OT: Wheeeeee! New PSpice Benchmarks

[Rich Grise]

You mean no dialing following a hangup. Prob is that some companies
who *do* follow the rules have customers who want them to schedule a
callback if they don't get the whole pitch out, otherwise "not
interested" means just that. I'm in a no rebuttal state so "not
interested" is supposed to end the call no matter what, but
sometimes they'll ask a question.

I tried telemarketing one time when desperate for income of some kind,
and it was awful. What happens is you get old, lonely people, who are
so grateful to hear the sound of a human voice that they'd be more
than happy to listen to your pitch all day long. You have to cut them
off, because they're not buyers, and you're wasting time.

It broke my heart every time.

When I went in on the day I quit, I explained to the boss that I wasn't
cut out for it, and wanted to weasel out of giving notice. He was very
understanding, of course. "If it's not your cup of tea..." He took me
to the receptionist to "check out" and arrange for my last check, and
she said, "You came all the way down here to quit?" I said, "What was
I supposed to do, call?" She said, "Most of them just stop showing up."

It's not a great job.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Jim Thompson]

Active, I'm disappointed in you. Howcome you're not ragging on Mr.
Thompson for having a favorite son who's a professional annoyer?

Cheers!
Rich

You're not paying attention. Phase 2 plays by the rules.

...Jim Thompson

 

[Jim Thompson]

I tried telemarketing one time when desperate for income of some kind,
and it was awful. What happens is you get old, lonely people, who are
so grateful to hear the sound of a human voice that they'd be more
than happy to listen to your pitch all day long. You have to cut them
off, because they're not buyers, and you're wasting time.

It broke my heart every time.

When I went in on the day I quit, I explained to the boss that I wasn't
cut out for it, and wanted to weasel out of giving notice. He was very
understanding, of course. "If it's not your cup of tea..." He took me
to the receptionist to "check out" and arrange for my last check, and
she said, "You came all the way down here to quit?" I said, "What was
I supposed to do, call?" She said, "Most of them just stop showing up."

It's not a great job.

Cheers!
Rich

Try to get a copy of these CDs:

Tom Mabe, "Revenge on the Telemarketers, Round One" (and "Round Two")

Truly stitch-bustingly hilarious.

...Jim Thompson

 

[Active8]

Rich, my sig block says Mike.

Answers:
1. Because JT is not PB.
2. The son is a programmer, not a phoner.
3. There are people much more deserving of my ire.

You're not paying attention. Phase 2 plays by the rules.

Jim. Your son's a programmer, not a telejock. He's doing something
good. If a phoner finds a way to break the rules, the monitor will
have the phoner's ass in a sling and out the door.

I still think telejock companies are parasites.

 

[Active8]

I tried telemarketing one time when desperate for income of some kind,
and it was awful. What happens is you get old, lonely people, who are
so grateful to hear the sound of a human voice that they'd be more
than happy to listen to your pitch all day long. You have to cut them
off, because they're not buyers, and you're wasting time.

Between contracts a couple of times it helped me hold on to my
savings. It wasn't the good/bad customers that pissed me off. I've
had hour long chats with some great people and still got top sales,
but we were calling on existing customers of Verizon, SBC, Columbia
House, etc.

It broke my heart every time.

I had a couple like that. One lonely one got no monthly fee LD
'cause I convinced her that for $1 of her measley income, she could
talk to he only friend in the world for 10 minutes. Another needed
help, so I ran off my mental list of charities and gov't orgs that
could help. Get 'em off the phone and shake it off.

When I went in on the day I quit, I explained to the boss that I wasn't
cut out for it, and wanted to weasel out of giving notice. He was very
understanding, of course. "If it's not your cup of tea..." He took me
to the receptionist to "check out" and arrange for my last check, and
she said, "You came all the way down here to quit?" I said, "What was
I supposed to do, call?" She said, "Most of them just stop showing up."

It's not a great job.

When I started, I had to slap down one supervisor - let him know he
couldn't treat me like sh*t. He finally got fired for sexual
harrasment - he just couldn't stay away from the girls and there was
plenty of eye candy from the University there.

We'd order food, read, whatever. I got respect out of the
supervisors, but they liked to act like gods which is a joke because
IMO, a phone room superviser is a loser. Then some prick got
promoted to supervisor. They told him to stop f*cking that female
phoner - he didn't - they fired him after they lost the SBC DSL
program he ran.

