A
Active8
Habenero and stuff. Mmmm.... smack... sh*t fire and save matches.
-
Categories
-
Platforms
-
Content
Habenero and stuff. Mmmm.... smack... sh*t fire and save matches.
J
Jim Thompson
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)
ATH64 2.2 GHz 103.985 228.77 (Win2K, LTSpice 2.11dm TRTOL=7)
...Jim Thompson
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)
ATH64 2.2 GHz 103.985 228.77 (Win2K, LTSpice 2.11dm TRTOL=7)
...Jim Thompson
J
Jim Thompson
Having just done the BE w/Air, the sh*t fire, due to stomach acids
flowing straight through to the exit is NO FUN :-(
...Jim Thompson
A
Active8
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 14:46:50 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
Another plus for PSpice... Schematics, in particular. I just found
out that Simetrix can read PSpice Schematics designs but not Orcad
Capture... which you don't use
Another plus for PSpice... Schematics, in particular. I just found
out that Simetrix can read PSpice Schematics designs but not Orcad
Capture... which you don't use
J
Jim Thompson
More comparisons. Clearly P4s SUCK!
Sim Time Sim Time
Computer (seconds) at 1 GHz
============ ========== ========
P4, 1500 MHz 413 620 (Win2k, PSpice 9.2)
P4, 3GHZ 182.953 548.86 (Win2K, LTSpice 2.11d TRTOL=1)
P4, 3GHZ 180.484 541.45 (Win2K, LTSpice 2.11d TRTOL=7)
P4 Xeon 2400MHz 205 493 (WinXP, PSpice 9.2)
P2, 266 MHz 1800 479 (Win95, PSpice 9.2)
P2, 440 MHz 1082 476 (NT4.0, PSpice 9.2)
P3, 1000 MHz 420 420 (Win2k, PSpice 9.2)
P3, 800 MHz 510 408 (Win2K, PSpice 9.2)
ATH TB 1200 MHz 270 324 (WinME, PSpice 9.2)
ATH XP 1467 MHz 210 308 (Win2k A7M266, PSpice 9.2)
ATH TB 1400 MHz 210 294 (Win2k A7A266, 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)
ATH64 2.2 GHz 112.454 247.4 (Win2K, LTSpice 2.11d TRTOL=1)
ATH XP 1467 MHz 167 245 (Win2K A7M266, PSpice 9.2.3)
ATH64 2.2 GHz 103.985 228.77 (Win2K, LTSpice 2.11d TRTOL=7)
ATH64 2.2 GHz 97.14 213.7 (Win2K, PSpice 10.0.0)
...Jim Thompson
Sim Time Sim Time
Computer (seconds) at 1 GHz
============ ========== ========
P4, 1500 MHz 413 620 (Win2k, PSpice 9.2)
P4, 3GHZ 182.953 548.86 (Win2K, LTSpice 2.11d TRTOL=1)
P4, 3GHZ 180.484 541.45 (Win2K, LTSpice 2.11d TRTOL=7)
P4 Xeon 2400MHz 205 493 (WinXP, PSpice 9.2)
P2, 266 MHz 1800 479 (Win95, PSpice 9.2)
P2, 440 MHz 1082 476 (NT4.0, PSpice 9.2)
P3, 1000 MHz 420 420 (Win2k, PSpice 9.2)
P3, 800 MHz 510 408 (Win2K, PSpice 9.2)
ATH TB 1200 MHz 270 324 (WinME, PSpice 9.2)
ATH XP 1467 MHz 210 308 (Win2k A7M266, PSpice 9.2)
ATH TB 1400 MHz 210 294 (Win2k A7A266, 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)
ATH64 2.2 GHz 112.454 247.4 (Win2K, LTSpice 2.11d TRTOL=1)
ATH XP 1467 MHz 167 245 (Win2K A7M266, PSpice 9.2.3)
ATH64 2.2 GHz 103.985 228.77 (Win2K, LTSpice 2.11d TRTOL=7)
ATH64 2.2 GHz 97.14 213.7 (Win2K, PSpice 10.0.0)
...Jim Thompson
J
John S. Dyson
Actually, it would be good to see the results if the code
was (properly) compiled with the SSE(2) instruction sets.
The P4s are sometimes 1/2 of the speed when using the old
stack instructions.
