• Welcome to OS2World OLD-STATIC-BACKUP Forum.
 

News:

This is an old OS2World backup forum for reference only. IT IS READ ONLY!!!

If you need help with OS/2 - eComStation visit http://www.os2world.com/forum

Main Menu

eComStation and Intel Core2 Quad + Gigabyte GA-G31M-S2L - Nice!

Started by djcaetano, 2008.06.10, 17:06:30

Previous topic - Next topic

djcaetano


  Last week my laboratory at USP (São Paulo University) exchanged the problematic Core2Duo ASUS motherboards (problematic under eComStation 2.0) by new Core2 Quad computers with Gigabyte Motherboards. The instalation of eComStation was more or less flawless (minor problems with DANIS506 drivers: I had to remap higher IRQs to lower IRQs in ACPI configuration, onboard LAN and onboard audio).
  Onboard LAN (RTL8168) is said to be supported by GenMAC. The driver loads, but the board became "silent". After a few changes and installing an alternative driver (RTL8169) is seems to be working, but I had added a RTL8139 board to the system and now I am working with RTL8139. The only thing that is not working "that well" now and somewhat bothers me is sound. This motherboard is equipped with ICH7, and therefore Intel HD Audio (ALC662). The support is not ready on UniAUD, and the driver that comes with eComStation (1.1.4RC4) just cause a trap during the boot. The best combination I found was installing 1.1.4RC6   *after* the eCS install  process finishes and then replace UNIAUD32.SYS with 1.1.4RC2. The sound is not great, but at least it works. With latest Paul builds (1.9.3 and 1.9.4) there is not traps, but there is no sound either. With 1.9.2 there is a major problem with sound buffer (every sounds is played in loop forever) and any other build newer than 1.1.4RC2 and and not the most recent Paul ones make the system trap at boot.
  Well, with all those problems, how can I say this mobo, processor and eComStation is great? Well... After these problems were somewhat solved, I performed some benchmarks (using SysBench) and the results are presented bellow:

Performance Comparison

Machine 1: Intel Core2Duo E4300 (1.8GHz), 2GB RAM, Video GeForce7300GS PCI-X (Panorama w/ SB)
      HD 160GB SATA, Motherboard ASUS P5GZ-MX

Machine 2: Intel Core2Quad Q6600? (2.4GHz), 2GB RAM, Video Intel onboard (Panorama w/ SB)
      HD 160GB SATA, Motherboard Gigabyte G31M-S2L

Both running eComStation RC4 with latest fixes applied.

Test      Core2Duo   Core2Quad    Diff.
Graphics      62.585     196.233   3.14x
CPU Integer    5063.000   15135.628   2.99x
CPU Float     243.403     649.473   2.67x
DIVE        482.564    4377.385   9.07x
File I/O   23303.022   32773.658   1.41x
Memory       6362.827    8608.612   1.35x
Sim. Disk I/O       7.703       7.463   0.97x
Disk I/O     330.787     382.803   1.16x

  I ran some tests on Windows, but the results were not so great. It seems OS/2 performance improves better than Windows on adding more CPU cores. :)

saborion2

Re:

Quote

Performance Comparison

Machine 1: Intel Core2Duo E4300 (1.8GHz), 2GB RAM, Video GeForce7300GS PCI-X (Panorama w/ SB)
      HD 160GB SATA, Motherboard ASUS P5GZ-MX

Machine 2: Intel Core2Quad Q6600? (2.4GHz), 2GB RAM, Video Intel onboard (Panorama w/ SB)
      HD 160GB SATA, Motherboard Gigabyte G31M-S2L

Both running eComStation RC4 with latest fixes applied.


I for one would find the above information very useful in that we are considering the purchase of best-of-breed hardware for the upcoming release of eComStation 2.0. Are there other machines similar to the ones listed above that could have been considered for bench marking and other tests by the laboratory at São Paulo University (USP) in Brazil?

Thanks.

SAB


cytan

Good to hear that Core2 Quad works with Ecomstation 2.0! I'm also in the market for a top of the line box and would like to hear experiences from other folks who have Core2 Quad working.

cytan

Saijin_Naib

It could also be DJ, that there are no analogous testing suites under Windows, so the results between the two platforms are more or less invalidated. If there was a current level benchmark app, same for both platforms, then it would be more valid. This is tough however :C

saborion2

Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2008.06.10, 21:42:16
It could also be DJ, that there are no analogous testing suites under Windows, so the results between the two platforms are more or less invalidated. If there was a current level benchmark app, same for both platforms, then it would be more valid. This is tough however :C

One must also take into consideration that eComStation 2.0 (OS/2) has not yet been released to the public (is not yet GA); so, with time one can at least be very optimistic about eComstation performances given the information that has been provided by "djcaetano" on the work done on eComStation 2.0 at the São Paulo University (USP).

Keep it coming "djcaetano"!  ;)

Best regards.

SAB