>From: "John R Pierce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Walt Mankowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,"Mersenne discussion >list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Mersenne: 386SX >Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 16:30:34 -0800 > > > > phew. a 386sx is SO slow I really can't imagine WHAT useful >computational > > > work it could do... Thats a 25 or so MHz CPU with a 16 bit bus that > > > probably takes 5-6 clocks to do a simple integer operation. Oh, and >its >got > > > no floating point. I'd estimate it at least a few 100 times slower >than > > > even a slow celeron at numerical work. No, wait. make that several > > > THOUSAND times slower. > > > > It might be able to work on one of the distributed.net projects. I > > don't *think* the rc5 stuff uses floating point. > >it doesn't. > >However, even at 32 bit integer programming, figure the 16 bit 386SX will >be >around 4-8 times slower than a 486 at the same clock speed, which in turn >is >3-4 times slower than a pentium at the same clock speed. now throw in the >differential between the 16-25MHz range of the typical 386SX to the >400-600Mhz of a modern celeron or pentium or k6 today and we can figure >ANOTHER 20X slower. 386SX systems didn't use any level 2 cache either, >and >only had like 8k of level 1 cache, and the 386SX memory bus took 2-3 clocks >minimum to transfer 16 bits with no burst cycle support. > >All told, that 386SX will be something like 100 times slower than a bottom >of the barrel Celeron or K6 system and probably draw at least as much >power. It ought to be cheaply upgradable to a low pentium, which could be useful also as a computer for, for example, text editing while the main one is otherwise occupied. Nathan __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: 386SX
>From: Walt Mankowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Mersenne discussion list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Mersenne: 386SX >Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 19:01:51 -0500 > (much snippage) >It might be able to work on one of the distributed.net projects. I >don't *think* the rc5 stuff uses floating point. It does not, and neither does OGR. Nathan __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: 386SX
> > phew. a 386sx is SO slow I really can't imagine WHAT useful computational > > work it could do... Thats a 25 or so MHz CPU with a 16 bit bus that > > probably takes 5-6 clocks to do a simple integer operation. Oh, and its got > > no floating point. I'd estimate it at least a few 100 times slower than > > even a slow celeron at numerical work. No, wait. make that several > > THOUSAND times slower. > > It might be able to work on one of the distributed.net projects. I > don't *think* the rc5 stuff uses floating point. it doesn't. However, even at 32 bit integer programming, figure the 16 bit 386SX will be around 4-8 times slower than a 486 at the same clock speed, which in turn is 3-4 times slower than a pentium at the same clock speed. now throw in the differential between the 16-25MHz range of the typical 386SX to the 400-600Mhz of a modern celeron or pentium or k6 today and we can figure ANOTHER 20X slower. 386SX systems didn't use any level 2 cache either, and only had like 8k of level 1 cache, and the 386SX memory bus took 2-3 clocks minimum to transfer 16 bits with no burst cycle support. All told, that 386SX will be something like 100 times slower than a bottom of the barrel Celeron or K6 system and probably draw at least as much power. _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: 386SX
On Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 12:27:52PM -0800, John R Pierce wrote: > > I just installed Slackware 7.0 on an old 386SX and I want it > > to do distributed computing of some kind. However, the > > lowest CPU mprime allows is a 486. What can I do? > > phew. a 386sx is SO slow I really can't imagine WHAT useful computational > work it could do... Thats a 25 or so MHz CPU with a 16 bit bus that > probably takes 5-6 clocks to do a simple integer operation. Oh, and its got > no floating point. I'd estimate it at least a few 100 times slower than > even a slow celeron at numerical work. No, wait. make that several > THOUSAND times slower. It might be able to work on one of the distributed.net projects. I don't *think* the rc5 stuff uses floating point. _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: 386SX
> I just installed Slackware 7.0 on an old 386SX and I want it > to do distributed computing of some kind. However, the > lowest CPU mprime allows is a 486. What can I do? phew. a 386sx is SO slow I really can't imagine WHAT useful computational work it could do... Thats a 25 or so MHz CPU with a 16 bit bus that probably takes 5-6 clocks to do a simple integer operation. Oh, and its got no floating point. I'd estimate it at least a few 100 times slower than even a slow celeron at numerical work. No, wait. make that several THOUSAND times slower. -jrp _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: 386SX
I just installed Slackware 7.0 on an old 386SX and I want it to do distributed computing of some kind. However, the lowest CPU mprime allows is a 486. What can I do? _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