Few common compilers seem to generate proper code for the
P4, where the Intel C Compiler tends to do the best and
the most recent CVS trees of GCC also do fairly well. The
Microsoft C compiler (and Watcom) will produce lackluster
behavior with the P4.
When I do my pseudo-DSP work, I tend to compile the code
with SSE2 code generation and only use the stack instructions
for subroutine call compatibility (when absolutely needed) and
for certain transcendentals where the high accuracy is needed.
I don't find that the P4s 'suck', but they need to be treated
very differently from the P3s and AMD processors in order to
get the best possible floating point. When treated properly,
it isn't unreasonable to get 1Gflops-3Gflops/sec on P4.
It would be nice if Intel had done a better job with the FP
stack instructions.
John
J
Jeff
Jim Thompson said:
I'll second that.
Win 2K can run fine for months on end without a reboot. XP falls apart over
time, tends to do a lot of communicating with MS, has a lot of bloat ware,
requiring higher powered computers, etc.
My next OS of choice when win 2k becomes too obsolete will likely be a Linux
variant.
K
keith
I've already started down that path. It's been bumpy but I decided when
I went to Win2K three years ago that it was going the be my (first and)
last M$ OS. When I put together this Opteron system, I went with SuSE
9.1. I still have Win2K on the old system while I learn my way around.
K
keith
Huh, What did you say? ;-)
Sure, but DNA doesn't have a name. ;-)
Sure, if that floats your boat, I certainly don't care. You'll find I use
all sorts of variations on my name in the From: tag (thought the same
email address munge. Each system I post from and each server I use is set
up a little differently.
You ain't seen sh*t
one that'll tell you the same thing.
I'll try to remember, Mike, but I don't see sigs, so I tend to look up the
the "Author", to figure out who I'm yakking at.
J
John Woodgate
It uses several aliases; haven't you heard of 'DNA signatures'? (;-)
K
Ken Smith
keith said:
LTSpice works under wine (you already knew that)
The old DOS Orcad works under DOSEMU with a few problems. Their ESP
program id daft things in DOS land and they are still daft under Linux.
Open Office works ok for most text and spead sheet sorts of things. The
chart function of the spread sheet is so slow as to be near useless. I
plan on learning to use gnuplot when I get a little time.
A couple of other useful tips:
On any installed software, in a shell type "man nameofprogram". For the
good ones this display the manual for the program. If the manual tells
you that the manual is obsolete and that you should use the "info" system,
the program is likely to work but may have a bug or two. If there is no
man page, it is very likely that the program is quite buggy.
Old programs, that are well rung out, tend to have "man" pages. The
better programmers still provide "man" pages. So the method works fairly
well.
I'm far from a Linux expert but I've got it to work for me. I use SuSE
8.1. You've got 9.1 hopefully they've fixed the things I've had to fix in
the 8.1 install.
BTW: You can do darn near anything in a Bash script.
K
keith
It's a good think I'm done with my coffee, John. ;-))
J
John Woodgate
I read in sci.electronics.design that Ken Smith
Only if the wine is in the computer and not the operator.
Only if the wine is in the computer and not the operator.
K
Ken Smith
It can be both and still work.
M
Mike Engelhardt
Jim,
I wasn't able to duplicate this. I find that LTspice is still
considerably faster that PSpice 10.0.0 on your circuit. But
I'm glad that since I'm distributing over 1000 times as many
copies of LTspice as Cadence is of PSpice, it's nice they still
take notice and try to catch up as they've done with other
performance improvements and features first introduced to the
industry by LTspice.
Yes, they did seem to fix some of their BSIM problems, but it
still lags in performance. Here are run times from a 1yr plus
old 3GHz P4:
PSpice 9.2 200.86 (trolt=7)
PSpice 9.2.3 165.55 (trolt=7)
PSpice 10.0.0 164.56 (trolt=7)
LTspice 2.11e 117.98 (trolt=7)
LTspice 2.11e -P4 Only 89.50 (trolt=7)
Now, I did remove some unused libraries, but I can send back
the exact deck I used if you wish. I can't remember if these
were under a gentleman's NDA or not, so I haven't and won't
share them with anyone else.