Before that happened, they made us stop eating and reading, so I was
in a pretty foul mood when the prick told me to incorrectly
dosposition calls because the customer didn't like the stats. He
wanted me to sched more callbacks. I checked my stats and those of a
girl I know. She can keep a prospect on the phone until she gets the
info out. She was amazing at that. She had 14% turn downs. I had 7%,
so I was doing better. I knew that I got my info out and when I let
a call go, there was no question that that lead wasn't gonna budge.
I was monitored plenty of times and they loved me.

So I wrote a scathing tutorial on statistics and all, and he had me
fired. It's just as well because I'd soon have beat his ass and been
in deeper sh*t. Best to leave a volatile situation if you can.

I saw some of that crowd at the club a month or so ago. The
supervisors have *all* been fired as well as the center manager.

Go figure.

The prick had acted like he didn't see me at a restaurant before
that night because he's a pussy, but he offered the olive branch at
the club. I let him live. Someone else will get him. TFB.

 

[Chaos Master]

It was written by Active8[[email protected]] in message

What's library binning? Do I get a young babe pushing a cart of
books (should be food) or some old bag with a sour look?

As I understand it:

- A HSPICE model file has parameters for slow/normal/fast/worst case...;
- Library binning is automatically 'changing' the models

Never used HSpice, nor I have made any IC designs (I am a hobbyist, after all),
so I can't say for sure.


[]s

 

[Chaos Master]

It was written by keith[[email protected]] in message

My first 4.77MHz 8088 machine cost me $2500 (with a *healthy* discount) in
1982, though it wasn't a clone.

My first 486 machine cost me R$ 3000 (~ $1000) in (IIRC) 1996.
That was with color monitor and modem. 8MB RAM, 340MB hard drive. Windows 95

[]s

 

[Jim Thompson]

It was written by Active8[[email protected]] in message

What's library binning? Do I get a young babe pushing a cart of
books (should be food) or some old bag with a sour look?

As I understand it:

- A HSPICE model file has parameters for slow/normal/fast/worst case...;
- Library binning is automatically 'changing' the models

Never used HSpice, nor I have made any IC designs (I am a hobbyist, after all),
so I can't say for sure.

No, "binning" assigns models for SIZE ranges, e.g.:

Model1 1u <= L < 5u, 2u <= W < 10u

Model2 0.3u <= L < 1u, 2u <= W < 10u

etc., in a matrix.

This is "binning".

Then there's Slow/Typical/Fast model LIBRARIES, each of which has the
binning ranges for the models.

HSpice doesn't do this automatically, you need to specify a .ALTER
statement which re-runs the simulation with the LIBRARIES changed.

...Jim Thompson

 

[Rich Grise]

Rich, my sig block says Mike.

Yabbut, the "From:" says "Active8". It was only supposed to be a joke,
after all. Sorry.

 

[qrk]

Jim, what version of PSpice are you using for this latest benchmark?
Version made a big difference from 9.2 to 9.2.3. I'm posting the whole
table of tests we have run. The Athlon-64 seems to be 15% more
efficient than the old Athlon XP processor. Note that PSpice doesn't
take advantage of the fancy stuff that some processors have to offer.


  PSpice Sim Sim time
Computer (seconds) at 1 GHz
============ ========== ========
P2, 266 MHz 1800 479 (Win95, PSpice 9.2)
P2, 440 MHz 1082 476 (NT4.0, PSpice 9.2)
P3, 800 MHz 510 408 (Win2K, PSpice 9.2)
P3, 1000 MHz 420 420 (Win2k, PSpice 9.2)
P4, 1500 MHz 413 620 (Win2k, PSpice 9.2)
ATH TB 1200 MHz 270 324 (WinME, PSpice 9.2)
ATH TB 1200 MHz 244 293 (Win2k A7A266, PC2100, PS9.2)
ATH TB 1200 MHz 244 293 (Win2k A7A266, PC133, PS9.2)
ATH TB 1400 MHz 210 294 (Win2k A7A266, PSpice 9.2)
ATH XP 1467 MHz 210 308 (Win2k A7M266, PSpice 9.2)
ATH XP 1467 MHz 167 245 (Win2K A7M266, PSpice 9.2.3)
P4 Xeon 2400MHz 205 493 (WinXP, PSpice 9.2)
ATH64 2.2 GHz 97 213 (Win2K, PSpice ?????)

