Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Some benches on the upcoming 45nm AMD

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by psycho_driver View Post
    Well, the real benchmarks are hitting the web now, and congratulations are in order to AMD. While still a generation behind Intel, they do now have a serious competitive product for the entry level quad core market.

    Pricing trends over the next couple of months will now determine whether my next system build is on an AMD or Intel platform, whereas previously I assumed I would be choosing within the Intel product lineup exclusively.
    Ya they look promising. Personally I think I'll be holding off until the AM3 945's are out. Buying a processor such as the 940 that is limited to AM2+ boards doesn't leave a lot of flexibility in future MB upgrade options. Until then my 9850's will do just fine. It will also give a bit extra time for the refinement of the manufacturing process.

    Comment


    • #17
      Honestly, I think they suck. NO AM3, no HT 3.0 and NO DDR3.

      That I could forgive, but for the fact that clock-to-clock, they lag behind even the Q9x50 processors. Phenom II 940 just equals Core2Quad Q9450.

      And Core i7 is waaaay ahead of it. Multimedia performance is so low compared to Yorkfield and Bloomfield. And AMD has nothing to combat Intel's HT Technology.

      But I definitely think the Phenom II CPUs are a stepping stone for AMD. Reminds me of the time RV600 came out. Were no match for nVidia's higher end, but the lower end and midrange performed just fine. Then RV700 came and changed the whole situation. If things go well, AMD Bulldozer may overthrow Intel SandyBridge, but thats only IF AMD manages toreach 32nm before Intel does.

      Comment


      • #18
        Well I would bench it if I would get a free cpu, board + gfx card from AMD

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by MetalheadGautham View Post
          Multimedia performance is so low compared to Yorkfield and Bloomfield.
          That discrepancy is overblown by the synthetic benchmarks. You don't see that big of a difference in the real world benchmarks.

          The introduction of the Phenom IIs really made my new upgrade a hard decision. I wasn't interested at this point in i7 stuff, because the motherboards and memory are still at too high of a premium. Therefore I had to basically choose between a p45 platform with not much of a future in regards to upgradability, or a 790gx platform that would underperform now but potentially be able to accept a higher clocking, more affordable phenom II at some point down the road that may end up outperforming any quad lga775 offerings Intel releases from here on out.

          After days of product comparisons I ordered my p45 componants yesterday. Probably the biggest deciding factor is that there were a lot of established, quality motherboards with the p45 chipset around the price I was looking to pay compared to what's available with 790gx/750sb in the same range.

          Maybe AMD will really be back in the race a couple of years from now when I need to build my next system.

          Comment


          • #20
            I would prefer a Q9300 or Q9550 + P45 over anything from AMD if you want to buy something new. I could not test the new AMD system, but I know what works now...

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by MetalheadGautham View Post
              Honestly, I think they suck. NO AM3, no HT 3.0 and NO DDR3.
              Eh? HT3.0 is already part of AM2+.

              And the AM2+ processors all have DDR3-capable memory controllers, it's just that nobody has made any DDR3 motherboards for them. And as far as I can tell, there's really not much point at the moment.

              And Core i7 is waaaay ahead of it. Multimedia performance is so low compared to Yorkfield and Bloomfield. And AMD has nothing to combat Intel's HT Technology.
              i7 is definitely far ahead. Nothing else to say about that.

              As for multimedia, I'm still suspicious of the compiler technology; architecturally K10's SSE support looks really good on paper. It seems to me that we just haven't seen code that was generated properly to take full advantage of it. And HT really doesn't buy anything if you can keep your active cores sufficiently fed that they have fewer stalls.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by highlandsun View Post
                Eh? HT3.0 is already part of AM2+.

                And the AM2+ processors all have DDR3-capable memory controllers, it's just that nobody has made any DDR3 motherboards for them. And as far as I can tell, there's really not much point at the moment.
                Actually the AM2+ Phenom II's have the DDR3 mem controllers disabled. You will never see a AM2+ Phenom II with DDR3. I actually would think that the AM2+ Phenom II's are actually early revisions with faulty DDR3 controllers but their DDR 2 controllers worked fine. The AM2+ Phenom II's will never work in a AM3 board because of this (same with any other AM2+ processor). Your right though HT 3 has been around for a long time though already. Your also correct that DDR3 at this point doesn't offer much, if any, in real world performance.


                i7 is definitely far ahead. Nothing else to say about that.