Since SPICE uses successive linearizations of a non-linear
system there's enough heuristics going on that you can't
use a single circuit to determine if one SPICE is faster
than another. The experience I get from working at a foundry
with hundreds of IC engineers is that LTspice ran BSIM
circuit 3 to 6 times faster than PSpice. The latest PSpice
version as reduced that to 2 to 4 times faster, but it still
has more convergence problems. Ya know, these kids these days
just want to simulate the whole IC all at once and not think
about what they're doing.
Of course, you should still remember the other benchmark you
send me. PSpice gave you the wrong answer and LTspice immediate
gave the right one. Also, you could make LTspice duplicate
PSpice's erroneous results by setting the integration method to
Gear and it still ran substantially faster than PSpice. I
believe that was done with PSpice 10.0.0. Anyway, that was
a time where LTspice's improved integrity of solution helped
you catch a design flaw in a circuit you inherited.
Now, I used a P4 and 10.0.0 instead of an ATH64 and 10.0.0i.
Maybe the AMD machine speeds up PSpice more than it speeds
up LTspice. But the general LTspice distribution is optimized
for a P3, not a P4. The version called "LTspice 2.11e -P4" is
a P4 version, at it runs 30% faster still, but won't run on
a P3. Older AMD's could do the full P4 instruction set, but
it might run on your ATH64, that executable is at
http://ltspice.linear.com/software/P4scad3.exe
Just put it in the same directory as scad3.exe, usually
C:\Program Files\LTC\SwCADIII, and run it. It uses the
P4's ability to do two double precession floating point
operations at the same time, as also mentioned by JD.
Periodically I make a P4 specific version of LTspice
availible, so now an up-to-date P4 only is availible.
I'm not very interested in the AMD vs. Intel debate, but
I'm certainly not going to quit using Intel machines.
They've the market share and my machines are ultimately
all test beds, not for personal use.
--Mike
I wasn't able to duplicate this. I find that LTspice is still
considerably faster that PSpice 10.0.0 on your circuit. But
I'm glad that since I'm distributing over 1000 times as many
copies of LTspice as Cadence is of PSpice, it's nice they still
take notice and try to catch up as they've done with other
performance improvements and features first introduced to the
industry by LTspice.
Yes, they did seem to fix some of their BSIM problems, but it
still lags in performance. Here are run times from a 1yr plus
old 3GHz P4:
PSpice 9.2 200.86 (trolt=7)
PSpice 9.2.3 165.55 (trolt=7)
PSpice 10.0.0 164.56 (trolt=7)
LTspice 2.11e 117.98 (trolt=7)
LTspice 2.11e -P4 Only 89.50 (trolt=7)
Now, I did remove some unused libraries, but I can send back
the exact deck I used if you wish. I can't remember if these
were under a gentleman's NDA or not, so I haven't and won't
share them with anyone else.
Since SPICE uses successive linearizations of a non-linear
system there's enough heuristics going on that you can't
use a single circuit to determine if one SPICE is faster
than another. The experience I get from working at a foundry
with hundreds of IC engineers is that LTspice ran BSIM
circuit 3 to 6 times faster than PSpice. The latest PSpice
version as reduced that to 2 to 4 times faster, but it still
has more convergence problems. Ya know, these kids these days
just want to simulate the whole IC all at once and not think
about what they're doing.
Of course, you should still remember the other benchmark you
send me. PSpice gave you the wrong answer and LTspice immediate
gave the right one. Also, you could make LTspice duplicate
PSpice's erroneous results by setting the integration method to
Gear and it still ran substantially faster than PSpice. I
believe that was done with PSpice 10.0.0. Anyway, that was
a time where LTspice's improved integrity of solution helped
you catch a design flaw in a circuit you inherited.
Now, I used a P4 and 10.0.0 instead of an ATH64 and 10.0.0i.
Maybe the AMD machine speeds up PSpice more than it speeds
up LTspice. But the general LTspice distribution is optimized
for a P3, not a P4. The version called "LTspice 2.11e -P4" is
a P4 version, at it runs 30% faster still, but won't run on
a P3. Older AMD's could do the full P4 instruction set, but
it might run on your ATH64, that executable is at
http://ltspice.linear.com/software/P4scad3.exe
Just put it in the same directory as scad3.exe, usually
C:\Program Files\LTC\SwCADIII, and run it. It uses the
P4's ability to do two double precession floating point
operations at the same time, as also mentioned by JD.