 

[Jim Thompson]

Jim, what version of PSpice are you using for this latest benchmark?
Version made a big difference from 9.2 to 9.2.3. I'm posting the whole
table of tests we have run. The Athlon-64 seems to be 15% more
efficient than the old Athlon XP processor. Note that PSpice doesn't
take advantage of the fancy stuff that some processors have to offer.


  PSpice Sim Sim time
Computer (seconds) at 1 GHz
============ ========== ========
P2, 266 MHz 1800 479 (Win95, PSpice 9.2)
P2, 440 MHz 1082 476 (NT4.0, PSpice 9.2)
P3, 800 MHz 510 408 (Win2K, PSpice 9.2)
P3, 1000 MHz 420 420 (Win2k, PSpice 9.2)
P4, 1500 MHz 413 620 (Win2k, PSpice 9.2)
ATH TB 1200 MHz 270 324 (WinME, PSpice 9.2)
ATH TB 1200 MHz 244 293 (Win2k A7A266, PC2100, PS9.2)
ATH TB 1200 MHz 244 293 (Win2k A7A266, PC133, PS9.2)
ATH TB 1400 MHz 210 294 (Win2k A7A266, PSpice 9.2)
ATH XP 1467 MHz 210 308 (Win2k A7M266, PSpice 9.2)
ATH XP 1467 MHz 167 245 (Win2K A7M266, PSpice 9.2.3)
P4 Xeon 2400MHz 205 493 (WinXP, PSpice 9.2)
ATH64 2.2 GHz 97 213 (Win2K, PSpice ?????)

I'm running v10.0.0i

...Jim Thompson

 

[Active8]

Yabbut, the "From:" says "Active8".

No prob. Some refer to me by the moniker and some go by the
signature block. I feel better about the latter.

It was only supposed to be a joke,
after all.

That was apparent to me. I could tell by your deadpan delivery. It
was still worth answering.

Sorry.

I'll get over it.

 

[keith]

No prob. Some refer to me by the moniker and some go by the
signature block. I feel better about the latter.

Ok, but I gotta ask why you use a moniker if you'd prefer to be called by
your name. This makes *no* sense.

 

[Active8]

Ok, but I gotta ask why you use a moniker if you'd prefer to be called by
your name. This makes *no* sense.

I said it "feels better" and yeah, that can be extrapolated to "I
prefer". It's because I learned in the past that it's both polite
and good nature to remember someone's name and use it. Notice how
some just say, "Do you remember.... And did you notice..." and
others say, "Do you remember, Keith, when...

They work it into the middle of the sentences sometimes. Not just
the beginnings as in, "Keith, get the door." People like to hear
their name. I have to admit, when someone goes to the trouble (?) of
remembering my name in a reply (despite everything after the double
hyphen being struck out by the software,) it makes a sort of impact.
Same in conversation.

I decided to use the moniker because there are so many Mikes and
even a few Mike Cs. I don't spell the last name out because an
identity theif might glean useful information over time just as a
spam bot goes digging in news posts.

I've thought of just going with the name. I can see it now. "Who the
f*ck's this Mike guy?"

I'm going to get lunch. Then Mike8 will be a current event.

 

[keith]

I said it "feels better" and yeah, that can be extrapolated to "I
prefer". It's because I learned in the past that it's both polite
and good nature to remember someone's name and use it. Notice how
some just say, "Do you remember.... And did you notice..." and
others say, "Do you remember, Keith, when...

Ok, but you say *from* "Active8", and that's what we see when we reply,
Indeed your signature is (rightly) clipped by the posting newsreader, so
one may not even see your sig. ...certainly it's not here as I reply.

They work it into the middle of the sentences sometimes. Not just the
beginnings as in, "Keith, get the door." People like to hear their name.
I have to admit, when someone goes to the trouble (?) of remembering my
name in a reply (despite everything after the double hyphen being struck
out by the software,) it makes a sort of impact. Same in conversation.

Crazy8! ;-)

I decided to use the moniker because there are so many Mikes and even a
few Mike Cs. I don't spell the last name out because an identity theif
might glean useful information over time just as a spam bot goes digging
in news posts.

