Comparison with real applications

Forum for anything not suitable for the other forums.

Comparison with real applications

Postby roberto » Tue Oct 15, 2013 8:08 pm

Days ago I wrote this: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=616

That thead gave me a lot of dubts about how much good Parallella is.
In other words, how much power can give the board? I am not interested in theoretical data as "every 29th of febraury and at -273 °C the chip is equivalent to a x86 at 10THZ", I am interested in *real* capabilities. Benchmarks is not a real test, in my opinion: real test can be only the same application software running on different hardware and then compare the 2 different results.

There are some port of application, something that it is runnable on different architecture and use it as "meter" to compare
parallella with x86? Will be very usefull the port on ephipany (at least one) of the follow software:

aircrack-ng / pyrit,
John the ripper,
bzip2,
etc.,

all that kind of software that can take advantage from multiple cores inside E64.

Only when we will have one or more *application* software we can iuse it a s"meter" for the capabilities of E16/E64.
roberto
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 2:01 pm

Re: Comparison with real applications

Postby LamsonNguyen » Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:21 pm

A quick search would yield info on and .
LamsonNguyen
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 7:09 pm

Re: Comparison with real applications

Postby roberto » Wed Oct 16, 2013 7:58 am

roberto
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 2:01 pm

Re: Comparison with real applications

Postby 9600 » Wed Oct 16, 2013 8:59 am

There are some initial results for Litecoin mining and JtR/bcrypt in this blog post comment from Alexander/solardiz:

http://www.parallella.org/2013/06/12/go ... omment-365

However, note that the Litecoin mining performance was not expected to be fantastic with the 16-core chip, and it does sound as though there may be scope for further optimisation.

As you can see, the bcrypt performance on a 16-core prototype was much more promising, with Alexander saying: "...speed is similar to that of Core 2 Duo at ~2.2 GHz (with both cores in use), but is achieved at much lower power usage".

Remember, this is just the start of the journey!

Regards,

Andrew
Andrew Back
User avatar
9600
 
Posts: 997
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:25 am

Re: Comparison with real applications

Postby roberto » Wed Oct 16, 2013 10:17 pm

roberto
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 2:01 pm

Re: Comparison with real applications

Postby 9600 » Thu Oct 17, 2013 9:36 am

Andrew Back
User avatar
9600
 
Posts: 997
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:25 am

Re: Comparison with real applications

Postby CIB » Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:23 am

CIB
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 1:57 pm

Re: Comparison with real applications

Postby Gravis » Thu Oct 17, 2013 9:18 pm

User avatar
Gravis
 
Posts: 445
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:27 am
Location: East coast USA.

Re: Comparison with real applications

Postby notzed » Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:47 pm

notzed
 
Posts: 331
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 12:28 am
Location: Australia

Re: Comparison with real applications

Postby hewsmike » Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:42 am

Last edited by hewsmike on Fri Oct 18, 2013 5:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
hewsmike
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:20 am


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests