Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • #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


            • #21
              Originally posted by hermiti View Post
              Yeah that's my system, still working on it trying to tweak it quite a bit.
              Welcome and thanks for the submission, I'm actually starting to get really interested in that particular BD chip.

              Originally posted by hermiti View Post
              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 think 1866MHz is one of the things the extra pins on AM3+ provide, correct?

              Originally posted by hermiti View Post
              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).
              Neat! Can you poke around the cores to forcibly turn them off? There's likely to be extra punch to be had on lightly threaded programs.
              Last edited by PsynoKhi0; 10-17-2011, 11:28 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by skies View Post
                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.
                http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-09/msg01792.html

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by PsynoKhi0 View Post
                  Welcome and thanks for the submission, I'm actually starting to get really interested in that particular BD chip.


                  I think 1866MHz is one of the things the extra pins on AM3+ provide, correct?


                  Neat! Can you poke around the cores to forcibly turn them off? There's likely to be extra punch to be had on lightly threaded programs.
                  My motherboard supports up to 2133MHZ overclocked. I will try turning off the cores as discussed in that thread once I finish tweaking my system.
                  Last edited by hermiti; 10-17-2011, 12:37 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by AgY! View Post
                    but its not a 990FX board ;(
                    MT performance seems to suffer .. a bit.
                    Shouldn't make any difference since a 990FX is a rebranded 890FX and identical in every way.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by skies View Post
                      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.
                      I did some benches (amds open64 vs gcc 4.6.1) and in Multithreaded programs you can see a large improvement. But Singlethreaded programs run slower.
                      And i realized that Open64 is a pita if it comes to regular stuff. Still trying to compile any version of glibc ;P Using it as system compiler is almost impossible.

                      Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                      Shouldn't make any difference since a 990FX is a rebranded 890FX and identical in every way.
                      Oh didnt know that*hides* thx for pointing that out.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by AgY! View Post
                        I did some benches (amds open64 vs gcc 4.6.1) and in Multithreaded programs you can see a large improvement. But Singlethreaded programs run slower.
                        Thats john/stream:

                        http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...AGY-COMPILER21

                        It doesnt really reflect what i saw/experienced earlier. ;P Maybe i only saw what i wanted to see.

                        Anyway, a compiler cant fix bulldozer.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by hermiti View Post
                          My motherboard supports up to 2133MHZ overclocked. I will try turning off the cores as discussed in that thread once I finish tweaking my system.
                          I stand corrected: http://whatswithjeff.com/amd-black-am3b-socket/

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by AgY! View Post
                            Thats john/stream:

                            http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...AGY-COMPILER21

                            It doesnt really reflect what i saw/experienced earlier. ;P Maybe i only saw what i wanted to see.

                            Anyway, a compiler cant fix bulldozer.
                            Thanks for the benchmark, interesting with the Stream tests.

                            I do think it is a compiler issue, I believe if proper optimizations are done the Zambezi is in par with the Sandy Bridge in speed (and SB is like +6 months old by now).

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              According to this http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...AR-FXCOMPILE20 optimized with Open64 compiller Bulldozer is dream for rendering and multithreaded aps.
                              Stil no real programs like Blender with internal/Cycles render, LuxRender but its a start.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by sunweb View Post
                                According to this http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...AR-FXCOMPILE20 optimized with Open64 compiller Bulldozer is dream for rendering and multithreaded aps.
                                Stil no real programs like Blender with internal/Cycles render, LuxRender but its a start.
                                +
                                http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...AR-GCCLLVMCL67
                                +
                                http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...AR-FXCOMPILE51

                                Just saw those tests. Awesome work Michael.
                                However please take a closer look at the compiler flags.

                                http://developer.amd.com/assets/x86Open64QuickRef.pdf

                                Open64 (amd and the other one) support the following parameters:

                                -mp enable the multiprocessing directives (basically like -fopenmp)
                                -mso Optimize for multicore scalability
                                -lno Loop Nest Optimizations
                                -apo Enables automatic parallelization

                                The -mp flag is a important one because it seems gcc activates this on -O2/-march or maybe it is somehow detected.
                                Also there is -ipa .. which i cant get to work because of various system specific issues...

                                Apo and ipa are things amd seems to be proud of while -mso and -lno are actually "cool" optimizations.
                                I think its important to include those in the test so nobody can say "but hey you didnt test with .."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X