Path: news.mathworks.com!not-for-mail
From: "Suresh " <sureshn@aps.anl.gov>
Newsgroups: comp.soft-sys.matlab
Subject: Re: 64-bit : Vista vs Linux
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:33:01 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Lines: 104
Message-ID: <fulsjd$11b$1@fred.mathworks.com>
References: <fugcs9$3ni$1@fred.mathworks.com> <muyfxtd98np.fsf@G99-Boettcher.llan.ll.mit.edu> <fulolp$982$1@fred.mathworks.com> <fulpra$k3f$1@fred.mathworks.com>
Reply-To: "Suresh " <sureshn@aps.anl.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: webapp-02-blr.mathworks.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: fred.mathworks.com 1208907181 1067 172.30.248.37 (22 Apr 2008 23:33:01 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@mathworks.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:33:01 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: MATLAB Central Newsreader 48216
Xref: news.mathworks.com comp.soft-sys.matlab:464655



Hi Yi,

Actually the benchmark shows that the 2 machines should be
very similar.

Suresh


"Yi Cao" <y.cao@cranfield.ac.uk> wrote in message
<fulpra$k3f$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> "Suresh " <sureshn@aps.anl.gov> wrote in message <fulolp$982
> $1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> > Hi Peter,
> > 
> > You are right about the memory being faster and that is a 
> direct factor in 
> > what I am doing. But still I cannot explain a factor of 2 
> in speed other than 
> > the fact the Linux OS handles resources much better than 
> Windows.
> > 
> > 
> > Vista Hardware:
> > Dual-Core Intel? Xeon? Processor 5160 3.00 GHz 1333 MHz 
> FSB 4 MB L2 
> > cache EX615AV 
> > Dual-Core Intel? Xeon? Processor 5160 3.00 GHz 1333 MHz 
> FSB 4 MB L2 
> > cache (2nd) EX616AV 
> > HP 8GB (4x2GB) DDR2-667 ECC FBD RK355AV 
> > HP 250GB SATA 3Gb/s NCQ 7200 (1st) EM060AV 
> > 
> > Linux Hardware:
> > 2.33 GHz Intel Core Duo
> > 8 GB DDR2-8 MHz RAM
> > Hard disk same speed as well as capacity.
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > Suresh
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Peter Boettcher <boettcher@ll.mit.edu> wrote in message 
> > <muyfxtd98np.fsf@G99-Boettcher.llan.ll.mit.edu>...
> > > "Suresh " <sureshn@aps.anl.gov> writes:
> > > 
> > > > Hi Peter,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the post.
> > > >
> > > > The hardware details are:
> > > >
> > > > Vista Hardware:
> > > > 2 x Intel dual core Xeon 3.0 GHZ
> > > > 8 GB 667 MHz RAM
> > > > Hard disk: SATA
> > > >
> > > > Linux hardware:
> > > > 1 x Intel Core Duo 2.33 GHz
> > > > 8 GB 800 MHz RAM
> > > > Hard disk: SATA (similar specs)
> > > 
> > > The RAM speeds are probably a big deal, since you are 
> doing
> > > memory-intensive work.
> > > 
> > > For the disks, when you say similar specs, you mean 
> single 7200rpm hard
> > > drives on each system?  Same capacities?  This stuff 
> can matter, since
> > > different capacities often mean different number of 
> platters in the
> > > physical drive, which can change throughput to the 
> media.
> > > 
> > > Processors, also getting there, but still not enough 
> detail.  Intel has
> > > called many processors "Xeon" over the years.
> > > 
> > > 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Xeon_microprocess
> ors
> > > 
> > > I think you probaby have a Paxville or Tulsa core, both 
> of which would
> > > be based on the NetBurst architecture, which was lousy.
> > > 
> > > Really, the only way to track this stuff down is via 
> benchmarks.
> > > Benchmark the processors alone.  MATLAB bench is not 
> bad for this.
> > > Benchmark the disks alone.  Etc.
> > > 
> > > -Peter
> > 
> > 
> 
> How about MATLAB bench results? Do you still get a factor 
> of 2 performance difference?
> 
> Yi