Oh, hell! There are so many people with my name I use my MI to
differentiate (doesn't work). Come on! No one is going to steal your
identity from the Usenet. There are *SO* many ways to get better
information.

I've thought of just going with the name. I can see it now. "Who the
f*ck's this Mike guy?"

Ok, who is he? ;-)

I'm going to get lunch. Then Mike8 will be a current event.

;-)))

 

[Active8]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:50:48 -0400, keith wrote:

Ok, but you say *from* "Active8", and that's what we see when we reply,

Short memory?

There's a few out there that see and use Mike and a few who don't
bother with a name at all.

Take note, keith, that some call Genome DNA and vice versa.

Indeed your signature is (rightly) clipped by the posting newsreader, so
one may not even see your sig. ...certainly it's not here as I reply.

I recall a reply to Kevin that asked where to get Super Spice.

I guess since your moniker is keith and your name is Keith, everyone
should use keith.

Crazy8! ;-)

You ain't seen sh*t But that's what I was taught and I'm not the
only one that'll tell you the same thing.<snip>

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Active8 <[email protected]>

I recall a reply to Kevin that asked where to get Super Spice.

What is Super Spice? (;-)

 

[Jim Thompson]

I had never done the comparison between PSpice and LTSpice myself,
relying on the reports of others.

This noon hour I ran the latest version of LTSpice with exactly the
same setups, save-waveforms, and waveforms-to-be-plotted. (See
below.)

LTSpice came out very slightly slower.

(I should also point out that, since Mike E. last did a comparison,
PSpice added a new "Solver" to their algorithm.)

  PSpice Sim Sim time
Computer (seconds) at 1 GHz
============ ========== ========
P2, 266 MHz 1800 479 (Win95, PSpice 9.2)
P2, 440 MHz 1082 476 (NT4.0, PSpice 9.2)
P3, 800 MHz 510 408 (Win2K, PSpice 9.2)
P3, 1000 MHz 420 420 (Win2k, PSpice 9.2)
P4, 1500 MHz 413 620 (Win2k, PSpice 9.2)
ATH TB 1200 MHz 270 324 (WinME, PSpice 9.2)
ATH TB 1200 MHz 244 293 (Win2k A7A266, PC2100, PS9.2)
ATH TB 1200 MHz 244 293 (Win2k A7A266, PC133, PS9.2)
ATH TB 1400 MHz 210 294 (Win2k A7A266, PSpice 9.2)
ATH XP 1467 MHz 210 308 (Win2k A7M266, PSpice 9.2)
ATH XP 1467 MHz 167 245 (Win2K A7M266, PSpice 9.2.3)
P4 Xeon 2400MHz 205 493 (WinXP, PSpice 9.2)
ATH64 2.2 GHz 97.14 213.7 (Win2K, PSpice 10.0.0)
ATH64 2.2 GHz 112.454 247.4 (Win2K, LTSpice 2.11d)

...Jim Thompson

 

[Mike Engelhardt]

By default, LTspice runs at a higher accuracy than PSpice.
You need to go to Tools=>Control Panel=>SPICE and set
trtol to 7(instead of 1) for a comparison. I just checked and
I have still have the files you e-mailed me, so I'll check on
PSpice 10.0.0 my self on Monday. If you want, you can send
the exact files you're using to the address on the Help=>about
box if you want to be sure I'm using the same files.

--Mike

 

[Mike Engelhardt]

Oh, now I remember this circuit, trtol doesn't
impact the timestep at all. Anyway, I just tried
this on a 1.7GHz P4, the deck you gave me was
modified to save all nodes(selective saving with
the .probe statement you send sped PSpice up about
10%):

LTspice: 178 seconds
PSpice 9.2: 344 seconds

Anyway on Monday, when I'm in the other office
I'll try it on PSpice 10.0.0. I have seen small
improvements between 9.2, 9.2.3, and 10, but it
was mostly a case of now this circuit which didn't
used to run now runs but this other circuit that
used to run now doesn't anymore. With 10, there's
a fraction of a second startup overhead removed,
but the test circuit's I had tried gave identical
results.

Maybe they fixed the DC problem in PSpice's BSIM
and that's speeding things up. Thanks,

--Mike