Periodically I make a P4 specific version of LTspice
availible, so now an up-to-date P4 only is availible.
I'm not very interested in the AMD vs. Intel debate, but
I'm certainly not going to quit using Intel machines.
They've the market share and my machines are ultimately
all test beds, not for personal use.
--Mike
J
Jim Thompson
[snip]
I didn't run PSPice on a P4 since my copy is installed on the AMD
Ath64.
On the Athlon, LTSPice=104sec, PSpice=97sec.
On my 3GHz P4 LTSpice=180sec and you got 164sec. Probably motherboard
differences... my P4 is nominally my Internet machine, a true cheapy
at $600
...Jim Thompson
M
Mike Engelhardt
Jim,
On a Dell 3GHz P4, I get LTspice=118seconds verses
PSpice10.0.0=164seconds. Repeatably.
My (older) 3GHz P4/LTspice combination beats your
Athlon/PSpice10.0.0i with a time under
90seconds using this executable:
http://ltspice.linear.com/software/P4scad3.exe
Even my boring little sub-5lb 1.5GHz Centrino
notebook can run your deck in 99.273 seconds.
This circuit gives the impression that (i) LTspice
still beats PSpice 10.0.0 and (ii) a P4 outperforms
an Athlon64 when the executable is compiled to make
use of the full P4 instruction set. I would caution
the passing reader not to take too much head from
one circuit. It takes a much larger sample of
circuits to draw conclusions. Usually LTspice beats
PSpice by much more than some small percentage.
This is a trival circuit to solve.
BTW, when posting benchmarks, it might be better
to make the deck availible to all who wish to
duplicate as I have done with the collection of
benchmarks I've posted in the past. As I recall,
you've asked that I don't redistribute this deck,
which belongs to one of your clients.
--Mike
On a Dell 3GHz P4, I get LTspice=118seconds verses
PSpice10.0.0=164seconds. Repeatably.
My (older) 3GHz P4/LTspice combination beats your
Athlon/PSpice10.0.0i with a time under
90seconds using this executable:
http://ltspice.linear.com/software/P4scad3.exe
Even my boring little sub-5lb 1.5GHz Centrino
notebook can run your deck in 99.273 seconds.
This circuit gives the impression that (i) LTspice
still beats PSpice 10.0.0 and (ii) a P4 outperforms
an Athlon64 when the executable is compiled to make
use of the full P4 instruction set. I would caution
the passing reader not to take too much head from
one circuit. It takes a much larger sample of
circuits to draw conclusions. Usually LTspice beats
PSpice by much more than some small percentage.
This is a trival circuit to solve.
BTW, when posting benchmarks, it might be better
to make the deck availible to all who wish to
duplicate as I have done with the collection of
benchmarks I've posted in the past. As I recall,
you've asked that I don't redistribute this deck,
which belongs to one of your clients.
--Mike
J
Jim Thompson
[snip]
So why isn't P4scad3.exe part of your distribution?
...Jim Thompson
[snip]
So why isn't P4scad3.exe part of your distribution?
...Jim Thompson
J
John S. Dyson
I am going to rudely make a suggestion and answer your question to Mike:
When doing software, trying to maintain/test two versions of the code
can significantly increase the effort. The effort would definitely not
be twice as big, but it certainly would cost more time for testing.
PS: I'd like to see a normally available P4 version, but I understand
numerous reasons why not -- even if the reasons is that Mike chooses not
to
.John
M
Mike Engelhardt
My (older) 3GHz P4/LTspice combination beats your
Plus it increases the size of the distribution.
Some people still download LTspice with a modem.
It isn't distributed on CD. Everything about
LTspice has been historically conscientious of
the BW required to download.
There's usually a P4-specific version available,
but sometimes you have to e-mail to ask where to
find it.
--Mike
Plus it increases the size of the distribution.
Some people still download LTspice with a modem.
It isn't distributed on CD. Everything about
LTspice has been historically conscientious of
the BW required to download.
PS: I'd like to see a normally available P4 version,
but I understand numerous reasons why not -- even if
the reasons is that Mike chooses not to
There's usually a P4-specific version available,
but sometimes you have to e-mail to ask where to
find it.
--Mike
Similar threads
