Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Bulldozer Dual-Interlagos Benchmarks On Linux

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by Raven3x7 View Post
    It's a typo, the 2500k is a i7 not a i5.
    No, it is not. The 2500k is an i5.

    Comment


    • #12
      Heh:

      http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...KNUC-110322585
      http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...KNUC-110322102

      I win

      But yeah, what's impressive is that you'll be able to get 4 of these on the same system, for a very reasonable price!

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by Sylarr View Post
        No, it is not. The 2500k is an i5.
        You're right that it's an i5 () but it does have turbo http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=52210

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by Raven3x7 View Post
          You're right that it's an i5 () but it does have turbo http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=52210
          Yea does have turbo, mistake is the article states it has hyperthreading too. Do these articles ever get fixed?

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by [Knuckles] View Post
            Heh:

            http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...KNUC-110322585
            http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...KNUC-110322102

            I win

            But yeah, what's impressive is that you'll be able to get 4 of these on the same system, for a very reasonable price!
            If you have the spare time you should do a scaling test for c-ray, e.g run it with 2 cores enable, then 4 then 8 then 16 then 32, It would be useful in seeing how this result translates into desktop bulldozer performance.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by Goderic View Post
              They claim +90% performance and +50% extra die space.
              All the benefits of an extra core with only +10% extra die space is never going to happen.
              Source?

              I think you're thinking of Bobcat, which they claimed would provide
              90% of today’s mainstream performance in less than half of the silicon area
              For Bulldozer, the claims I've seen are 12% die space, and virtually double performance on the right kind of code. On the other hand, the wrong kind of code probably gives no speed up at all.

              This source is pretty good at explaining how it works, as well as passing on AMD's 12% die space claim: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3863/a...t-chips-2010/4

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by bbordwell View Post
                If you have the spare time you should do a scaling test for c-ray, e.g run it with 2 cores enable, then 4 then 8 then 16 then 32, It would be useful in seeing how this result translates into desktop bulldozer performance.
                I can try, but I'm not understanding what you're hoping to see. Mine are 12-core G34 opterons, so 16 and 32 aren't even very logical numbers from a test POV.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                  Source?
                  On the other hand, the wrong kind of code probably gives no speed up at all.
                  Actually that would only be the case in single threaded code. The frontend actually supports 2 threads though i suppose there might be some penalty because of the resource sharing in some situations. Also the fp unit can act as 2 128 bit or 1 256bit unit. In short BD has 2 cores that share certain resources which decreases die space but can have a performance penalty in certain situation. That slide btw refers to the die space cost of the 2nd integer cluster only

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    i'm almost positive the i5 2500k is not multi-threaded.

                    but really doesn't anyone see the problem with that initial test? 25 seconds is utter crap for 32 cores, no matter what cpu you use. an 8 core sempron or core2 (if they existed) at 2ghz would have more raw processing power than the i5 2500k.

                    remember, there are plenty of programs and benchmarks out there that are multi-processor compatible but most are limited to 16 cores. if that test had those same limitations, that would mean half of those cores were doing absolutely nothing, and so it doesn't surprise me that 16 1.8ghz cores is about twice as fast as 4 3.2ghz cores.
                    think about it in this way:
                    16*1.8=28.8
                    4*3.2=12.8
                    12.8*2=25.6
                    If we were to consider these as theoretical frequencies, proportionally, 25.6 is pretty close to 28.8. Considering the frequency and likelihood of functioning cores, to me, it makes a lot of sense why the amd setup performed twice as fast as the intel setup, and it isn't as crappy as it may seem.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by [Knuckles] View Post
                      I can try, but I'm not understanding what you're hoping to see. Mine are 12-core G34 opterons, so 16 and 32 aren't even very logical numbers from a test POV.
                      the core counts are arbitrary I just think it would be interesting to see how it scales up, if this test is scaling with 99% efficiency that is not so good for bulldozer, but if there is a large decline as cores go up then that could be good news.

                      Thought this test may have already answered my question as it is single threaded (http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...IV-HIMENUBUL97)

                      That is bad news for bulldozer as that shows about 1/2 the single threaded performance compared to sandy bridge. (2600k gets about 345 in that test where as a 3.6ghz bulldozer would get ~180)

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X