                As for multimedia, I'm still suspicious of the compiler technology; architecturally K10's SSE support looks really good on paper. It seems to me that we just haven't seen code that was generated properly to take full advantage of it. And HT really doesn't buy anything if you can keep your active cores sufficiently fed that they have fewer stalls.
                Yes, the i7 is one heck of a chip, it also carries one hell of a premium price tag as well with needing to have a new MB, expensive ram, etc. HT as you said, only can show any gain if the core's are not under full load. Under full load performance may actually slightly decrease.

                Now onto SSE. Intels SSE does have a advantage in it's hardware. The intels cores have 3 128-bit units with 2 of them being symmetric vs the old K8's 2 64-bit units. With Phenom SSE performance did see an increase though with them now finally being able to execute two 128-bit generic SSE ops and 1 SSE MOV per cycle. Still the intels do carry a bit of an advantage here with it's 3 128-bit units.

                Compilers do make a difference as well but greater gains can actually be had by optimizing the code for a specific processor that compilers may try to do but don't always succeed at. GMP for example when optimized with AMD specific patches abolutely will trounce on a intel with simular hand optimization (to be fair though how the i7 would respond isn't really known yet). Matlab, SuperPi, Prime95 is what intel guys love to show off for intel's "mathematical superiority" but all of those carry very intel specific optimizations or genaric optimizations without the same level of optimization done for the AMD specific CPU's.

                Comment


                • #23
                  I did some first PTS tests with the Phenom II X4 940 today.

                  http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...&u=d2kx-dragon

                  Nexuiz, OpenSSL and 7zip. Nexuiz in different settings (drivers, kernels).

                  What I found out so far: performance is awesome, CnQ does not slow down, 790GX/SB750 work fine with Linux although I used a HD 4850 1GB.

                  System was Debian/sid.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    nexuiz can not use 4 cores, so a intel dual core with 2.4 ghz beats it (amd quad running at 3.0 ghz!), at 3.2 ghz even 33% - that bench scales really good from 9*266 to 8*400. Or maybe fglrx is just too slow

                    http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...4926-3248-8692

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Some basic bandwidth and FP number crunching tests I ran on Opteron 2384 and Xeon 5450

                      http://www.amdzone.com/phpbb3/viewto...151532#p151532

                      In aggregate, 8 cores fully loaded, the Opteron still wins, but the Xeons win most of the single-thread runs. There's something really weird at the 2Kx2K size where the Xeon performance drops. Perhaps a bug in the FFTW library.

                      Also an interesting note - the code compiled with gcc -march=core2 runs slower on Opteron than code compiled for -march=amdfam10. Kind of expected. But the code compiled for -march=amdfam10 ran *faster* on the Xeon than the code compiled for -march=core2. gcc 4.3 is doing something weird...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by highlandsun View Post
                        Some basic bandwidth and FP number crunching tests I ran on Opteron 2384 and Xeon 5450

                        http://www.amdzone.com/phpbb3/viewto...151532#p151532

                        In aggregate, 8 cores fully loaded, the Opteron still wins, but the Xeons win most of the single-thread runs. There's something really weird at the 2Kx2K size where the Xeon performance drops. Perhaps a bug in the FFTW library.

                        Also an interesting note - the code compiled with gcc -march=core2 runs slower on Opteron than code compiled for -march=amdfam10. Kind of expected. But the code compiled for -march=amdfam10 ran *faster* on the Xeon than the code compiled for -march=core2. gcc 4.3 is doing something weird...

                        GCC's intel optimization has never been all that great. GCC on amd's on the other hand enjoy great architecture optimizations in GCC / nasm / yasm/ etc. Not surprising as intel wishes for people to purchase their compilers instead.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X