Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More AMD FX-4100, FX-8150 Bulldozer Linux Details

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

  • #11
    Originally posted by Michael View Post
    Try now should work.
    Code:
    XML parsing failed: syntax error (Line: 46, Character: 581)
    Hey at least something happened :P

    And grats on the Dozer, which model?
    Hope you don't get an Asus Crosshair V as a board...

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by PsynoKhi0 View Post
      Code:
      XML parsing failed: syntax error (Line: 46, Character: 581)
      Hey at least something happened :P

      And grats on the Dozer, which model?
      Hope you don't get an Asus Crosshair V as a board...
      Can you paste that line / character?

      No idea about the CPU or board.

      Not sure why some of your tests aren't merging, order shouldn't matter at all, will look into it.

      Will still publish the remote results soon.
      Michael Larabel
      http://www.michaellarabel.com/

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by Michael View Post
        Can you paste that line / character?
        Code:
        <h1><img src="css/icons/openbenchmark-small.png" /> bulldozer</h1><p><strong>1110165-LI-1110131LI64:</strong> AMD FX -8150 Eight-Core testing with a ASUS SABERTOOTH 990FX and NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512MB on Gentoo Base release 2.1 via the Phoronix Test Suite.</p><p><strong>A comparison of:</strong> 1110165-LI-1110131LI64, 1110165-AGY-1110158L96, 1110164-GR-1110131LI17, 1110158-LI-1110131LI42, 1110152-LI-1110131LI59, 1110150-GR-1110131LI69, 1110147-GR-1110131LI32, 1110159-LI-1110131LI24, 1110158-IV-1110131LI29.</p><a name="system_table" /><h2>System Hardware / Software</h2>
        Missing </a>?

        Originally posted by Michael View Post
        No idea about the CPU or board.
        Oh well... Now is not the time to be nitpicking I suppose heh. Will you include the BD patch?

        Originally posted by Michael View Post
        Not sure why some of your tests aren't merging, order shouldn't matter at all, will look into it.
        Cool. But they aren't my tests

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by ChrisXY View Post
          Oh, that's how you compare test results on openbenchmarking. For some reason I never saw this.

          Compared to the 1090T the 8150 is hardly faster, except in few massive parallel benchmarks. That's not very good. But what happened to the "messina" 2600k? In comparison with that it looks terribly awful.
          (By the way: This seems to be buggy: http://openbenchmarking.org/opc/1110159-LI-1110131LI24 as the "messina" fails to appear in many of those graphs).

          I still think we really need a test with optimized binaries and a patched and optimized kernel to see whether not something goes terribly wrong in software or the problems I have read about are really that severe...
          My initial thoughts when reading about Bulldozer (pre release) was: "Wait, we get eight "three-quarter" cores? I want at last six full cores to replace my 1090! Will there be a 12150?"
          ATM its seems that one bulldozer Module is 55% faster then one? thuban core: (AMD was promising 80% per CMT core)
          So four Modules == 6.2 cores. (... lets ignore the new instructions for a bit ;P)

          Imho .. 8150 is a quad core with 50% more power for everything but single threaded apps. The cache trashing due to missing patches/CMT scheduler finish him off.

          AgY

          Comment


          • #15
            Seems someone submitted something "more" optimized (compiler?):
            http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...GR-BULLDOZER88

            and with 2600K:
            http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...LI-1110131LI24

            but its not a 990FX board ;(
            MT performance seems to suffer .. a bit.

            Finally!

            Comment


            • #16
              Please show results with and without the bulldozer kernel patch.

              Comment


              • #17
                I get the same on the heatmap link:

                http://openbenchmarking.org/opc/1110131-LI-BULLDOZER29

                XML parsing failed: syntax error (Line: 46, Character: 62303)

                Error:unexpected end-of-file
                EOF?

                Comment


                • #18
                  Benchmark using Open64

                  I would love to see a run of the benchmark suite using AMD reference compiler Open64 (a forked version of GCC with features from SGI's MipsPro).

                  It's free and open source just like GCC. Available here http://developer.amd.com/tools/open6...s/default.aspx

                  As far as I know the stock GCC can not do any optimizions for AMD's new AVX/FMA3/FMA4/XOP instruction sets, you need Open64 for that.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by AgY! View Post
                    Seems someone submitted something "more" optimized (compiler?):
                    http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...GR-BULLDOZER88

                    and with 2600K:
                    http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...LI-1110131LI24

                    but its not a 990FX board ;(
                    MT performance seems to suffer .. a bit.
                    Yeah that 890FX mobo entry surprised me a bit. Interesting results nonetheless!

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by PsynoKhi0 View Post
                      Yeah that 890FX mobo entry surprised me a bit. Interesting results nonetheless!
                      Yeah that's my system, still working on it trying to tweak it quite a bit. I flashed the bios with 1.11 on my 890fxa-gd70 motherboard, and it seems to be working fine so far. One thing of interest, it's actually an AM3 motherboard, not an AM3+ motherboard. Ram is running at 6-8-6 @ 1600mhz as well, which may be the reason why I am slower than the other reviewer.

                      I started with a clean Gentoo install running -march=native -O2 and GCC 4.6.1. I did a trial run at 4.8ghz, and I had it up to 5ghz last night. I don't seem to be hitting any thermal barriers as I ran through the pts/compression benchmark at 4.8ghz and my cpu was at 29C (water cooled).

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X